web analytics

SAVILLE – ANOTHER VIEW.

By ATWadmin On June 29th, 2010

ATW contributor David Graham has this to say on Saville….

The Saville report has won plaudits from left wingers and liberals throughout the world. Hypocrites are requesting British soldiers are put in the dock, whilst their communities vote en masse for convicted terrorists like McGuiness, Adams and Doherty. Can anyone else see the irony?

Lord Saville has allegedly made JK Rowling jealous with his perfect blend of fantasy and fiction- however; it seems the bad guys have got away. The joyous scenes of Martin ‘It wasn’t me’ McGuiness and Conor ‘Time Bomb’ Murphy jumping around like Duracell bunnies on Ecstasy would have been laughable- had the circumstances not been so sickening.

The obvious disgruntlement from Unionist camps has been ignored by the media, to no surprise I should add. Unionists are obviously disgusted and with great reason too. Droppin Well, Kingsmill, Teebane, Omagh, Darkley and the Shankill are only some of the events which have led to no convitions, no money spent on ‘independent enquires’- all still unsolved crimes. At the time of writing, William Frazer is handing in a legal writ to the High Court, I wish him all the best.

However, I feel Unionism has overlooked the main problem with Saville. There have been lame calls from Unionist leaders for Martin ‘Machine Gun’ McGuiness to answer for his part in Bloody Sunday. Calls to have McGuiness in the dock are merely empty words- why would the Unionist government take a stand and destroy their love-in with terrorism? Simple- no Sinn Fein/IRA- no sex,power and money. (Politicians tick whichever box applies)

The main Unionist parties fail to admit that the political circumstances that they have created have allowed Saville to inflict pain on the many innocent victims of the troubles. Saville is a continuation of Sinn Feins ‘cleansing’of the Crown Forces in Ulster. Saville will propagandise another generation of Republicans against the Police and Army. Sinn Fein allegedly supports Policing and Justice- a great victory for the DUP! Michael Collins slaughtered crown forces in the early 1900’s, McGuiness continued during ‘The Troubles’ and now so called ‘Dissidents’ continue the Republican ideology of ‘blood sacrifice’ and violent revolution to this very day.

Saville, like the Belfast Agreement and its bastard child St Andrews show how the British Government continues to bend and break under Republican/ Socialist pressure. It also highlights the fundamental issue in Northern Ireland; weak Unionist leadership is failing to defend our rights as loyal British citizens. Saville was a waste of taxpayers money whilst it failed to address the full issue- The IRA had murdered 86 people in 1971, The IRA were active and engaged on Bloody Sunday, the IRA had already murdered 8 people in the opening weeks of 1972. Saville also overlooks the fact the IRA murdered 497 people in 1972, Saville is a perversion of History.

The DUP should stand down from government until McGuiness is put on trial for his part in Bloody Sunday and other atrocities. The Saville Report has been forced upon the innocent victims of Northern Ireland by a weak British Government, a Republican propaganda machine but most of all- a failing Unionist leadership. Saville demonstrates that devolved government with unrepentant terrorists produces Unionist failures. We cannot continue to reward terrorists yet lament about how we have ‘defeated the IRA.’ Unionist leaders are continuing to attempt to over up their failings.

We all know the IRA are still active albeit under various Pseudonyms. Saville has underlined how the British government and Unionist leaders have allowed brave British soldiers to be put under scrutiny whilst Northern Ireland is still organised and terrorised by paramilitary godfathers. Intelligence reports suggest ‘Dissident activity’ is at an all time high. Border police stations are regularly targeted whilst Republican godfathers continue to ‘police the streets’ in stronghold areas like Strabane. Bomb alerts, death threats and continued revolutionising of the younger generations are the order of the day. I beseech the Unionist leadership to not ignore the fundamental flaws of sitting in government with unrepentant terrorists.

The so-called ‘Dissidents’ are former IRA members who continue to carry the Republican ideology of Sinn Fein through terrorist means. They use the expertise of the IRA terrorists which has also been passed on to FARC,Hamas and ETA. Intelligence reports suggest they are using weapons procured by the IRA and it is only a matter of time until another murder.

How can Unionist leaders justify sitting in government with the godfathers of terror? We all will admit we live in an ‘artificial peace’ in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland devolved government is continuing to fail the Unionist people of Northern Ireland- Saville proves this. Until Unionist leaders understand that words are not enough then we will continue to experience dark days like the physical violence of Masareene and the political ramifications of Saville., Now is the time for Unionist leaders to stand up and oppose Sinn fein/IRA in government. In the words of ‘The second in command of the IRA’ in Londonderry- ‘We haven’t gone away you know.’

