Reply To Sinn Fein From Gerry McGeough Campaign

Tonight The Pensive Quill features a reply to Sinn Fein from the Gerry McGeough Campaign. That reply is followed by the Sinn Fein position as articulated by Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly.

A chairde

Recently several prominent supporters of the campaign to free Gerry McGeough forwarded emails sent from Sinn Fein for our comments. These emails say that Sinn Fein has called for Gerry McGeough’s release from Maghaberry and therefore our justice campaign should “focus our efforts on the British government, which is responsible for his imprisonment, and on the Irish government, which is a co-signatory to the Weston Park agreement.”

Gerry McGeough has been imprisoned by the British for more than a year at Maghaberry. Clearly  the combined weight of court challenges, calls from political parties including Sinn Fein, together with  pressure through any and all other political mechanisms, have not yet been sufficient to compel the British to free him. Like any other justice campaign, we can only try for greater efforts by any and every source open to us, until the British give Gerry McGeough the freedom to which we all agree he is entitled.

The primary focus of efforts to pressure the British crown has been legal challenges in British courts, thus far including an abuse of process application, a Diplock trial defense, appeals, and judicial review. Even now a ruling on his pending judicial review is imminent, and could mean freedom for Gerry McGeough.

Given what has already occurred in his case, and indeed in the long history of British courts dealing with Irish Republican cases, there is no assurance of justice for Gerry McGeough. If the crown judge rules against him, the only alternative means of increasing pressure on the British will be to ask more from political parties. As a party which includes a Deputy First Minister, and whose backing helped grant David Ford a renewed term as Stormont Justice Minister, Sinn Fein’s help would be pivotal.

However, the campaign is by no means limited to Sinn Fein. Eamon O’Cuiv, of Fianna Fail, and several SDLP members have visited Gerry McGeough at Maghaberry, and pledged support. Their support was only enlisted when members of Sinn Fein who support Gerry McGeough advised that their requests within party channels for effective rather than token action were stonewalled.

We then received emails and read published letters criticizing Gerry McGeough and our campaign, for not trusting exclusively Sinn Fein; and for accepting help from Fianna Fail and the SDLP despite past policies of those parties regarding Republicans. We will continue to lobby all potential channels of support that might assist in pressuring the British crown directly or through the Irish government.     

Gerry McGeough is imprisoned by the British on charges that he joined the IRA in 1975 and that he was wounded in an IRA engagement with a member of the notorious British Ulster Defense Regiment, during the time of the Hunger Strike of 1981.The evidence trotted out against him included medical testimony and photographs of bullet wounds he suffered as an IRA Volunteer, as well as nearly 8 years of imprisonment for IRA activities in Germany and the United States.  Given this background, and Britain’s desire to use this case as a precedent against other Republicans, it is difficult to see any mechanism for compelling the crown to release Gerry McGeough without Sinn Fein intensifying its efforts.  
We also received inquiries about how much they had already done for Gerry McGeough. We hesitated before making this reply. The campaign is supported by a broad spectrum. It includes Sinn Fein members and party supporters, as well as others with very different views. The campaign is united by one aim of freedom for Gerry McGeough. We want to work constructively with Sinn Fein and all others who can help win this freedom. We have no other agenda.

We were reluctant to clarify the record regarding Gerry McGeough, since an honest response might create further difficulties or even be cited as a reason to do nothing more on the issue. It now appears given the decision to publish this correspondence in AP/RN that we have no alternative.

We wish to acknowledge again that after Gerry McGeough’s arrest in 2007, Michelle Gildernew wrote one of the character reference letters which were introduced during his bail hearing and this letter was helpful to McGeough’s solicitors. On a couple of occasions, during the four years of court proceedings, members of Sinn Fein attended the trial for Gerry and his co-defendant.

However there was a telling disparity between these actions and the far more frequent, vocal, and visible interventions by prominent DUP members, led by Arlene Foster and Maurice Morrow against Gerry McGeough.

