LMFM Radio 95.8FM Drogheda
28 March 2014
Michael Reede (MR) interviews Anthony McIntyre (AM) about Gerry Adams' recent comments about the Boston College tapes.
(begin at time stamp 15:50)
MR: Now earlier this week the Sinn Féin President and TD for Louth, Gerry Adams, explained to me why he instructed his solicitor to let the PSNI know that he's available to them if they wish to speak to him about the “disappearance” and killing of Jean McConville.
(An audio clip from that interview is played and is transcribed here).
Sinn Féin President and Louth TD Gerry Adams: This arises, Michael, and it's quite interesting. The media in The North, and I was in the North on Sunday, there was a frenzy of reportage that I was about to be arrested. And this arises from the arrest and the charging of a man called Ivor Bell who allegedly has made a tape as part of this totally bogus Boston oral project in which it's alleged that he implicated himself in certain activities around the IRA. So there's a big media run at this. And I simply put out a statement saying that I've no issue about meeting the PSNI and I have asked my solicitor to get in touch with them. I also, as I've done fairly consistently, took issue with this Boston oral history project.
You know, it's, all of those interviewed by it are avowedly anti-Sinn Féin, avowedly against the peace process, against the Sinn Féin leadership. It's a very flawed, partisan project - shoddy and self-serving. It is not a serious or genuine, ethically based history project. (Audio clip ends)
MR: Anthony McIntyre a former IRA prisoner was the lead researcher in the Boston College Belfast Project and conducted the oral history interviews with Republicans for the archive and is with me in the studio. Good Morning to you, Anthony McIntyre, and thanks for joining us here on the programme.
Gerry Adams issued a statement in relation to all of this pretty much in line with what we've just heard there. You issued a statement contesting what Gerry Adams has to say. And in case there is any confusion he is talking specifically about you.
He says the idea for the Boston oral history project originated with Paul Bew, an advisor to David Trimble, and was taken up by Ed Moloney and Anthony McIntyre, who conducted the interviews. Both are vitriolic critics and opponents of the Sinn Féin peace strategy, of me in particular and of Sinn Féin and its leadership. Your response to all of that.
AM: Well I don't think that Mr. Adams would recognise ethics if it bit him in the backside.
I am very much of the view that his narrative on this is self-serving and shoddy. The real shoddy, false narrative is Mr. Adams' narrative of no involvement in the IRA.
And in terms of it being a shoddy academic exercise allow me to quote from Judge William G. Young, who has read, unlike Mr. Adams...
MR: This is a US federal judge...
AM: This is a US federal court judge who has read a hundred and seventy plus interviews, transcripts of the interviews that Boston College regrettably handed over when it had no need to hand over to him but it is what it is.
And Judge Young said:
This was a bona fide academic exercise of considerable intellectual merit ... These materials are of interest, valid academic interest historian, sociologist, the student of religion, the student of youth movements, academics who are interested in insurgency and counter-insurgency and terrorism and counter-terrorism. They're of interest to those who study the history of religions.
Now that's far removed from the characterisation of the project that has been offered by Deputy Adams.
MR: You say that the core issue in all of this is Gerry Adams' denial of his membership of the IRA.
AM: What I'm saying is it's not the core issue in terms of what this project was about. But it's certainly the core issue for Mr. Adams because he has strenuously denied that he was ever a member of the IRA.
And the day that academics and journalists and researchers and historians discover that Mr. Adams was not a member of the IRA is the same day that scientists will discover that Newton's Theory of Gravity was wrong. That the apple, when it comes off the tree, actually goes up the way rather than falls to the ground.
MR: Is his denial of his IRA membership feeding into all of this? You've been writing on your blog, The Pensive Quill, about this and how it wasn't necessary for him to deny membership, that he could have fudged the issue if you like. But because he denies his links with the organisation and his relationship with the people who were involved in that organisation, in particular Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price, it led to what they told you, what Brendan Hughes told you and what Dolours Press had told the press.