30 Responses to “SAVILLE – ANOTHER VIEW.”

  1. Michael Collins slaughtered crown forces in the early 1900’s, McGuiness continued during ‘The Troubles’ and now so called ‘Dissidents’ continue the Republican ideology of ‘blood sacrifice’ and violent revolution to this very day.

    The dissidents on both sides continue to sing the same song. Placing themselves in the tradition of Collins and the Provisional movement is exactly what the dissidents long to do. But they are wrong and you are wrong about them. There were many years and decades when there was no republican struggle. Collins opted for peace when he saw a political opportunity to proceed. Just like the provos did.

    The dissidents claims such a decision can never be right so they are outside that mainstream republican tradition.

    On Saville, that debate is over and much as I expect unionists to keep bringing it up the report is there and it has been accepted by both governments and the victims familes.

    All the lies and the cover-ups have been wiped away and the historical record will show that fourteen innocent people were shot dead by armed soldiers acting unlawfully.

    Unionists are obviously disgusted and with great reason too. Droppin Well, Kingsmill, Teebane, Omagh, Darkley and the Shankill are only some of the events which have led to no convitions, no money spent on ‘independent enquires’- all still unsolved crimes.

    One assumes the RUC investigated all those matters. Is there any new evidence you can bring to the table? Or are there any aspects of the RUC investigations you feel was lacking?

  2. "Is there any new evidence you can bring to the table? Or are there any aspects of the RUC investigations you feel was lacking?"
    Certainly in the case of Omagh, the RUC failed before,during and after the bombing.
    you are also ignoring the fact that the DFM’s role in BS is being swept under the carpet

  3. David Graham
    So you are saying that the british government has enough evidence to prosecute Martin McGuiness and have since 1972? That is very, very duplicitous of them! Why do you think they haven’t used this evidence? Sure he might now be called a usefull idiot but surely in 1972 he was enemy number one and evidence to his guilt would have been acted on, even if it had to be fabricated!

    What terrorist crimes have McGuiness or Adams ever been convicted of? You did call them convicted terrorists, so what convictions.

    Don’t get me wrong I think they are crimes but exactly what kind of Inquiry are you going to have into these attrocities? The only real official inquiry that could be held is in how the police failed in their duties, I am sure unionists would love to have their personal terror squadslated officially !

    Lastly, what part of former do you fail to understand?

    The purpose of storomont is not to serve uber unionists but the people of nIreland, the people seem to think its doing an acceptable job

  4. "Whilst their communities vote en masse for convicted terrorists like McGuiness, Adams and Doherty"

    McGuinness was given a short sentence in a different legal jurisdiction in the early seventies. To my knowlege neither Adams nor Docherty have ever been charged with let alone convicted of anything.

    "Droppin Well, Kingsmill, Teebane, Omagh, Darkley and the Shankill are only some of the events which have led to no convitions"

    so you’ve never heard of Sean Kelly or Colm Murphy then?

    "The so-called ‘Dissidents’ are former IRA members who continue to carry the Republican ideology of Sinn Fein through terrorist means. They use the expertise of the IRA terrorists which has also been passed on to FARC,Hamas and ETA. Intelligence reports suggest they are using weapons procured by the IRA and it is only a matter of time until another murder"

    As factually correct as the two assertions above.

    "Northern Ireland devolved government is continuing to fail the Unionist people of Northern Ireland"

    Unfortunately for you the people of the state of NI overwhelmingly voted for it in referendum and have consistently reinforced the mandate in continous elections.

  5. Saville was also hailed by the famous liberal and left winger David Cameron, the sitting Tory Prime Minister.

    What arch unionists really detest about the truth of the Saville report is that it exposes their false narrative of the event.

  6. That’s precisely why Mahons.

  7. "The Saville report has won plaudits from left wingers and liberals throughout the world."

    True, but it also won plaudits from people like me who believe in justice and fair play. I’m delighted that the relatives of the murdered have got some sort of closure at last.

    Inquiries into IRA atrocities? This whinge is what used to be called—in the days of vinyl—playing a broken record. Surely by now you realise that an inquiry is mounted when the activities of the state are suspect.

    As others have pointed out above and elsewhere, one doesn’t mount an inquiry into an act of terrorism, not unless one is inquiring into the state’s handling of the outrage. The proper course is through the courts.

