147 2 mins 9 yrs

I am often criticised for demanding that IRA (and UDA, UVF and other such groups) terrorists be held accountable for their crimes. My view is terribly unfashionable in the salons where the peace processors gather but maybe they have a reason for not wanting to look back.

Consider this;

Terence Jones, married and a soldier with the 20th Medium Regiment Royal artillery was shot by the IRA following an explosion at Great James Street, Londonderry in 1972. Described as the 19th soldier to be killed in the city, he was the 1st to die following the end of a Provisional IRA ceasefire. He was hit in the back by sniper fire when a single round was fired from the top of Great James Street. At the inquest into Lance Bombardier Jones’s death, the coroner said: ‘this young man came her to do his duty. This is what Irish hospitality meant for him’. Lance-Bombardier Jones, who was serving with an army medical section, came from Wrexham.

Now this…

Presidential election candidate Martin McGuinness has revealed that he left the IRA in 1974 – and confirmed he had said this under oath and without fear of prosecution to the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre.

Now, up until he allegedly “left” the IRA, McGuinness was a senior terrorist commander in Londonderry. In 1972.

Don’t look back lest you see something that you wish to avoid.

It’s not just his role during Bloody Sunday that merits investigation.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

147 thoughts on “NEVER LOOK BACK…

  1. With regards to the Bloody Sunday inquiry report and subsequent investigation David, among others, waxed lyrically about others killed in the preceding days. So I’d imagine that David would also take note that in the 3 days before Lance-Bombardier Jones was killed the British Army murdered 4 children.

    Why don’t you write a blog post about that?

  2. “Murdered”?
    Strong words. Presumably that is a fact rather than a hysterical allegation.
    Now, back to the IRA commander in 1972 who presided over the shooting in the back of this young man. That was an act of murder. Who could he have been?

  3. The Peace Process advocates are not some elite minority who meet in salons, the yare the majority of voters in NI who have voted for a process that ended the level of violence that existed back in those days. I wish the voters would reject McGuiness on the merits, but they haven’t.

    Every year here on ATW your examples of terrorist acts grow more dated (reaching now to 1972). In a perfact world I would support the arrest and prosecution of any who committed those acts, in our imperfect world I think the peace process in NI has warranted the negative aspects.

    Odd comment by the coroner as to “Irish hospitality”. A bit partisan for a supposed neutral official.

  4. Have you any evidence of IRA involvement David other than the claims of his family?

  5. Seamus, that would be “doing his duty”.

    For many many years here on ATW I’ve heard of the “alleged” crimes of certain Irish republicans, notably McGuinness and Adams, but never a shred of anything to substantiate these allegations. it’s all quite weak and rather tiresome now.

    As MMcG and GA would say themselves, take all the evidence you have to your local law enforcement agency. As nobody seems to have done that in all these years it would appear there is NONE.

    Zzz…

  6. David – Time does not make murder less criminal. But what you missed is the consensus of the majority of people in NI that has led to the current state of affirs in which such violence has virtually been eliminated. Quinn’s death was appalling, but was the exception as opposed to the rule.

    Seamus- are you under the impression that Quinn was killed by some other group?

  7. I don’t know who killed him Mahons. Neither does David. It is all speculation.

  8. The IRA shoot dead a soldier carrying a gun and it is the most evil act ever committed. Soldiers shoot dead a couple of kids and a Catholic Priest and it is strong words to call it murder.

  9. Seamus

    His family seemed to think they knew but as you rightly suggest it could have been anyone. Possibly SAS.

    Mahons

    And since we agree that time does not make murder less criminal, I simply ask who was the IRA commander in Londonderry at the time of the murder involved. Is it unreasonable? When it came to hunting down Nazi killers, time was and is of little consequence compared to the need for justice. Provo killers (et al) are no different. Lucky there was no “consensus” to abandon justice for the victims of the former group of murderous scum. Nuremberg saw to that. But for us, yes, we have “the peace process”

  10. Seamus- Well I didn’t think you were an eyewitness, but if you had to venture an educated guess, who do you suppose did it?

  11. Again no idea. I wasn’t there. I don’t know that many people from the general area. There were different theories from the families IRA theory to a local criminality issue. I do know there is as much evidence to suggest the IRA did it as there was to suggest that Paul Quinn was involved in local criminality (in both cases not a shred) so I don’t know why one is taken as gospel truth while the other is a shameful argument.

  12. It’s not just his role during Bloody Sunday that merits investigation

    You’re correct the Ballymurphy Massacre five months before Bloody Sunday and the Springhall Massacre six months after Bloody Sunday both merit investigation as well.

  13. David – In order to end an unending stalemate the process had to include the difficult decision as to past crimes. Had the peace process not been successful, we no doubt would have far more death and violence to contend with.

    Nazis Germany was not an unending stalemate, and is an unworthy comparison.

    Seamus- That is a cop out. Of course the mingling between Provisional IRA and purely criminal elements at times renders them indistiguishable.

  14. It isn’t a cop out. No one knows who did it. So to blame someone for something when I don’t know if they did it or not is pointless and stupid. Just because it fits into a nice little narrative to have the IRA do it doesn’t mean they did it.

  15. Mahons

    Your first sentence rather suggests that appeasement was required to stop killers from killing.

    The reason that Nazi Germany was not an unending stalemate is because the peace processors back then were not ascendant.

    Seamus/Mahons – Hate to break it you but the IRA was 100% criminal. You see , terrorism is actually a crime. Well, it used to be anyway.

  16. Seamus- it isn’t a nice little narrative. And one can make logical conclusions as to the likely offenders without having to establish their guilt.

  17. I am often criticised for demanding that IRA (and UDA, UVF and other such groups) terrorists be held accountable for their crimes

    You are indeed because where your consistency falls down is your failure for state killers both in and out of uniform to be held accountable for their crimes.

  18. But only if the facts actually point in that direction and I have yet to see one thing other than a distraught mother’s claims to tie the IRA or IRA members to that crime.