AM: Certainly in the case of Brendan Hughes and Dolours Price they were deeply unhappy that Mr. Adams had denied his membership of the IRA. They felt that all he had to say was “no comment”. They thought that the introduction into the public discourse of such a massive dishonesty was certainly not the ethical way to go. And I suspect, yeah, their decision to be revealing about Mr. Adams' role in the IRA was in part prompted by his disavowals of association with the organisation.
MR: If Gerry Adams was Officer Commanding for the West Belfast Brigade or had any other role in the IRA why has it not been proven up to this point? There's obviously no record of all of this.
AM: There's a very strong record of this. Can you name me one historian, one journalist, one researcher ... I challenge you to name me one that has found...
MR: But I would go further than that and Gerry Adams with agreed on this point: There's nobody in this country who thinks that he wasn't a member of the IRA. Or at least the majority. .. he agreed with me on that point: that the majority of the people in this country believe that he was a member of the IRA.
AM: Why?
MR: But he denies it.
AM: Of course he denies it. He also denies the, being involved in the killing of Jean McConville. Unless Mr. Adams is able to demonstrate otherwise I assign equal truth status to each statement. Or equal untruth status. Each statement is equally true or equally untrue. Can he give me a reason why we should believe one and not the other? Mr Adams has continuously denied membership of the IRA as a means to fuel his political career. We are taking on ... I mean it would be a major travesty of the whole intellectual community, North and South, were they to have called it wrong on this. And whether or not Mr Adams was a memebr of the IRA is not the issue for me. Trying to say to me, or anybody trying to assert to me that Gerry Adams was not in the IRA is on par with saying Mr Paisley was never in the DUP or Margaret Thatcher wasn't leader of the Conservative Party. It is such a recorded fact of intellectual life.
Not proven in the court. But that is secondary because I was found not guilty in a court in 1983 of being a member of the IRA while I sat in the court as a member of the IRA. I had been a longtime member of the IRA.
I just don't buy it.
MR: Gerry Adams undoubtedly is listening to this or to a recording of this and will undoubtedly respond by saying that you're an opponent of the peace process and the direction that he's taken the Republican Movement in...
AM: I am. Yes.
MR: ...and that that is fueling your comments today and previous comments that you've made.
AM: No, it is not. I believe that I have never, and I can stand over this and say that I have never written anything that I did not believe to be true. If I did not believe that Mr Adams was not a member - If I did believe Mr. Adams was not a member of the IRA I wouldn't write it. I am a critic of Sinn Féin. I am a critic of the peace process. But I'm strongly for the peace. Because I believe the process is a, from a Republican point of view, an ideological travesty. It is an intellectual fallacy. And it's political opportunism.
When Mr. Adams makes the allegation, as he did in The Andersonstown News a few days ago, that all the people involved in the Boston College project were avowedly anti-peace and anti-Good Friday Agreement - this was another false narrative as spun by Mr. Adams.
I will give you an example: Richard O'Rawe for example, who has openly admitted being part of the Boston College project, voted for The Good Friday Agreement, supports the peace process. Now Mr. Adams' issue with Richard O'Rawe is that Richard O'Rawe has compellingly constructed a narrative around the 1981 hunger strike which shows that the Sinn Féin leadership sabotaged the deal that would have brought about an end to the hunger strike and saved the lives of six men. And Richard O'Rawe has been rubbished. Richard O'Rawe has been smeared. Everybody that disagrees with Mr. Adams or tries to hold Mr. Adams to any sort of public scrutiny is immediately smeared or dismissed. It's a time honoured tactic. And it doesn't concern me in the slightest...
MR: Why? I mean if what you're saying is correct why would he take that approach? Would it actually damage Gerry Adams to admit that he was a member of the IRA?
AM: Well, I think there's two aspects to this. I think firstly that what it would do if he was to admit he was a member of the IRA, and I would not advise him to admit being a member of the ÍRA, is that it could lead to charges from a vindictive police force in The North. There would be a howl from the Unionist community to have him charged. But I would expect him not to introduce a massive dishonesty into intellectual or public discourse. And I would expect him to simply say: “no comment” because he is ridiculed continuously over these denials.
Secondly, I think Mr. Adams is of a view that it is to his disadvantage as he tries to climb the political ladder to admit to membership of the IRA or directing the IRA campaign.