  8. David

    An excellent article – especially the first paragraph. It exposes a truth so many, both on here and in the media, have sought to play down.

  9. Before I forget: I’m not sure I’d place much faith in the acuity of a blogger who mis-spells "McGuinness" no fewer than six times in the course of a short article….

  10. But I’d still place more faith in a blogger who mis-spells ‘McGuinness’ than I would into a report emanting from an enquiry that relied on almost no independent witnesses, was disrupted by the omerta of a terrorist Godfather, and whose conclusions were more about ‘republican peace processary’ than about a genuine discovery of the truth.

    I’ll stick with Mr Graham, thanks!

  11. Will somebody please explain to Andrew McCann the difference between an inquiry and an enquiry?

    I tried before and he took it thick, awaiting his little chance to delete my comments, the pet.

  12. According the the Oxford English Dictionary and Thesaurus, ‘Enquiry’ is a perfectly acceptable substitute for ‘Inquiry’. Both can refer to investigation, although ‘inquiry is in more common usage in this regard.

    But hey, perhaps Mr ‘Burns’ knows more than the lexicographers at the OED, the pet.

  13. Yes!

    Rumble!

  14. Phantom,

    OED, (the big one, 20 volumes, latest edition):

    Additions 1993

    Add: [1.] c.1.c Freq. as public inquiry. A formal or judicial investigation into a matter of public concern, esp. one conducted by a tribunal established for this purpose under a regional or national government department, and granted jurisdictive powers. Also ellipt. or collect. for (members of) the tribunal itself.

    I do believe that Saville could be thus described.

  15. I defer to Troll on this matter

  16. "a report emanting from an enquiry that relied on almost no independent witnesses, was disrupted by the omerta of a terrorist Godfather, and whose conclusions were more about ‘republican peace processary’ than about a genuine discovery of the truth."

    The truth – you can’t handle the truth.

    The majority in NI don’t care what you or "David Graham" think. Hardliners on both sides are marginalized and will soon be completely irrelevant.

  17. Look, you lot didn’t support Widgery. I don’t support (and will never support) Saville. The difference is I won’t be clamouring to have Saville repudiated, because frankly it’s not worth the time and effort. But I, and many others, will never support it. Deal with that! In my opinion, which I’m fully entitled to, the vast majority of the people on the Bogside are what they were prior to January 1972.

    Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press 2005: ‘Enquiry’: To seek information; ask a question; or pursue investigation formally.

    I do believe Saville can be thus described.

  18. "Look, you lot didn’t support Widgery."

    Of course we don’t. Widgery was a whitewash. It was a disgraceful event. Widgery & Saville are incomparable.

  19. Widgery was a whitewash. Saville is a product of republican appeasement. Neither are up to the task of establishing the truth. In that sense they are very much comparable.

  20. " Neither are up to the task of establishing the truth."

    Widgery never even tried to establish the truth. Saville did and it is a truth that Unionists will not accept. Those killed on Bloody Sunday were innocent and unarmed. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know. Whether the IRA were active on that day or not does not take away from this fact.

    Widgery & Saville are incomparable in any sense.

  21. What Unionists will not, and never accept, is nationalists’ interpretation of the truth, as evidenced in the Saville Report.

    By the way, I’m not disputing that those killed were unarmed. I’m disputing their innocence as ‘innocent’ is defined in the truest sense. After all, they were protesting in an illegal assembly which they knew, in all probability, would turn violent, given the boiler house atmosphere in the weeks and days before Bloody Sunday.

    You go ahead and have your little post-Saville party. It’s a democracy and you’re entitled to do so. Just don’t expect a large bulk of Unionists to accept its findings, whether you accuse them of hiding from ‘the truth’ (or the nationalist version of it) or not.

  22. So essentially if you shot and killed an unarmed protestor in the back you shouldn’t be tried…because many Provos did the same and got away with it ya know. This is the message of Vance, McCann and co. Way to take the moral high ground lads!

  23. Oh for heaven’s sake. Here follows an English lesson for those who require it.

    First, this from the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, October 2009:

    "inquiry, enquiry

    (ɪnˈkwaɪərɪ)

    Forms: α. 5 enquery, 6–7 enquirie, 6– enquiry. β. 6 inquery, -rie, inquyrie, 6–7 inquirie, 7 inquiery, 6– inquiry.

    [In 15th c. enquery, f. enquere, inquire v. + –y: subseq. altered to enquiry, inquiry, after the vb.]

    The action, or an act or course, of inquiring.