  19. David – The Peace Process required decommisioning and ceasefire. That isn’t appeasement. It also maintained the status of NI as part of the UK and did not return it to the Republic of Ireland, so that is not appeasement. The early release of prisoners was a dramatic and controversial element, but a necessary part of saving a fractured society.

    There was never going to be a British imposed solution on NI. Ever.

  20. Seamus – the sole indication that Quinn’s death was at the hands of the IRA is his mother’s distraught claim. is that your final answer?

  21. Mahons

    Setting aside due sentence to allow killers to walk free seems a bit like appeasement to me.

    Charles

    Can you explain your comment please – you will be banned if it means how I interpret it.

  22. David the British did it for years with their own soldiers so why should anyone else be different?

  23. There were state murderers that didn’t even go to trial let alone have “due sentence” imposed.

  24. Seamus- His family and neighbors as well as the Independent Monitoring Group point to IRA elements. Pretty brave stance in South Armagh. I hope some day they have the evidence they need.

    David – Appeasement is a loaded term used to denounce the peace and thus finds favor wihh you. However, even in the ridiculous comparison to Nazis Germany ignores post-war clemency and parole of many a convicted Nazis.

  25. Having lost all the elections and all the arguments all that is left for the opponents of the agreement is shroud waving. If you had your way David there would have been no agreement and no peace. Many more British soldiers and IRA Volunteers and innocent civilians would now be in their graves and the next agreement after all the extra deaths would look almost exactly the same.

    That’s what happened when people with your views brought down the Sunningdale Agreement in the early 70s. Don’t pretend to cry for the victims of war when you oppose the peace.

    It is reprehensible to expect working class squaddies from England to die in an effort to restore an Orange state. Not only because it is wrong but because it is impossible.

  26. Charles – I think Mr. Vance thought you were favorably commenting on the death of the British soldier. He will be gratified that in fact your comment was supportive of his reply to me. He will be appeased.

  27. Seamus, the same ira you vote for ?

    Charles Bliss, you are an utter disgrace.

    Murder is murder, and justice for families is paramount for progress to be made. As the British Army wore a uniform and were answerable to the rule of law and had to give evidence and still are in some re-visited cases, surely in the interests of ‘equality’ we hear so much about, ira scum can be held account in the same way and people responsible for directing terrorism, can be questioned and investigated thoroughly, especially as they have openly admitted their role?

  28. Charles,

    12 minutes later/three posts later and no reference to David’s put down?

    Must do better.

    I know what you were referring to, and so do you.

    Disgraceful.

  29. Any killings between the BA and the IRA in a place like Derry in 1972 could be murder only in the strictly legal sense. There was total war going on then, and each side was giving as good as it got.

    “the British Army ..were answerable to the rule of law ”

    Widgery.

  30. Murder is murder, and justice for families is paramount for progress to be made.

    That’s true LU. The inconsistency with David’s ‘all should face justice’ above is that it excludes the state forces who were also guilty of murder.

  31. Noel. Incorrect.
    ‘Any killings between the BA and the IRA in a place like Derry in 1972 could be murder only in the strictly legal sense. There was total war going on then, and each side was giving as good as it got.’

    The British Army never went out to commit unadultered murder, or pre-meditated.
    THAT is the difference. People were killed in the crossfire, and that is of course regrettable.
    The IRA on the other hand existed primarily to commit murder, pre-meditated and meticulously planned in many cases.
    The BA were and are answerable to due process. At least they give evidence, unlike the ira leader on the day.
    Paul, if anyone is guilty of murder, then they have to face justice, whoever they are. Full stop.
    Now, going back to my post;

    surely in the interests of ‘equality’ we hear so much about, ira scum can be held account in the same way and people responsible for directing terrorism, can be questioned and investigated thoroughly, especially as they have openly admitted their role?

    Or is it different for the ira?

  32. No it’s not different LU. I’d have no problems supporting an inquiry into directing terrorism as long as it’s parameters included people like Brigadier Gordon Kerr who directed and financed Brian Nelson, one of the most prolific directors of terrorism of the conflict.

    Would you support such an investigation?

  33. Paul.

    We are talking about McGuinness who openly admitted being in command of the ira up until 1974. Leaving aside the disbelief of the timetable of his ‘career’, I find it despicable that this individual has not been at the very least arrested for ‘directing terrorism’ in the same way jonny adair was.

    I am talking solely and EXCLUSIVELY about McGuinness in this case.

    Do you, or would you support an inquiry into his role. His role, and his alone in commanding the ira in Londonderry, considering the amount of murders that took place under his command?

  34. Of course it’s different for the IRA. Its very reason for being is killing and making misery, which it does rather well, leaving many thousands killed, maimed, injured and intimidated.

    Republicans try to equate “both sides” with each other but they can only come back to the same, very few incidents involving the British Army. That the same few names and incidents always litter their comments demonstrates the total baloney of equating one with the other.

  35. Do you, or would you support an inquiry into his role. His role, and his alone in commanding the ira in Londonderry, considering the amount of murders that took place under his command?

    In short no. Because, to paraphrase your ‘in the interests of equality’ quote above not only is it inequitous but it also elevates the status of some innocent victims over other innocent victims.

  36. //The British Army never went out to commit unadultered murder, or pre-meditated.//

    Only in the sense that there was little or no “murder” in the BA-IRA conflict in 1972, as I said. It was war.
    I hope you are not claiming that they never went out deliberatly to kill people, because of course they certainly did.

    Otherwise I get your point about the differences in their form of operations.

    My point was that each side acted as best suited its aims in the overall scheme of things. The BA was part of a state with courts and jails etc., and in that context had little option but to do as it did.
    The IRA for its part behaved more or less like every underground armed group behaves in similar circumstances, again because they have no better option. No different from the Maquis in France, and they were long the toast of the town.

  37. I’d have no problems supporting an inquiry into directing terrorism as long as it’s parameters included people like …

    That’s where you fall down Paul.

    You see it is different then.

