It’ s hard to imagine [almost] the horror that John Finucane witnessed, although he was not by any means an isolated case.
I knew, worked with and liked his father, who was a contemporary.
Since then, John has qualified and practised as a solicitor, seemingly uninterested in politics, till now.
It would be difficult for an impartial observer to conclude otherwise than he is anti-British.
He and I have a common interest . As his mother put it, who sent the gunmen? I want to know who sent the bomb team that murdered my parents. Our common suspicion is that the State was involved.
Here, the stories diverge.
The other night, John shared a platform with two IRA volunteers, Kelly and Na Chullin. Worse, he was photographed beside Sean Maguire, who was part of the operation that killed my parents. Maguire was a prominent member of PIRA in 1990 and also an informer for the State. He was with Scap when they visited the house where Sandy Lynch was held. Maguire may be managing his publicity, I don’t know. Maguire, who ‘qualified’ as a journalist after his release from prison, benefitted from the general amnesty for touts, agreed some years ago by the Army Council and now lives in the Oldpark area of Belfast.
What sort of world is John currently inhabiting? Does he really believe his own publicity about equality and justice for all? Why does he share a platform with terrorists ? Was not his candidature agreed by the Army Council?
Is it the same old Finucane deal, Uncles John , Dermot and Seamus?
The fascinating thing that the Finucanes have in common with the Adams Family is that one outstanding family member , Pat Finucane and Gerry Adams never joined the IRA.
I wonder what the moderate Roman Catholics of North Belfast think?
And for whom will they vote?
And why is John Finucane, Human Rights lawyer, sharing a platform with terrorists?
The Lone Ranger was a childhood favourite, righting wrongs, doing justice. “who was that masked man?” The Secret Barrister should have a horse called called Silver. The SB is my OAP hero.
The Oxford Bread Knife story pootles on, given fresh wind each day by some hot take or other in the op-eds. There has been a lot of reaction on social media, and many people have taken the time to contact me to explain, in varying degrees of politeness, why they do or do not agree with what I’ve said. One article in particular is of interest – this blogpost here by Richard Moorhead. It is a thoughtful piece, with which I largely agree; although it leads me to worry that my position, not only on this story but on legal reporting in general, might have been misunderstood. I took it to be suggesting that, in explaining the legal framework of the Bread Knife story, I might be offering “a minimalistic defence” of the decision. Richard, rightly, said that, “Patting an irritated public on the head and saying, you don’t understand the law sweetypops
View original post 1,844 more words