MR: Mr. Adams referred to a recent arrest in relation to the killing of Jean McConville. Did that emanate from your recordings?
AM: The police alleged that it did. But I have never confirmed that I interviewed Mr. Bell. I've never said that I interviewed Mr. Bell.
MR: You didn't want these recordings to be handed over to the PSNI...
AM: Obviously not.
MR: Well, perhaps you could explain that yourself.
AM: I'm a researcher and I'm a journalist and I carried out this in good faith. And I had hoped that it would be beneficial to posterity at some point to future historians of the conflict...also as an aid for truth recovery.
But as a journalist and a researcher my first ethical obligation is to protect from harm those people who participated in revealing confidential information to me. I have tried from the outset to ensure that I was successful and unfortunately the case that I had mounted in defence, along with my colleague Ed Moloney, in the United States has failed. It has curbed, ultimately the resistance curbed the amount of tapes that were handed over. But tapes have been handed over and there has been a process of arrest.
MR: Has that put you in danger?
AM: Well, I've always suspected that I would be in danger as a result of this.
I know that, sorry, in the year 2000 when I was writing in West Belfast and living in West Belfast I accused the IRA of having carried out the murder, the shoot-to-kill murder, public execution, broad daylight in Ballymurphy on the thirteenth of October, 2000. And immediately my home was picketed by members of Mr. Adams' party - mobs on two separate occasions surrounded it.
Mr. Adams wrote an article that the IRA was not responsible and accused me - again a smear - of being a fellow traveler of the Real IRA because I had spoken out against a killing. The IRA leadership visited my home. One of the people in the IRA leadership is now a current senior figure within Sinn Féin. They tried to intimidate me and my pregnant wife but we resisted that intimidation.
So I do feel that there is, there's a potential for a threat. But I don't stay awake at night saying: well, it's going to happen to me and I'm terrified of it. I live with the possibility but I'm not going to run around in fear.
MR: Now just to conclude in the brief time that we have ... the statement that you've issued may beg questions of Gerry Adams. Mr. Adams may end up in the spotlight again for a short while and the comments you've made here this morning may even add to that. But do you accept that, as has been the case on every other occasion that these questions have been asked of Mr. Adams, it'll fizzle out quickly enoug?
AM: That's a possibility. But I also believe that Mr. Adams has been drawn closer and closer into this and the whole issue here for Mr. Adams I think is fraught with dangers.
I would raise the question because Mr. Adams' party members - the former Lord Mayor of Derry on his Twitter account – has been accusing the people in the Boston College project of being involved in a touting programme. That is labeling those people informers.
The question I would put to Mr. Adams is: if any trial ever emerges in relation to the killing of Jean McConville and people who are either charged or who have knowledge about the killing of Jean McConville are willing to use the court as a truth commission or a truth tribunal, does Mr. Adams support their right to give evidence in open court? Would he think they're right to do that? And if he does think they're right to do that would he then ensure, or would he insist on his party desisting from calling the people who participated in the project touts or anybody that decides to give evidence in court as part of a truth commission ... will he desist from calling them touts?
MR: You've told me that you'll be happy to come back and discuss this with Gerry Adams if he's available to do that. We've put that as a proposition to Mr. Adams already and perhaps we'll talk again. But thank you indeed for coming in today.
AM: Thank you very much.
MR: Thank you indeed. So that's Anthony McIntyre, former IRA prisoner himself, who was the lead researcher in the Boston College Belfast Project and conducted the oral history interviews with Republicans for the archive. (ends at time stamp 31:25)
Anthony
ReplyDeleteI can remember a live televised debate that Adams took part in on UTV or BBC NI were he was asked a series of random questions from the audience that was made up of 5th & 6th year school pupils from NI.
I can’t remember the exact question he was asked by a pupil but it began with these words’ when you were in the IRA bla bla bla bla bla….
Adams seemed to be caught off guard a little by the question but not once during the whole debate did he ever deny he was ever in the IRA.
I can’t remember exactly when the debate took place but something tells me it was around the same time that Martin Meehan & Michael Stone were bearing all in a different televised programme with victims families.