    I am talking solely and exculsively dealing with an individual who has OPENLY ADMITTED he was in charge of the ira, up until 1974.

    At that time, there were quite a lot of murders carried out.

    Now, I will ask again, do you support an inquiry into Machine Gun Marty’s actions in that period?

  38. Paul,
    ‘Because, to paraphrase your ‘in the interests of equality’ quote above not only is it inequitous but it also elevates the status of some innocent victims over other innocent victims.’

    Poor.

    It does no such thing. If you cannot support an inquiry into someone who has openly admitted to Police he was in charge of mass murder, then you have no moral ground to stand on and are cotemptible in your attempts to deviate the thread.

    Noel,

    You are incorrect to suggest the BA went out to deliberately kill people, becasue they most certainly did not. They reacted to the ira, commanded by marty and his machine gun, and in some cases there were inevitably casualties who were not directly involved. That is sad.
    In 72 or anytime in the conflict it was not a ‘war’.
    A rabble of cowardly rabble, unable to face up to their crimes, even to this day; in fact, we even have adams deny he was ever in the ira.

  39. No it’s not different LU. I’ve already stated that I would have no problems with an investigation into direction of terrorism. To call for an inquiry into the alleged activities of one individual while disregarding the alleged activities of others goes against all tenats of that justice that you speak of.

    I’ll support an investigation into the allegations of McGuinness in the context of a wider investigation.

    Who has OPENLY ADMITTED he was in charge of the ira, up until 1974.

    Gordon Kerr has made similar admissions regarding Brian Nelson.

  40. It does no such thing

    Are you seriously trying to argue that it’s not inequitous to investigate the allegations against one individual but not others?

  41. No Paul.

    ‘disregarding the alleged activities of others goes against all tenats of that justice that you speak of.’

    I am not disregarding allegations.

    I am concentrating on McGuinness and his ADMISSION of being in charge of mass murderers.

    I am asking a simple question.

    Would you support an independent and exclusive investigation into an individual, in this case McGuinness, who has openly admitted to Police of being in command of mass murder?

    Simple question.

  42. I’d support an investigation into the allegations against McGuinness in the context of a investigation against Kerr who has admitted that he handeled and directed Nelson.

    To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.

  43. Are you seriously trying to argue that it’s not inequitous to investigate the allegations against one individual but not others?

    No.

    These are not allegations.

    I am saying that it is incumbent upon the forces of law and order to investigate thoroughly and conclusively the open ADMISSION of someone being in charge of mass murder.

    That is different and if you cannot or will not support that, then just say so.

    Simple.

  44. I’ve already said that I’ll support in the context into an investigation into similar admissions made by Kerr

    Surely you would want to see justice for all innocent victims?

  45. Paul,

    let’s stay on topic.

    Trying to squirm out of this only exposes your double standards.

    So. I will ask again.

    Will you only support an inquiry into the self confessed commander of mass murderers, Martin McGuinness?

    Simple yes, or no will suffice.

  46. We are on topic LU. David has alluded above to all protagonists in the conflict being brought to justice with the exception of one group.

    Will you only support an inquiry into the self confessed commander of mass murderers, Martin McGuinness?

    And I’ll answer again, yes, in the context of other self confessed directors of terrorism also being investigated.

  47. Paul McMahon –

    I’d support an investigation into the allegations against McGuinness in the context of a investigation against Kerr who has admitted that he handeled and directed Nelson.

    Job done.

    Brigadier Kerr (and his relationship with Nelson) was the subject of a detailed investigation by Sir John Stevens.

  48. Thank you Pete, I did know that, and Brigadier Kerr also said under oath that Nelson saved 217 lives.
    I do not want to cloud the issue, though.

    Now, Paul.

    Let us return yet again to Mr Mguinness.

    Do you think it is correct to ignore someone confessing to Police that they were in charge of mass murder?

    Or will you support the rule of law and support an inquiry into said individual, solely and exclusively dealing with his crimes?

    Again, a simple yes or no will suffice.

  49. Job done.
    Brigadier Kerr (and his relationship with Nelson) was the subject of a detailed investigation by Sir John Stevens

    As was McGuinness by Saville

    Brigadier Kerr reportedly resisted the Stevens Inquiry, believing it to be politically motivated.

    See a pattern Pete?

  50. Paul.

    You have revealed your true colours tonight.

    McGuinness refused to co-operate with Saville. Kerr co-operated and gave evidence.

    Now, back to the central issue.

    As you said previously, you would support an inquiry only on the basis that kerr was too, then as he already has, you then remain on your position approving the grounds for an inquiry for mcguinness then?

    You can’t have it both ways…besides, as you correctly said as well, at 10.53,

    Surely you would want to see justice for all innocent victims?

  51. Paul McMahon –

    Brigadier Kerr was right to regard Stevens’ inquiry as a political stitch up, and he was not obliged to co-operate.

    McGuinness’ part in Bloody Sunday was investigated by Saville, as you say, and the verdict was that he went about Londonderry armed with an automatic weapon that day.

  52. Kerr co-operated and gave evidence

    Not according to the BBC LU, Stevens also thought that he led under oath

    “You wish me to quote statistics, in a period from 1985 to 1990 or up until his arrest, we produced, on Brian Nelson’s information something like 730 reports concerning threats to 217 separate individuals to life. Threats to life of the individual on all cases. These were passed on.”

    The Stevens team rejects this

    Surely you would want to see justice for all innocent victims?

    Yes, absolutely.

  53. Paul,

    Either you are in the same position as you stated before and support an inquiry into mcguinness (as per your conditions that kerr is/was also), or you are now justifying that it is different for the ira, which you denied.

    It cannot be both.

    Which one?

  54. No, I’m not saying it was different for the IRA I’m agreeing with your assertion that I want to see justice for all innocent victims.

  55. Let’s stay on topic Paul.

    Squirm all you want, but I will keep asking you.

    Kerr co-operated fully and gave evidence into one of the most complete investigations in the history of the troubles.

