Two interesting points emerged from last night’s Spotlight on BBC NI.
First , that Sinn Fein/PIRA’s command structure requires that murders must be approved by the man at the top, Gerry Adams.
This would of course be known to the State and anyone who has the least knowledge of SF/PIRA operations.
I made a similar allegation in June 2015 and stated that Martin McGuinness as head of Northern Command would have been aware of the plan to kill my father. He approved it. This was not a new allegation. Ed Moloney first made it in 2002 , in his book, “A Secret History of the IRA”.
McGuinness is guilty of murder , as an accessory.
The PSNI have refused to pursue McGuinness or any of the other persons whom I named. See my blog “The murderers of my parents”.
Several of the people named are also State agents.
Secondly, the allegation that there might have been 800 to 1,000 State agents within PIRA will equally come as no surprise to many people. Except that the PSNI, the HET and the Police Ombudsman cannot find one agent who has information on the murderers of my parents. This is what I have been consistently told by these organs of the state, since 1990.
They are simply telling me lies.
Like Hillsborough, the truth cannot remain hidden for ever. Adams has been in the firing line for several months now, because he is no longer of value to either the British or Irish States. McGuinness’s day will also come.
Sinn Fein IRA , in their press releases and statements in the last twenty four hours blame the Brits for a further propaganda campaign.
The awful truth is that the British State is protecting men and women who were involved in the murder of my parents and , so far , are protecting McGuinness.
As for Denis Donaldson and his murder, remember Dear Reader, nothing is ever as it seems in Northern Ireland.
My thesis is looking good and I have a little time to digress.
Who is this fellow Gerry Adams?
Is he your Quentin Tarantino? He has certainly a good imagination.
I have researched him because he printed the word “nigger”.
I have been called a nigger. I said “honky” back. Many songs by black artists refer to “niggas”.
If this Adams fellow says “nigger”, whom does he offend? All the back people in the world? That would be strange, because he has only 112,000 followers and there are 37 million blacks in the USA, alone. Did anyone say that they were offended at his use of the word or was it just his [white] political enemies?
But back to this Gerry fellow. He is good at making things up, Dingle tells me. He said that not getting into the White House was like being at the back of the bus. This is a reference , apparently , to Rosa Parks. She was a nigger, a protestant and the grand daughter of a Scots Irish person. She had no beard. She did not espouse violence. As Mr Connolly said in a letter to the Irish Times, on 18th March , the only thing that he and Rosa have in common is that neither was in the IRA.
I have researched this point. Gerry must have been the street wimp. Also at St Finnian’s primary school. When his mates were playing at being rebels, was he looking at pictures of goats and dogs? Was he beaten up often for being the only non rebel in his class? When they said “yo, Ger, are you joinin’ the hood?” Did he say , he was training to pull a good pint and buy a trampoline?
This fellow played a big part in negotiations with the British. This does not happen if you are not a terrorist. Look at Cyprus and all the African countries. The British did deals with terrorists. Imagine the situation. “Hello Ambassador, I represent Bongo Bongo.” “Are you from the Bongo Bongo Peoples’ front?” “No”. “Well bugger off, I want to speak to a top a terrorist who can deliver something.”
I spoke to Dingle, who was vexed. He said that Gerry had claimed to be a founder of the Civil Rights movement. Dingle said that this was a lie. Dingle had stoned them at Buntollet and he is sure that Adams was not there. Perhaps he was tending the bar in Belfast.
However I am now seeing a pattern. All British colonies are handed over to terrorists. There is then great and lasting corruption. They then send emissaries to London and the Prime Minister, who had an offshore account, says that they are corrupt.
It is fortunate that the Peoples’ Front for the Liberation of Bongo Bongo received no Semtex from Gadafy. Then you would know! Niggas be up for it!
So, now I wonder if I should convert my masters into a doctorate? I am happy in the religious quarter of Belfast and now that the Great She Elephant has been proclaimed as leader, it might be interesting. No abortion, no gay marriage, the right to discriminate against gays, so many un-British things. I feel quite at home. I wonder where the DUP stand on FGM?
Aren’t we missing something, Dear Reader?
During the vexed times when Sinn Fein/IRA were negotiating with Blair and matters such as decommissioning, or the lack of it, on-the-runs and Royal Pardons were being discussed there was a class of person for whom there was a difficulty. The murderer such as Martin McGuinness or Brian Gillen, who had not been convicted. If you had a conviction, a Royal Pardon solved it. If you were outside Northern Ireland you got a letter. What to do with the rest? Given the level of detailed negotiation and subsequent events, there must , at least , have been an understanding about their future.
Try this. Unless the participants commit a further offence, HMG will ensure that nobody will be prosecuted for a crime committed prior to the GFA. Should the PSNI arrest, charge and/or report someone on the list for an offence pre-GFA , HMG will ensure that , even if there is evidence which passes the test for prosecution, the prosecuting authority will be advised that prosecution is not in the public interest.
The legal basis for this is the Shawcross Doctrine. The executive can overrule the law officers in certain circumstances. Originally , regard had to be given to “the effect which a prosecution successful or unsuccessful as the case may be would have on public morale or order”.
Dominic Grieve also included ” where necessary to safeguard national security”.
Does this explain the paralysis re Gerry Adams, the dropping of a case against McGuinness in the 1980s, the disappearance of the file in Operation Taurus and the remarks of the investigators into the Enniskillen bomb? Does it explain the shock articulated by McGuinness when Adams was arrested and the mention of dark forces. Does it explain Bobby Storey’s guldering on a west Belfast platform? [ the caterpillar, before he was the butterfly]
Prosecutions are going nowhere, unless it is now in the public interest to let them.