DUP intervention, climaxed by Foster and Morrow’s presence in court to influence and celebrate the verdict, was patently obvious to the public and Diplock judge and conveyed a clear signal that the case against McGeough meant far more to the DUP, than to any other political faction

It is also appreciated that Sinn Fein members, most recently Ray McCartney in December, visited Gerry McGeough amongst other Republican prisoners at Maghaberry and said that his case among others and the protest against brutal H-Block like strip-searches were high on the agenda. However, David Ford, who presides over these injustices, then had his term extended by Sinn Fein in partnership with the DUP, and was thereby empowered to continue these injustices.
We accept that the British broke the Weston Park agreement by jailing Gerry McGeough on thirty year old charges. Britain’s stance in prosecuting former IRA members while conferring an apparent amnesty for murders by British troopers or crown constables is hypocritical.  Sinn Fein, better than anyone, knows the difference between token statements meant to do no more than placate supporters and effective action on issues of   importance.  Without Sinn Fein, as the representative of former IRA members during these talks, demanding that “unambiguous” pledges be honored, it is apparent that the crown feels free to break its word with impunity. 

Gerry McGeough’s solicitors urged the British crown court to follow the reading of Weston Park advanced by Sinn Fein. The British and Stormont justice ministry rejected this interpretation out of hand. The trial was suspended pending an abuse of process hearing.

No one from Sinn Fein took the witness stand on Gerry McGeough’s behalf.   His solicitors, who have strong contacts with Sinn Fein, were forced to call a loyalist, William Smith, to testify for Gerry McGeough. The application was denied and the Diplock trial continued. We are left to speculate whether testimony from any Sinn Fein representative about what was agreed at Weston Park might have altered the outcome and halted the trial before Gerry McGeough was tried and jailed.

Now an application for a judicial review has been lodged, and a decision is pending. In addition to the Weston Park pledges, McGeough contends that he should be eligible for immediate release because the 8 years in jail in Germany and America should be applied to satisfy the 2 year GFA release requirements. His solicitors cited a dozen comparable cases where Republicans imprisoned in other jurisdictions had their time credited by means of a pardon (Royal Prerogative of Mercy). They were able to obtain and produce copies of these pardons which were attached as exhibits in support.

In making this application, Gerry McGeough in a sworn affidavit, said that while an elected member of the Sinn Fein Ard Chomairle, he often spoke to Gerry Kelly on the negotiations regarding his own case as well as other On-the-Runs (OTRS).  McGeough attested that he was specifically told by Gerry Kelly that he was on the list of cases being negotiated and finally told that he was free to go home to Tyrone without fear of arrest or charges. Gerry Kelly says that “this was not the case.”

Gerry McGeough was so sure of this conversation that he not only returned to Tyrone for the first time in years, but began public preparations to move his family there, including applying for planning permission, building a house, enrolling his children in school and moving around openly. McGeough’s solicitors contend that he was removed from the list some time after he left Sinn Fein and arrested because he ran as an Independent Republican.

After this application was argued, the crown judge directed that the record be kept open for an affidavit from Gerry Kelly. Kelly had previously declined to cooperate with McGeough’s solicitors in preparing an affidavit that would have supported him.

Our understanding is that Kelly’s solicitors on January 12th sent a letter which was such that McGeough’s solicitors had to incorporate it in a submission that made reference to the “obvious tension” between McGeough’s and Kelly’s positions.

Gerry McGeough, now in his 50s, has suffered heart attacks since his arrest in 2007.Last week he was hospitalized again for his heart ailment and will need further surgery. He is separated from his wife and four young children and imprisoned at Maghaberry in conditions which can only exacerbate his medical problems. He is in jail on 30 year old charges that were clearly part of the IRA’s struggle against British rule.

It is difficult to imagine the frustrations that even someone who has served 8 years in jail, must feel to be held in a British prison in the conditions at Maghaberry on decades old charges, in the midst of  what we are often told is a new political dispensation.

It must be especially hurtful, when members of Sinn Fein or supportive organizations in America, advise that they have been discouraged from campaigning for more pressure to free Gerry McGeough and are told to “focus their efforts elsewhere”


Adams Letter

31 January 2012

A chara,

Thank you for your correspondence.

The Weston Park Agreement is an inter-government agreement between the Irish and British governments.

Paragraph 20 of the Weston Park Agreement states

Both Governments recognise that there is an issue to be addressed, with the completion of the early release scheme, about supporters of organisations now on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10 April 1998. Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early release scheme. The Governments accept that it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued and will as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of the year, take such steps as are necessary in their jurisdiction to resolve this difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued.

This agreement emerged as a result of demands by Sinn Féin at that time for this issue to be dealt with effectively.

The text of the above paragraph represents in our view, an explicit and unambiguous commitment by the Governments not to pursue a conviction against anyone, who would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early-release scheme. 