    Mcguinness should surely be subject to the same, as per your conditions previously?

    Or is that not going against your other comment at 10.49,

    ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    (sic)

    You wouldn’t want that, would we, Paul?

  56. Paul McMahon –

    The law does not oblige anyone to sing like a canary. That’s unlike, say, McGuinness, Adams et al who put a 9mm hole in the head of anyone who did not do so. The victims even then often ended up in shallow graves.

    Since we’re talking about co-operation, we come straight back to saville, who declared McGuinness to be an unreliable witness (i.e. a liar) and numerous witnesses who contradicted him.

  57. Kerr co-operated fully and gave evidence into one of the most complete investigations in the history of the troubles.

    LU, if you have a look at the quotes above

    Brigadier Kerr reportedly resisted the Stevens Inquiry, believing it to be politically motivated.

    “You wish me to quote statistics, in a period from 1985 to 1990 or up until his arrest, we produced, on Brian Nelson’s information something like 730 reports concerning threats to 217 separate individuals to life. Threats to life of the individual on all cases. These were passed on.”
    The Stevens team rejects this

    You will see that your assertion is at odds with Stevens

    Mcguinness should surely be subject to the same, as per your conditions
    previously?

    Of course.

  58. Paul.

    Can’t be both.

    Either you support an inquiry into mcguinness as per your conditions set down before at 10.20, onwards… or if you do not, then you have proved my point that it is different for the ira in your opinion.

    Which is it, because as I quoted you above,

    ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

  59. So, Paul.

    you do (now) support an inquiry into McGuinness, exclusively and solely, in the same extensive way kerr was subjected to?

  60. What can’t be both? I said I’d support an inquiry into McGuinness in a wider context into the activities of others. Stevens clearly believes that Kerr resisted the inquiry and lied under oath, (as the quotes above show), so my original point stands.

    The law does not oblige anyone to sing like a canary

    That kinda negates this whole thread then doesn’t it Pete?

  61. Paul,

    ‘I said I’d support an inquiry into McGuinness in a wider context into the activities of others.’

    You said at 10.20 the following,

    ‘I’d support an investigation into the allegations against McGuinness in the context of a investigation against Kerr who has admitted that he handeled and directed Nelson.

    You then said at 10.49, ‘‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.

    Either you support an inquiry into mcguinness as per your conditions set down before at 10.20, onwards… or if you do not, then you have proved my point that it is different for the ira in your opinion.

    Which is it, because as I quoted you above,

    ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    So, you DO support an inquiry into McGuiness, or not?

    If you do not, then you have proved my point and your hypocrisy that it is different for the ira in your opinion.

    It cannot be both as one contradicts the other and proves my point that it is either ‘different’ for the ira, or you do indeed support an inquiry as for your previous postings’ position.

    Which is it?

  62. Martin Mc Guinness lowered himself to shaking the Queen of England’s paw/hoove, recently.

    I say it is time for the rest of us to put up the ‘dossier’ they have on Marty ot shut up and move on.

    🙂

  63. So, you DO support an inquiry into McGuiness, or not?

    As per my 11.00 LU:

    And I’ll answer again, yes, in the context of other self confessed directors of terrorism also being investigated.

    How many times do you want me to answer the same question?

  64. Paul,

    The question is simple, and you are avoiding it time after time, and it is not the same, and you have not answered it as yet.

    I will ask again.

    Do you support an independent and exclusive inquiry into McGuinees in EXACTLY the same manner as Kerr was subjected to?

    Nothing more, nothing less.

    Yes, or no?

  65. Do you support an independent and exclusive inquiry into McGuinees in EXACTLY the same manner as Kerr was subjected to?

    Kerr was not exclusively investigated. Nelson and Kerr were just one of the many facets of Stevens and, according to the quotes above Kerr reisted and lied under oath, (some may say it was almost a mirror image of McGuinness at Saville).

    But to answer your question again:

    I’d support an investigation into the allegations against McGuinness in the context of a investigation against Kerr who has admitted that he handeled and directed Nelson.

    To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.

  66. Paul, have you seen that dossier about that someone boasted about having?

    Me neither.

  67. If McGuiness is now totally dedicated to the ahem…’peace’ process and to ‘moving forward’ then there is a simple way to prove it.
    He goes to the Police. Confesses to all his actions as ‘Commander’ of the IRA and gives full disclosure to his and those who he directed during his time as leader.

    After he has served his full term in prison accordingly then perhaps and only then we call all start to ‘move on’.

    So why doesn’t he do it?
    He’s so concerned about Justice e.g for those who died on ‘Bloody Sunday’? Does he not want justice and closure for the family of Terence Jones?

  68. Paul,

    so you do support an inquiry into McGuinness then, on the exact same basis as Kerr already has been?

    yes, or no?

  69. so you do support an inquiry into McGuinness then, on the exact same basis as Kerr already has been?

    Did that not happen at Saville?

  70. No Paul, it didn’t.

    Will you answer my question please.

    so you do support an inquiry into McGuinness then, on the exact same basis as Kerr already has been?

    yes, or no?

  71. “Did that not happen at Saville?”

    Of course not. Saville was an inquiry into Bloody Sunday. Naturally it brought McGuinness’ actions that day into view, but it was an Inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

    An investigation into the life and bloody crimes of McGuinness would be a different matter.

  72. Pinky…
    If you seriously think that McGuiness has nothing to confess then i feel really sorry for you..
    But keep on hiding your head in the sand if thats what makes you happy.

  73. But you’re coming from the premise that Kerr and his activities were throughly and rigourously investigated by Stevens. That’s a patently flawed premise as Steven’s quotes above about Kerr being ristant and lying under oath demonstrate

    Just as some might say McGuinness did at Saville.

    You’ll have to explain a bit more about what the difference between the level of investigations and demeanour of those giving evidence were before I can answer your question.

    If you’re asking me would I support an investigation into McGuinnesses alleged IRA activities in tandem with an investigation into Kerr’s alleged FRU activities then the answer is yes.