    1. a. The action of seeking, esp. (now always) for truth, knowledge, or information concerning something; search, research, investigation, examination.

    b. (with pl.) A course of inquiry, an investigation.

    2. a. The action of asking or questioning; interrogation. (In commercial use = demand n. 4.)

    b. A question; an interrogation, a query.

    3. court of inquiry, a court legally constituted to inquire into and investigate any charge against an officer or soldier of the army, or any transaction in which the conduct of persons may be found to call for proceedings before a court-martial. jury of inquiry, †(a) a Grand Jury (also †jury of inquest: cf. inquest n. 1, quot. 1655) obs.; (b) a jury summoned to investigate the subject of a writ of inquiry. writ of inquiry, a writ directing an inquiry or inquest; spec. that described in quot. 1809.

    4. attrib. and Comb., as inquiry agency, inquiry agent, inquiry-office, inquiry room, etc."

    Those with acuity (in my opinion) will have seen that the Saville and other inquiries are/were never referred to as "enquiries" by journalists, lawyers and others who are sound on their language.

    For those who’d like it simpler:

    1. Your best friend enquires after your health.

    2. Your oncologist inquires about your health.

    Note for our American cousins: The above applies chiefly to those of us who use British English. You guys would of course use "inquires" in both instances.

    (I should be charging money for this.)

  24. Thank you, Dr Johnson. Your response changes nothing. Now, could we dispense with the misplaced vanity and try something more appropriate, like addressing the substance of the piece?

  25. First of all David, congratulations on a brilliant post.

    As you and I both know Andrew, anyone can quote from a dictionary so Rabbi Burns had better be careful in future or I will pick him up on any grammatical or spelling mistakes he makes. It is so petty to resort to this sort of thing.

    We who were taught English Grammar properly know that enquiry and inquiry are interchangeable but that inquiry is preferred in the more formal sense. However, the use of enquiry is not incorrect.

    As a matter of fact Rabbi, ‘your oncologist inquires about your health’ doesn’t sound right to me. I would prefer to have written ‘your oncologist (whatever verb you choose) an inquiry into your health’.

    Here endeth the lesson………!

  26. marlloy,

    Please don’t go down the petty road of grudge-nursing. Leave that to the little boys.

    And I really don’t care what you’d have written re the oncologist. I could write that sentence in ten different ways and each would be correct.

    But that’s by the way. The fact remains that it’s very poor usage to speak of an "enquiry" where Saville is concerned. I mentioned it in order to highlight the inadequacies of that article and others.

    I’ve already drawn attention to the "McGuinnes" boo-boo.

    That wasn’t pedantry. I’d already commented on the thrust of the article, comparing its whinge to a broken record.

    But here’s the thing. I can’t help but feel that a poster who’s read the words "Saville Inquiry" perhaps hundreds of times can fail to notice that the second word does not begin with an E.

    By the same token, the poster must have read the name "Martin McGuinness" a thousand times. He must also have seen "Guinness" written on countless beer-bottles, in advertising, on pub gables. It’s a worldwide brand FFS.

    Now can you understand why I don’t trust this man’s judgement one little bit? There’s no excuse for that sort of sloppy perception.

  27. ‘Petty road’? ‘Little boys’? Oh, the irony (LOL). And he’s still not on topic.

  28. Andrew,

    you also forgot to mention the same report concluded that machine gun marty’s evidence was both ‘flawed’ and ‘incorrect’.

    Strange then it wasnt disseminated and examined with the contrary evidence of 5 other witnesses who attested under oath to have seen something entirely different.

    But then, as it was set up with the sole aim of appeasement, it isn’t really that surprising at all.

  29. ‘Before I forget: I’m not sure I’d place much faith in the acuity of a blogger who mis-spells "McGuinness" no fewer than six times in the course of a short article….’

    You do this sort of thing often, Rabbi.
    Instead of concentrating on the substance of the post you appear to delight in exposing every spelling and grammatical error that it contains.

    I’m sure you are an intelligent chap but that sort of nonsense is not big and not clever.

  30. David,

    If you’re going to delete comments in full or in part then at least do me (and other readers) the courtesy of flagging the deletion.

    My comment at 7.52 pm yesterday read:

    I’ve already drawn attention to the "McGuinnes" boo-boo (or "faux pas" as the Yorkshiremen would have it).

    It now reads: "I’ve already drawn attention to the "McGuinnes" boo-boo."

    I don’t understand your objection to the latter part. Care to explain?