When Gerry McGeough was first arrested in March 2007, Sinn Féin called for his immediate release. 

His local Sinn Féin MP Michelle Gildernew provided assistance for Mr McGeough during the trial process.

Our position has not changed. Although Gerry McGeough will become eligible to apply for early release in less than 12 months the Agreement at Weston Park makes it very clear that he should not have been pursued, arrested, convicted or imprisoned.

However, the implementation of this Agreement and the release of political prisoners is the responsibility of the British and Irish governments and thus far the British government has refused to honour this commitment.

For our part Sinn Féin continues to press the British government on this issue. Gerry McGeough is not the only person affected by the refusal of the British to keep to this commitment.

Sinn Féin representatives have made this clear to Gerry McGeough when they have visited him in prison.

There is no ambiguity in our position. And Sinn Féin continues to work with Mr McGeough’s legal team to assist their ongoing legal bid to secure his release.

Sinn Féin will continue to press both governments to use whatever mechanism is necessary to action the Weston Park commitment they made.

It would be helpful to the campaign for Mr. McGeough’s release if those lobbying on his behalf specifically focussed their efforts on the British government, which is responsible for his imprisonment, and on the Irish government which is the co-signatory to the Weston Park agreement.
Is mise le meas,

Gerry Adams TD


Gerry Kelly's Letter:

Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2012 10:28:38 AM
Subject:Gerry McGeough should be freed – By Gerry Kelly MLA

Gerry McGeough should be freed


Sinn Féin Assembly spokesperson on Policing & Justice

WHEN Gerry McGeough was first arrested in March 2007, Sinn Féin called for his immediate release. We believed then, as we believe now, that he should not have been arrested and charged and that he should not have been detained in prison.

His local Sinn Féin MP, Michelle Gildernew, provided assistance for Gerry McGeough during the trial process.

Our position has not changed. When Gerry McGeough was convicted and sentenced, we were the only political party in the North to demand his immediate release. We remain the only significant political party to adopt this position.

The release of political prisoners sentenced for conflict-related actions carried out before April 1998 was agreed in the multi-party negotiations that led to the Good Friday Agreement. Responsibility for the release of prisoners rested with both the British and Irish governments.

The Agreement did not specify any minimum term that a prisoner must serve. However, it did anticipate that any ‘qualifying’ prisoners still in custody two years after the commencement of the early-release scheme would be released at that point.

However, the Irish Government failed to follow through on its commitment in respect of a number of men sentenced in their jurisdiction. These were obliged to serve the full sentences despite the public commitments given.

In subsequent negotiations the Sinn Féin leadership raised the anomalous position relating to ‘On The Runs’ (OTRs) –– those who were away from home for many years due to the threat of arrest and who would have benefited from early release under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement had they been in prison.

The British and Irish governments agreed at Weston Park in 2001 to resolve this issue.

Paragraph 20 of the Weston Park Agreement states:

Both governments recognise that there is an issue to be addressed, with the completion of the early-release scheme, about supporters of organisations now on ceasefire against whom there are outstanding prosecutions, and in some cases extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10 April 1998. Such people would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early-release scheme.

The governments accept that it would be a natural development of the scheme for such prosecutions not to be pursued and will as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of the year, take such steps as are necessary in their jurisdiction to resolve this difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued.

The text of the above paragraph represents, in Sinn Féin’s view, an explicit and unambiguous commitment by the governments not to pursue a conviction against anyone, who would, if convicted, stand to benefit from the early-release scheme.

The agreement at Weston Park makes it very clear that Gerry McGeough should not have been pursued, arrested, convicted or imprisoned.

Although Gerry McGeough will become eligible to apply for early release in less than 12 months, he should not have been arrested and should not now be in prison.

Post-Weston Park, for their own narrow political interests, the British Government failed to honour this commitment.

In the years since this agreement, Sinn Féin has, where possible, sought to facilitate a clarification of who considered themselves to be OTR with regard to the possibility of arrest should they return home to the North. Where we were able to establish that an individual was not under any threat of arrest and prosecution, we conveyed this to them directly or indirectly via family members or friends.

Our understanding is that a small number of people remain OTR. This is unacceptable to us and is an outstanding issue we are determined to resolve.

Gerry McGeough has alleged that he was told by Sinn Féin that he was safe to return home. This is not the case. He has further recently alleged (5 January):

There is a widespread informed belief that, as part of a secret deal between the Sinn Féin leadership, the unionists and the British Government, I was to be politically sacrificed. The Sinn Féin leadership desperately wants me to rot in silence in jail.