  74. JM,

    I am no fan of MMcG- far from it. So we’ll be having none of that, right?

    What crimes do you know him to be guilty of?

  75. Jm,
    I repeat:

    JM,

    I am no fan of MMcG- far from it. So we’ll be having none of that, right?

    What crimes do you know him to be guilty of?

  76. pinky –

    I think that McGuinness is guilty of many crimes, culminating in mass murder. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or a liar.

    If he disagrees he can see me in court.

  77. Paul,

    I am not asking you that.

    You know it too.

    But you’re coming from the premise that Kerr and his activities were throughly and rigourously investigated by Stevens. That’s a patently flawed premise as Steven’s quotes above about Kerr being ristant and lying under oath demonstrate

    BUT HE WAS INVESTIGATED, and it was thorough and it was rigorous over a long period and scrutinised by Stevens, regarded as one of the best investigating officers in the world, and the CPS had nothing to charge Kerr with.

    Mcguinness has not been, and as you said before at 10.49, ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    So, therefore, do you support an inquiry into McGuinness then, on the exact same basis as Kerr already has been?

    You can squirm all you want, but I will keep asking, because you cannot have it both ways.

    Either you are in favour of McGuinness facing the EXACT same investigation on all levels and manpower and cost, or you have then proved my assertion that it is different for the ira in your opinion.

    ps, here’s your ass back, hope you like the plate.

    lol have a lovely twelfth!

  78. Pinkie…
    First of all…don’t use a threatening tone with me…
    If you are not a fan of McG……then you have a strange way of showing it?

    So you seriously and honestly believe that as the Commander of the IRA in Londonderyy that he has commited any crimes?
    Give me strength!

  79. I think that McGuinness is guilty of many crimes, culminating in mass murder. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot or a liar.

    That may be true but I also think that the accusation can be levelled at others.

  80. BUT HE WAS INVESTIGATED, and it was thorough and it was rigorous over a long period and scrutinised by Stevens, regarded as one of the best investigating officers in the world, and the CPS had nothing to charge Kerr with

    Brigadier Kerr reportedly resisted the Stevens Inquiry, believing it to be politically motivated.

    “You wish me to quote statistics, in a period from 1985 to 1990 or up until his arrest, we produced, on Brian Nelson’s information something like 730 reports concerning threats to 217 separate individuals to life. Threats to life of the individual on all cases. These were passed on.”
    The Stevens team rejects this

    It’s there in black & salmon LU.

  81. Jm,
    I repeat:

    JM,

    I am no fan of MMcG- far from it. So we’ll be having none of that, right?

    What crimes do you know him to be guilty of?

  82. Yes Paul, the records of an ‘investigation’.

    Investigation. hmmm…which resulted in no charges being brought.

    10.49, ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    So, anyway you go Paul, you cannot get out.

    Checkmate.

    Enjoy the twelfth one and all.

  83. Yes Paul, the records of an ‘investigation’

    Saville wasn’t an ‘investigation’?

    Stevens Inquiry

    Saville Inquiry

    Spot any similarities?

  84. Paul.

    You are letting yourself down now, grasping at straws…

    Stop digging.

  85. You are reverting back to your old ways LU. I’d hoped for more.

    BUT HE WAS INVESTIGATED, and it was thorough and it was rigorous over a long period and scrutinised by Stevens

    How long was he investigated for and what was the difference between the investigation of Kerr and that of Mcuinness on Bloody Sunday?

  86. Paul.

    You have been told and exposed.

    However, if you want more, I am happy to oblige.

    As Pete pointed out earlier, the Saville inquiry was solely and exclusively centred on bloody sunday, ie, one day.

    Kerr faced a thorough investigation, scrutinised by a top Police investigating officer, who examined all theories, evidence, witnesses and background material on all of his career within intelligence circles.

    That was the difference.

    If you do not support an inquiry with the exact same powers, cost and manpower and level of scrutiny into McGuinness and his confessed role in the ira, then you have proved my assertion that in your opinion and others, it is different for the ira.

    If you do not support an inquiry, then you are going back on your position at 10.49, which you openly stated ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    checkmate…

  87. Are people seriously suggesting that the state should have the power to run a public enquiry into an individual in order to find out if there is something worth investigating. Saclike was not an enquiry into the British soldiers. It was an enquiry into an event. Any IRA actions would have been investigated by the RUC using their draconian powers augmented by some very nefarious methods that I enquiry could match.

    They never turned up any reason to charge Martin McGuinness with any crime. But even at this late stage if any of you have any evidence against him you can take it to the PSNI.

    There are of course reasons to enquire about the Claudy bombing for example as a specific event. There should be a full public enquiry into that atrocity because there is reasonable evidence that the original investigation was compromised by political interference. Events not people must be the basis of investigation. No witch hunts on the basis of groundless suspicion.

  88. No Henry, irrelevant.

    ‘No witch hunts on the basis of groundless suspicion.’

    The whole point here is that McGuinness has OPENLY ADMITTED he was in charge of mass murder for a specific period when his unit murdered a substantial amount of people.

    This in itself surely deserves an inquiry, as it would, if for example, a loyalist came out and said the same, just like mad dog adair years ago, when his case set a legal precedent after being charged on taped evidence and got convicted for ‘directing terrorism’ with the help of the additional Police investigation.

    It seems as I have proven on here, it is different for the ira.

  89. Kerr faced a thorough investigation, scrutinised by a top Police investigating officer, who examined all theories, evidence, witnesses and background material on all of his career within intelligence circles

    That’s patently untrue Kerr was investigated regarding his relationship with Brian Nelson pertaining to the murder of Pat Finucane.

    Terms of reference
    In May 1999, following a letter from the DPPNI to the then chief constable of the RUC, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, I was asked to re-investigate the murder of Patrick Finucane and allegations of collusion raised by British Irish Rights Watch.