Roy Junkin, sometime deputy director of the DPP, used to remind his staff and police the “we are in the ‘E’ business”. E stood for evidence. A case would not be prosecuted unless and until the evidence supported a reasonable prospect of success of conviction. That was the test.
Barra was just a pup then.
Now the PPS , under Barra’s command, are all over the place.
[Although it should be said that he did apply for another job]
Consider the Ivor Bell case. As I understand it , the case against him is that he has given interviews to the Boston College project and therein he has incriminated himself in the murder of Jean McConville. Thus he has been charged with membership of the IRA and aiding and abetting her murder.
You might think, Dear Reader that before the police arrested him they had some evidence to support the contention that his voice could be heard on a tape.
The law requires that a police officer must ‘reasonably suspect’ that a crime has been committed before he arrests.
So Bell was arrested in March 2014 and he was charged a few days later. Undoubtedly the PPS would have been involved in the decision to charge.
So that’s it. Police have evidence that he spoke words on tape…..
Well, not exactly, because in May 2015 the PPS had not made up their minds and had involved senior counsel. Not so cut and dried?
The PPS prosecutor needed further time. Further time was afforded by the court and eventually the PPS indicated that the case would proceed. So the prosecutorial test had been passed. “A reasonable prospect of success”. Hurrah!
On 30 July the case was listed for a preliminary enquiry on 22 October 2015 over eighteen months after Bell was arrested.
In the meantime a lawyer in the PPS will be putting the papers in order. Statements of evidence, which already support the contention that Bell is guilty as charged. Just a clerical exercise…..
But, just a minute!
The PSNI wrote to Ed Moloney, in August 2015 asking if he would cooperate as a witness in the case.
I am tempted to ask “What is Barra-Boy up to?” Then I remember. In the words of Jim Allister, Barra was Sinn Fein’s lawyer of choice before he took the Queen’s shilling. Many of his clients were senior members of the provisional IRA. He has played no part, I think, in the Bell case.
So the team who are bringing you the Ivor Bell prosecution brought you the Mairia Cahill debacle.
My more constant adherents may wonder why, coming from my background, I find the Bell case so worrying. Five points.
- If the State can fit up Bell, so stand we all in peril.
- The PPS and particularly its Director are not fit for purpose.
- The handling of the case, given its fame, is awful. Cart before the horse. What chance does the ordinary citizen have?
- It’s another in a long line of flawed prosecutions.
- My father, killed at the hands of the Provisional IRA , taught me to respect the rule of law. It is conspicuously absent here.
Aside from the considerable interest the press and public would have taken had Barra appeared as a witness for the defence or the prosecution [see Larkin para 4.49-4.51] in the trial of Liam Adams, a number of other points arise from the Starmer and Larkin reports.
1. Why was Gerry Adams, Barra’s former client, not called in the second trial? The answer to the justice committee from the Deputy director was “technical reasons” [ a well known legal term] and the volume of potential disclosure. One wonders if this disclosure related to Gerry’s terrorist activities and/or his usefulness to the state. It may well be another example of where intelligence held by the state intrudes into the administration of justice.
2. Whilst taking responsibility for the AA/BB/Cahill shambles Barra blamed the two prosecuting barristers. Asked by the justice committee about his civil servants , his response was that of the three involved , one had retired and the other two were not in the places they had been when the events happened. This is an obscure remark. Does it mean that they have been sent to the PPS equivalent of the Russian Front or Siberia? He went on to tell the committee that neither would be disciplined because their actions “did not raise issues of indiscipline”. So there you have it. No harm will befall the civil servants, they will eventually retire on their inflation proofed pensions. Meanwhile they may be performing incompetently in your case, dear reader. Their names have never been made public. Meanwhile the two barristers face a public disciplinary hearing.
3. Moving on from that demimonde , Barra was asked a number of questions by Edwin Poots. Barra initially declined to respond when Poots asked him what ‘he put his thing in me” might mean. Having unsuccessfully appealed to the chairman for protection, he stated that it was a description of penetration. Poots point was that that remark by the complainant re Liam, her father, constituted a complaint of rape and that it had been heard by Gerry, bringing him within the ambit of the then legislation on with holding information. Larkin concluded that Aine’s evidence re Gerry called at the very least for clarification.
4. Alban Maginness told Barra that Larkin’s report gave the PPS “a clean bill of health”. Let’s examine that. The real nub of the PPS performance is set out by Larkin at paras 6.17- 6.22. Larkin notes that in relation to the assessment of the evidence against Gerry, neither the acting director nor senior counsel appear, from the acting deputy director’s minute, to have been provided with the two transcribed interviews of Aine. Nor did senior counsel have access to a minute from the directing officer. So , another PPS communication failure. Larkin was not asked to comment on the decision not to prosecute Gerry but it is clear that had communications been working properly , at the least the PPS would have sought clarification from Aine or Gerry. Larkin describes the “obvious steps” that should have been taken at 6.40. This all leaves out of account Larkin’s view that the PPS did not follow its own procedures.
5 Enter the PSNI, stage left. The police told the PPS that Gerry Adams had “quite rightly…Aine’s welfare at the forefront throughout”. Contrast that astonishing statement with his performance under cross-examination in the first trial. Is this a genuinely held belief by the PSNI or was it another smokescreen? They lobbied the PPS for no prosecution of Gerry “in the public interest” Did it fall within example [x] in the PPS list of some grounds for not prosecuting in the public interest ” where details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security”?
6. A number of the members of the justice committee voiced concern at the performance of the PPS. It is hard to disagree.
6. Larkin’s report was spun by the PPS as a vindication of its activities. It is no such thing.