There is no basis to any of these silly allegations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senior party figures, including Gerry Adams, have publicly called for Gerry McGeough’s release from Maghaberry and his return to his family in Tyrone.

Sinn Féin delegations have met with Mr McGeough in prison to offer support and solidarity. Since his imprisonment we have consistently raised his case with both the British and Irish governments.

Let me be crystal clear so there is no room for ambiguity – Gerry McGeough should not be in prison. His conviction is conflict-related and he would clearly have been a qualifying prisoner under the Good Friday Agreement release scheme. The fact that he becomes eligible for release in around 12 months’ time is irrelevant to this discussion. He should be freed now.

Recently, Mr McGeough’s legal team have been in communication with me and I have made every effort to assist their ongoing legal bid to secure Gerry McGeough’s release. Our support for this action and for the wider political demand for his release will continue.

On the broader issue, we will continue to press both governments to use whatever mechanism is necessary to action the Weston Park commitment they entered into to resolve this issue.


  1. "This is unacceptable to us and is an outstanding issue we are determined to resolve."

    At what position does this issue take in the long list of those issues 'outstanding'? Like for instance Emergency Powers, removal of right to silence, extended detentions, Diplock Courts, RUC special branch operatives (now civilianised) --oh and that border issue too??

    It would appear that SF are now merely passive passengers on the coat tails of unionists.

    PS: What is the Catholic/Protestant ratio of the PSNI if civilian employees are included in the overall statistical tally?


  2. Tiarna,

    in many ways it underscores the myth of great negotiators. From any republican perspective what was delivered on policing was a very poor outcome. Muttering about the dark side of policing does not cut the mustard. In fact it is a statement of SF failure on the policing question. What they now have for all the republican effort is that SF support an armed British police force within a British NI

  3. But we DID get some very nice houses,and the dosh to live in them comfortably ...its Vals Gerry and the peacemakers x

  4. Marty,

    even in terms of reformism it has been a very poor outcome. I don't believe I ever met one volunteeer during the campaign who would have defended this as worth fighting for. Many came to accept it but none ever claimed to think it worthwhile when fighting. Morrison described decommissioning as an IRA surrender. I agree with him on that. But who was arguing for an IRA surrender?

  5. True Anthony I have not met a single ex active republican outside the gravy train clique who accepts qsf,s position on anything,the destruction of weapons was not in the gift of a few to do so and the surrender as you rightly say was never on any agenda,other than the now well heeled suited and booted few.

  6. Marty,

    there has never been a convincing explanation by them of how they got to this position

  7. All I,ve ever heard Anthony was "we werent going anywhere" or" burnt out"and the looks when the suggestion was made for maybe a change in leadership from the old burnt out lack of imagination and possibly suspect leadership,well as they say looks could kill ,those people most certainly would have to protect their position and sure its no wonder when we now see how the whole thing panned out,

  8. Marty,

    I don't believe the war could have been won. I don't believe that the scale of the defeat had to be so comprehensive. The questions that republicans raise today seem legitimate to me. If Morrison described decommissioning as an IRA surrender and Gibney/Hartley described a power sharing executive short of a Brit declaration of intent to withdraw as a sell out, why is it wrong for republicans to ask questions of them based on what they themselves said?

    What we see in the case of Gerry McGeough is the British state consolidating its victory over the Provisionals.

  9. AM

    Yes that could be considered as the sum total of SF negotiations, in a word, 'failure'.

    But if one considers the more positive achievement, namely, a statutory watchdog for human rights, then one must consider its place and value also. Prison issues proved to be the divisive human rights issues of the past, so much so, that it cost people their lives (prisoners, outside protestors or those implementing the regimes etc.). Such a watchdog, it could be presumed, was intended to flag human rights conditions and circumstances that bring a return to violence as an only option for those on the raw end of the stick.

    All current issues revolving around the prisons and prisoners do not reflect well on SF. I am wholly surprised that the NIHRC is not in the thick of the current prison issues at the behest of SF. Perhaps that too is another damp squib, or in SF valued opinion, "This is unacceptable to us and is an outstanding issue we are determined to resolve."