    The significance of the role played by an RUC informant, William Stobie, in events surrounding the murder of Patrick Finucane led to two principal, further matters being added to my remit. Firstly I undertook to re-investigate the murder in November 1987 of a young student, Brian Lambert, and secondly to examine the handling of agents

    As for thorough scrutiny also untrue:

    Obstruction of my inquiries
    Throughout my inquiries I recognised that I was being obstructed. This obstruction was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC. It was only through the efforts of my team that I was able to identify and arrest Nelson in January 1990. When he was interviewed I discovered that he had been in possession of an “intelligence dump”. This had been seized by his FRU handlers when my first inquiry had begun, in September 1989. This evidence had been concealed from my 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.

    During my first inquiry I asked to examine particular documents but received written statements that they did not exist. My latest inquiry team has now recovered all these documents. The dates recorded on them show that they all existed at the time of my first request. Much of the effort of this inquiry has had, yet again, to be spent building up its own intelligence database and in so doing discovering that it has not been given a full and proper disclosure

    Kerr was questioned about his releationship with an individual allegegedly central to organising the murder of Patrick Finucane, an event which lasted all of four minutes. I don’t know the level or depth of this questioning and neither do you so that deals with your ‘a thorough investigation, scrutinised by a top Police investigating officer’ presumptive theory that you’re trying to pass off as fact.

    An investigation where obstruction was ‘cultural in nature and widespread’ where information about arrests was leaked to loyalists and the press prior to the arrests, where there was denial that documents, (subsequently recovered), vital to the investigation existed, where there had not been ‘full & proper disclosure’ and where the inquiry’s operation’s centre, housed inside a secure police complex, was burned to the ground.

    Is this your idea of a thorough and rigourous investigation? indeed, it could be argued that McGuinness was put under more scrutiny than Kerr was as at least we know the nature of his questioning and how long he was questioned for.

    They never turned up any reason to charge Martin McGuinness with any crime. But even at this late stage if any of you have any evidence against him you can take it to the PSNI. There are of course reasons to enquire about the Claudy bombing for example as a specific event. There should be a full public enquiry into that atrocity because there is reasonable evidence that the original investigation was compromised by political interference

    100% agreed on both points Henry.

  90. The whole point here is that McGuinness has OPENLY ADMITTED he was in charge of mass murder for a specific period when his unit murdered a substantial amount of people.
    This in itself surely deserves an inquiry

    So, using that ‘logic’ Gerry Adams et al shouldn’t be investigated?

  91. Paul,

    good try at trying to divert again.

    Firstly I undertook to re-investigate the murder in November 1987 of a young student, Brian Lambert, and secondly to examine the handling of agents

    Your second block quote is about Nelson, nothing relevant to the topic.

    Fact is, Kerr was investigated, as he admitted working with someone like Nelson. McGuinness has admitted open involvment in terrorism, no ambiguity, blatant and clear terrorism.

    As you said before, ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    ahem.

    Will you support an inquiry into McGuinness?

  92. Paul,

    stick to the topic, don’t embarrass yourself any further.

    Adair’s case set the legal precedent, McGuinness should be treated the same,; or I ask again, unlessis it different for the ira?

    You have already made my points for me, I have no interest in going over the same points ad nauseum with you.

    Your hypocrisy is there exposed for all to see and your refusal to support an inquiry into someone in charge of mass murder, is ample proof of your lack of morals.

  93. LU, you seem to be ignoring the factual discrepancies I posted above.

    Do you know the depth of Kerr’s questioning?

    In light of the obstruction’s I’ve quoted above do you think that it was a thorough investigation?

    Kerr has also admitted he recruited, handeled and directed Nelson. Shouldn’t there be a

    rigorous and thorough investigation

    into these admissions?

  94. Paul.

    You have some brass neck, I’ll give you that, but I would expect that now from someone with hypocrisy coarsing through their veins in an immoral position and with a constant refusal to answer a question for hours.

    The obstructions were in relation to nelson, NOT kerr. Get it?

    Regardless of the level of scrutiny, or otherwise of kerr’s investigation, I will ask for the last time; would you support an inquiry into McGuinness with the same remit as was given to Kerr’s investigating team, and the same resources, and manpower and independence?

    Simple.

    Like for like.

    If you do not, then you are a hypocrite, as you said before; ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    End of story.

  95. The obstructions were in relation to nelson, NOT kerr. Get it?

    That is a blatant untruth

    Throughout my inquiries I recognised that I was being obstructed. This obstruction was cultural in its nature and widespread within parts of the army and the RUC

    Following three recent disclosures by the army I am investigating whether the concealment of documents and information was sanctioned and if so at what levels of the organisations holding them. It has been necessary to interview the same witnesses a number of times because of the failure to provide complete information at the first time of asking

    Brigadier Kerr reportedly resisted the Stevens Inquiry, believing it to be politically motivated.

    “You wish me to quote statistics, in a period from 1985 to 1990 or up until his arrest, we produced, on Brian Nelson’s information something like 730 reports concerning threats to 217 separate individuals to life. Threats to life of the individual on all cases. These were passed on.”
    The Stevens team rejects this

    You make assertions regarding Stevens and try to pass them off as fact. They aren’t, if they are please supply links regarding the timescale, nature and subject content of Kerr’s questioning.

    Like for like

    Absolutely, but I doubt that a Kerresque inquiry, with all it’s ambiguity, evasion and obstruction would satisfy you?

    You have some brass neck, I’ll give you that, but I would expect that now from someone with hypocrisy coarsing through their veins in an immoral position and with a constant refusal to answer a question for hours

    LU, I’ve answered the question numerous times, (see above), please desist from such condescending remarks. It’swhat brought you into previous comment with almost every other poster, is the internet equivilent of trying to shout someone down and adds little to the debate.

  96. LU has some kind of hard on for McG for sure, unionists hate McG but cant stop thinking about him, very strange behavior.

  97. LU

    The offence Adair was charged with, directing terrorism, did not exist in the early 70s and as you probably know laws can’t be enforced retrospectively. So there is no basis in law for your suggestion.