  10. Spot on a cara Gerry is imo a warning to all and sundry to keep in line,rather the war could have been won,well not with that leadership,who as it transpires really had no heart for it anyway, sure as Gerry says HE WASNT EVEN IN THE RA !had we as Alec said some more charismatic people and we did have, and had they been allowed to surface,then I,m sure the outcome would have been entirely different,as they say if your going to fight then fight to win ,those people only fought for crumbs of their masters table,

  11. Tiarna,

    I was at a conference in England a few years ago and I said to a senior Brit official 'you shafted republicans.' His answer was as concise as it was clear. 'Republicans shafted republicans.'

    The Brits know the score in terms of what their strategic objectives were. They achieved them to the point that they got the Provos os to push their key ideas.

    The prison abuses that we witness today are part of SF 'achievements.' They negotiated the situation that prevails today.

  12. Marty,

    I don't believe the war could have been won for a whole host of reasons. I remember talking to Jack Holland once. We were talking about how the IRA had been defeated. This is before it, in Morrison's terms, officially surrendered. We were discussing why it had lost the war. Jack had read the notes of Ian Phoenix for the book he was writing. He said the degree of penetration in Belfast that the notes revealed was unbelievable. The agent that Phoenix was handling was so senior that he met the key leaders on a daily basis and very much had his finger on the pie of operations. Jack's view was the degree of penetration simply did not allow the prosecution of a successful military campaign.

  13. AM

    Yes, in Unionist terms, SF have conceded to being 'house trained'.

    As an observer looking in I think a factor which SF now relies heavily upon for cohesion is the respect and regard that longstanding former 'comrades' have for each other, for example, blanket-men, who may now be of opposing opinions; neither may wish to politically gut the other out of some sense for 'old times sake'. That is what would occur if there was a serious attempt to ask, or answer, those questions that you refer to.

    I do not know, so maybe you can clarify this, but why are former IRA people more devout to SF even though that was not the organization that they had sworn an oath of allegiance to? I am not heralding a return to violence but wondering how the dogmatic adherence to ideals and principles was replaced by a such a passive readiness to capitulate?


  14. Tiarna,

    I suppose the old adage that people are more afraid of being isolated than they are of being wrong has something to do with it.

    Over the years I have spoken with so many of them and they have stated 'if they do X, Y or Z that is me finished.' But when X, Y and Z was done they stayed on and tried to justify it.

    A return to violence is both wrong and sterile but it does not preclude people asking questions.

    I think the failure of the IRA campaign is worthy of study for a variety of reasons. The notion that the outcome should be regarded as a victory when it flies in the face of everything said previously is not something that should be entertained.

    The current outcome can be defended from a refromist perspective even if it has serious limitations but it can hardly be defended from a republican perspective. We need only look at the discourse moulded against the Sticks for advocating and embracing similar policies.

  15. I was listening to qsf,s Sue Ramsey on bbc radio Ulster a wee while ago agreeing with her psni colleague about the problems with on street drunks, the first thing I did was reach for the nearest bottle,While I agree with you Anthony that the war could never have been won under the circumstances you mentioned, that is not to say a military victory was not achievable given a much tighter and cohesive organisation,the quality was imo there it lacked genuine leadership not ego hunters, I agree that agents of influence and the way they were able to help run the prm into the ground is a topic that needs to investigated, most of the carpetbaggers in qsf would have joined the uvf on Adams say so .

  16. AM

    Depending on what X,Y or Z might be I think that could well be the most pragmatic and sensible approach for some to take ...providing it was an effective (and somewhat palatable)approach? I would question, to some extent, the generational adherence to sacrifice, hardship and poverty that many republicans did/have burdened their families with.

    While many individual and collective campaigns continue in regard to past injustices SF seems to have bowed out of them all (except on occasion when being associated is politically advantageous).

    I have heard it said (by journalists) that SF have as much to hide as the Brits when it comes to high profile informers.

    I do note calls for the 'past to be left in the past' which comes strongest from the Unionist/Securocrate communities. These same voices are the most vocal in calling for all the state oppressive measures from the past to be enforced and built upon today; which is evidence that calls to leave the 'past in the past' are purely self serving.

    SF's acceptance to one of these options, and, refrain from objecting to the other is perhaps the most revealing of SF's direction... and meekly following(approving) that route for reasons of x y or z would hold no moral justification; again I would ask why would those who have dogmatically adhered to a position that involved enduring untold hardship, risks and personal loss, now capitulate at the behest of SF? I suppose the erratic and irrational ineffectual actions of the current (almost prolific) little bands of 'warlord' like organizations would discourage the stoutest heart.