  98. Paul, more dodging.

    I asked you repeatedly and caught you out with your hypocrisy, and you have not answered the question, and the reason why is, you cannot, as I got you just where I want you sunshine. 😉

    The fact remains, until you tell me otherwise, your position is, the ira should be treated ‘differently’.

    That someone ‘resisted’ an inquiry is one thing, but as he fully co-operated with it and gave evidence freely and stevens couldnt get a conviction speaks volumes and belittles your silly attempt at trying to use that as some sort of excuse.

    Now, I would be very happy for Mcguinness to face the same scrutiny, with the same resources and expenditure and manpower into his activities that he admitted to, in the same way Kerr did for his.

    As you said before, ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    Hypocrite.

    Charles, no praise today for shooting soldiers? I have been posting on a topic which is specific to machine gun marty, in case you haven’t noticed.

    Henry,

    good point, but incorrect. Even if it was, the SoS could quickly rectify it.

    17.5. As such, it does not breach Article 7 of the European Convention which forbids retroactive penalties. (See Archbold paragraph 16-100 and Ibbotson v UK [1999] Crim. L.R. 153. Also R v Field and R v Young (2003) 3 All ER 769 which show that other preventive orders can be based upon things done before the relevant legislation was passed.

  99. David

    “it’s not just his role during Bloody Sunday that merits investigation”

    Too right!

    But also issue about failure to follow through with investigations because of his involvement in negotiations.

  100. Ah but Aileen; didn’t you know it is different when the ira are involved, didn’t you read Paul’s double speak and hypocrisy?

  101. Paul, more dodging

    Logical Unionist, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    Or is it different for the ira?

    Paul McMahon, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:20 pm Said:
    No it’s not different LU. I’d have no problems supporting an inquiry into directing terrorism as long as it’s parameters included people like Brigadier Gordon Kerr who directed and financed Brian Nelson, one of the most prolific directors of terrorism of the conflict

    Logical Unionist, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:26 pm Said:
    Do you, or would you support an inquiry into his role. His role, and his alone in commanding the ira in Londonderry, considering the amount of murders that took place under his command?

    Paul McMahon, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:30 pm Said:
    In short no. Because, to paraphrase your ‘in the interests of equality’ quote above not only is it inequitous but it also elevates the status of some innocent victims over other innocent victims.

    Logical Unionist, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:32 pm Said:
    Now, I will ask again, do you support an inquiry into Machine Gun Marty’s actions in that period?

    Paul McMahon, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:41 pm Said
    No it’s not different LU. I’ve already stated that I would have no problems with an investigation into direction of terrorism. To call for an inquiry into the alleged activities of one individual while disregarding the alleged activities of others goes against all tenats of that justice that you speak of.
    I’ll support an investigation into the allegations of McGuinness in the context of a wider investigation

    Logical Unionist, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:45 pm Said:
    Would you support an independent and exclusive investigation into an individual, in this case McGuinness, who has openly admitted to Police of being in command of mass murder?

    Paul McMahon, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:49 pm Said:
    I’d support an investigation into the allegations against McGuinness in the context of a investigation against Kerr who has admitted that he handeled and directed Nelson

    Logical Unionist, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:53 pm Said:
    Will you only support an inquiry into the self confessed commander of mass murderers, Martin McGuinness?

    Paul McMahon, on July 11th, 2012 at 11:00 pm Said:
    And I’ll answer again, yes, in the context of other self confessed directors of terrorism also being investigated.

    I could go on… Dodging? I’d say that your question has been answered both consistantly and comprehensively.

  102. Thats a lot of work for a simple question, which you won’t answer.

    Paul McMahon, on July 11th, 2012 at 10:49 pm Said:
    I’d support an investigation into the allegations against McGuinness in the context of a investigation against Kerr who has admitted that he handeled and directed Nelson

    So, as Kerr already has had an investigation, are you then confirming you WOULD support an inquiry?

    I just wanted a yes or a no, but you still cannot come through.

    I asked repeatedly ad nauseum about mcguinness, without any other context, caveat, conditions or ANYTHING else.

    Solely and exclusively on mguinness, you have failed repeatedly.

    Never mind ANYONE else.

    I am not going on in circles with your futile attempts at excusing your double standards Paul, wallow in your hypocrisy and hatred.

    If you do NOT support an unequivocal inquiry into an admission of guilt in leading and directing mass murder, then you are a hypocrite.

  103. So, as Kerr already has had an investigation, are you then confirming you WOULD support an inquiry?

    But that’s a different question LU.

    In the context of the unkown parameters of the questioning of Kerr and the very obvious deep flaws in the investigation I couldn’t agree as any credible investigation would have to be transparently flawless

  104. Paul,

    it is exactly the question I have been asking you for the last 24 hours.

    You started off saying only if kerr would be investigated, and then, oops! got caught out. Then that was another session of dodging and trying to divert, but I kept bringing you back. Still you refuse to answer.

    You still will not support any inquiry, so then, I revert back to your comment;

    ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    Hypocrite.

  105. You still will not support any inquiry,

    Except I didn’t say that. You see to be following the old Gobbels doctrine that if you tell an untruth often enough it becomes the truth.

    In the context of the unkown parameters of the questioning of Kerr and the very obvious deep flaws in the investigation I couldn’t agree as any credible investigation would have to be transparently flawless

    That’s what I said. I would have no qualms in supporting an inquiry into the activities of McGuinness, Kerr or any other person as long as we knew the parameters, it was transparent and was not full of the obvious flaws and obstructions which Stevens fell foul of.

  106. Paul, you have.

    Repeatedly.

    Now you want to blame stevens!

    Before you were extolling his virtues and using his findings as evidence against kerr!

    You really have no shame.

    Last time.

    Would you support an independent, transparent inquiry into mcguinness’ activities in the ira as commander, and by extension directing mass murder in Londonderry as he himself has openly confessed?

    (The parameters are only on his confessed period)

    yes?

    or

    no?

  107. Now you want to blame stevens! Before you were extolling his virtues and using his findings as evidence against Kerr!