  17. From Helen McClafferty:

    Decision on both McGeough's Appeal and Judicial Review will be handed down on Tuesday, February 28th

    Spoke to Gerry this morning. He has been informed by his attorney that the ‘judgment’ on both his Appeal, which was heard November 16, 2011, and his Judicial Review, which was heard on January 6, 2012, will be handed down on Tuesday - February 28th.

    The fact that both decisions will be handed down simultaneously, on the same day, is not a coincidence. Gerry believes this directive is coming from the highest political level within the British government. All we can do now is wait and hope for a positive outcome. Please keep Gerry and his family in your prayers.

  18. From Helen McClafferty:

    Mr. Patterson is beyond arrogant and his refusal to meet with Mr. Ramsey should be considered a slap in the face to all of us. Mr. Ramsey's attempt to address this issue directly with Mr. Paterson should be commended and we should all rally behind him regardless of political affiliation. Mr. Patterson’s refusal to accommodate such a request from an MLA in Stormont proves, beyond a doubt, the total contempt he and the British government have for the nationalist community and their elected officials.

    Secretary of State refuses to meet Derry MLA on Price and McGeough prison cases

    Feb 16

    Posted by seachranaidhe1

    The Secretary of State has refused to meet with SDLP Foyle MLA Pat Ramsey to discuss the ongoing cases of Marian Price, Gerry McGeough and the protesting prisoners at Maghaberry Prison.

    Mr Ramsey said that he was ‘disappointed and angry’ that Owen Paterson refused to meet with him and said his silence on the prison matters was ‘not conducive to efforts to address injustice and nurture public confidence in the justice system’.

    Mr Ramsey said: “I wrote to the Secretary of State immediately after returning from a visit to see Marian Price on 13th January to request an urgent meeting to discuss her case and the ongoing incarceration of Gerry McGeough as well as the general situation within Roe House in Maghaberry Prison. I received a reply from the Secretary this morning to say he would not meet me and that it would be ‘inappropriate’ for him to comment further.


    “I find it ‘inappropriate’ to say the least that Marian Price has had her licence revoked on the Secretary’s say so, and that Gerry McGeough is still held in Maghaberry due to Owen Paterson’s refusal to grant him justice. The Secretary of State and the NIO‘s selective silence is not conducive to our efforts to address injustice and nurture public confidence in the justice system.”

    Ms Price has been held in solitary confinement at Maghaberry Prison for over nine months without charge. She was arrested after holding a piece of paper for a masked man at an annual Easter Rising commemoration in Derry, a few days later Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Owen Paterson revoked her release from prison on license.

    “Perhaps Mr Patterson’s time would be better spent in the archives of the NIO looking for Marian Price’s pardon that has been ‘lost’ if he is not available to elected representatives to give account for his actions – or inaction - and that of his staff,” Mr Ramsey said. “It is unacceptable and merely strengthens the will of those who seek to destroy the society we are building, by pointing out that unaccountable politicians in London continue to meddle in affairs that play out in our communities day and daily.”

    With Many Thanks To : NewsWire

  19. Yes Helen credit where credit is due Pat Ramsey is at least keeping a light lit on this issue and he should be commended for it,

  20. Tiarna,

    'I have heard it said (by journalists) that SF have as much to hide as the Brits when it comes to high profile informers.'

    Have no reason to disagree with that. Scap was hardly the highest placed.

    I think Barney Rowan mentioned that at a discussion a while back and the only response to him was maybe the spooks fed that line.

    That was said in defence of Scap also.

  21. AM

    It was mentioned to me some years ago. I am also aware of some lawyers working on cases that they described to me as "cases involving collusion between the RUC and Republicans; the RUC did not just collude with Loyalists". Separately, but in line with what the Lawyers claim, I am aware of a case that involved a London crook, MI5 supplied vehicle license plates, and the IRA killing the week link in the chain that helped cover the whole thing up... go figure.


  22. Tiarna,

    that makes sense. What got my antennae twitching a number of years ago was someone trying to argue that collusion was a matter of the Brit state and loyalists. He was trying to throw cold water on any investigation into Scap.I found this self serving and felt it was more about protecting him than Scap given his relationship to Scap

  23. Anthony we all saw the rush led by Kelly and aided and abetted by the Anytout news to kill the Scap story,it was a lot more than trying to face a few red faces in the prm,

  24. sorry that post should have read save a few red faces in prm ,