    Where did I blame Stevens for anything? Look at any of the quotes from Stevens I use above and it’s plain to see that I have demonstrated his criticisms of the obstructions and lies to the inquiry by those the inquiry was investing.

    Would you support an independent, transparent inquiry into mcguinness’ activities in the ira as commander, and by extension directing mass murder in Londonderry as he himself has openly confessed?

    Well firstly I don’t think that McGuinness has openly confessed to ‘directing mass murder’ but yes, of course I’d agree to an open, transparent inquiry into McGuinness as long as others like Kerr were subjected to the same independence & transparency.

  108. Always Paul, that word ‘but’, or the caveat of, ‘on condition’.

    Nelson and Kerr faced investigation.

    That is done and dusted.

    Now do you support the SAME due process for mcguinness as he confessed in the same way the two former men did?

    Or is it different again?

    If you do not support equal justice, then I refer to your learned remark last night;

    ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

  109. Always Paul, that word ‘but’, or the caveat of, ‘on condition’

    Absolutely, if you think I’m going to support a unilateral investigation into one conflict protagonist while other victim makers are not investigated then think again.

    Nelson and Kerr faced investigation.

    As did McGuinness the difference being that we do not know the extent, context or veracity of the investigation against Kerr or Nelson. The investigation was flawed as stated by Stevens himself.

    Let me save you a lot of work.

    My own opinion is that there should be a truth recovery investigation with those being investigated given a non – prosecution clause. I realise that this is unpalatable to many, including victims & their families, but I think that it’sthe only way to garuntee the truth of what happened and, as I said, it’sonly my opinion.

    If you’re talking about bringing people to justice, and let me get this absolutely crystal clear, if people think that people like McGunness are going to be brought to justice while those like Kerr, those that pulled the trigger in Ballymarphyp, Bloody Sunday & Springhill, those that gave the orders and countless faceless others will not they’ve got another think coming.

    I hope that that’s unequivcal for you LU so please, no more untruths.

  110. Absolutely, if you think I’m going to support a unilateral investigation into one conflict protagonist while other victim makers are not investigated then think again.

    It isn’t but. You said you would support an inquiry if Kerr would, and he HAS. Now more lies and u turns.

    Shameful.

    I was asking if you would support EXACTLY THE SAME DUE PROCESS FOR HIM AS NELSON AND KERR.

    U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?

    My own opinion is that there should be a truth recovery investigation with those being investigated given a non – prosecution clause

    Because it is different for the ira, yes Paul we all get the message.

    To accuse me of untruths from a proven liar and hypocrite like you, is really something else. lol

    I will bring this to a close, you have embarrassed yourself enough, and I will not waste time on immoral and protaganists for terrorists.

  111. EXACTLY THE SAME DUE PROCESS FOR HIM AS NELSON AND KERR.
    U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D?

    Are you suggesting that the McGuinness wasn’t investigated at Saville?

    Because it is different for the ira, yes Paul we all get the message

    You have consistantly said that I have consistantly said it isn’t. More Gobbelesque ‘say an untruth often enough an it will become the truth’ .

  112. Paul,

    yes I get it.

    Things are different for mcguinness and the ira.

    I understand, but do not agree.

    I already explained the difference between bloody sunday and Kerr’s investigation yesterday.

    (ps, consistently is written as such.)

  113. Paul,
    yes I get it.
    Things are different for mcguinness and the ira

    There, you go again, more untruths. The only person that has said that is you and you have repeated it parrotesquely ad infinitum.

    That and your need to correct typo errors is a sure sign of the waning credibility of your argument.

  114. I already explained the difference between bloody sunday and Kerr’s investigation yesterday

    Good, then you should have no problems showing me where as I haven’t seen it.

  115. Paul

    ‘Logical Unionist, on July 12th, 2012 at 1:12 am Said:

    Paul.

    You have been told and exposed.

    However, if you want more, I am happy to oblige.

    As Pete pointed out earlier, the Saville inquiry was solely and exclusively centred on bloody sunday, ie, one day.

    Kerr faced a thorough investigation, scrutinised by a top Police investigating officer, who examined all theories, evidence, witnesses and background material on all of his career within intelligence circles.

    That was the difference.

    If you do not support an inquiry with the exact same powers, cost and manpower and level of scrutiny into McGuinness and his confessed role in the ira, then you have proved my assertion that in your opinion and others, it is different for the ira.

    If you do not support an inquiry, then you are going back on your position at 10.49, which you openly stated ‘To investigate one without the other devalues the lives of other innicent victims.’

    As both Nelson and Kerr were investigated for their ADMISSIONS; then on the SAME premis, surely it would be just if McGuinness would be subject to the same due process.

    If not, then things ARE DIFFERENT for the ira in your book.

    Now I am not wasting anymore time with you.

    Are you drinking? Before you were at least coherent in debate, now you are flailing around like a lost fish on a riverbank.

  116. Kerr faced a thorough investigation, scrutinised by a top Police investigating officer, who examined all theories, evidence, witnesses and background material on all of his career within intelligence circles.

    Except that’s not true. Again you’re taking an assumption and trying to pass it as fact, (as I’ve stated above).We dont’t know the extent, context or credibility of the nature of Kerr’s investigation, the Cheif Investigating Officer himself has said that the investigation was seriously flawed.

    Is this the same due process that you want McGuinness scrutinised with?

  117. Paul.

    I would be happy with Mr Stevens to investigate McGuinness and his admissions covering his time as commander of the ira, in the same way he investigated as best he could kerr and nelson.

    Would you?

  118. Not on anythig before but I do have a social life to attend to so that may well change in the very near future 🙂

  119. Well, it depends where it is being held…last I read was in a ‘green bar’, so I’ll be ‘Mickey’ for the night.

  120. Nah, we’re meeting in The Crown. Very beautiful ‘nuetral’ bar but I understand there may be some pub crawling to be done.

    Speaking of pubs I’m away I’ve got that social life to take care of.

Comments are closed.