I don’t have a problem with anyone who believes it’s in their own best interests to admit to fuck all, to me that’s fair enough, but whenever the same person/people are advocating an independent truth commission to be set up that is supposed to clear the air then that’s a genuine definition of hypocrisy and taking the cunt.
Adams & McGuinness have been recorded on TV claiming to support such a commission being set up and if and whenever such a thing happens the first people in the chair needs to be the British government followed by Adams & McGuinness and if their replies to a series of questions are not satisfactory the whole thing should be abandoned.
Personally I believe Adams & McGuinness know full well that such a commission will never ever happen because it would be political suicide for their careers and an end to Stormont, to me all they’re doing is pandering to the deluded saps who listen/vote for them.
Say that, I would like to see one set up to call their bluff.
You've told me that you'll be happy to come back and discuss this with Gerry Adams if he's available to do that. We've put that as a proposition to Mr. Adams already and perhaps we'll talk again. But thank you indeed for coming in today
ReplyDeleteI'd like to be a fly the wall if the above comes off.. Just to watch Gerry Adams face..
For me, there is one thing that calls into question as to whether the Boston Project was conceived and carried out of good intent. That same one thing is probably the reason why the Boston Project, in my opinion, has turned into the debacle that it has - and with the unfortunate consequences that it has brought on for a 77 year old age pensioner and god knows who else.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing is – Brendan Hughes was hardly cold in his grave when Ed Maloney rushed to publish his story.
Ed Maloney sensationalised the subject as good as any red top tabloid could do. And he seemed to do this without due regard to all the others who told their story or the historical archive itself. The title ‘Voices from the Grave’ doesn’t seem to have any academia or intellectual ring to it. Was Ed more motivated by having a best seller book and all the status, financial and otherwise, that would flow from that and bugger everybody else? Or was it more personal than that? Only Ed really knows.
I think if the Boston Project was conceived for the selfless reasons that the authors claim then a time limit of 30 years or 50 years could have been put on the release of any material.
Given a participant an assurance that their account would not be available until after their death, was a stick up. Any of the participants could have died the day after they gave their testimony. Had participants being told their testimony would be published before their death they probably wouldn’t have given it. So it was a bottom line assurance; the participants could not have received a less weak assurance.
It is debatable as to whether such an assurance could at all be in the interest of the dead person. The assurance was certainly not in the interests of those who didn’t die first as a certain 77 year old might testify. And of course such an assurance didn’t do anything to protect the interests of those who were maybe identified (wrongly as likely as rightly) in the tape recordings. But where the assurance to the participants and others was weak it gave an absolute controlling interest to the authors.
I don’t have any respect for Gerry Adams. I knew and respected Brendan Hughes. Had it been anybody but him that made the allegations about Jean McConville I would say the person was obviously embittered and I therefore would not regard the allegations as absolute truth for that reason.
That said, I think if Hughes knew others were immediately going to get caught up in the fall out of anything he said I don’t think he would have said anything. I think Hughes would have understood his testimony was being recorded for posterity. I think he would have thought long and hard about giving his testimony if he known it was going to become a ‘current’ news story. In that sense Hughes may have been duped.
Even as a lay person I am in no doubt that once Ed Maloney published the McConville allegations the PSNI (and maybe at the behest of McConville family if nothing else) would have had an onus on themselves to follow the matter to the end of the earth. The right to life is enshrined in human rights legislation the world over. A live murder enquiry is always likely, to near certainty, to trump any other ‘interests’ or considerations in a Court.
Ed Maloney must have considered there would been repercussions for others in his publishing of Brendan Hughes story particularly those other’s who participate in the Boston Project - so what was the motivation for rushing to print?
eddie,
ReplyDeleteFor me you make some sound arguments there but putting a 30 or 50 year time frame is that not a from of censorship?
My on opinion on the Boston project is that I personally believe that none of it should've been revealed until everyone who was involved it it including interviewee, those mentioned in the transcripts PLUS any interviewers were all six foot under to the last man/woman, and that the testimonies should not have been revealed once a single particular individual had died.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the project should never have been undertaken without the assurances from the American, British and Irish governments guaranteeing that no request would be made for the transcripts until everyone involved in it were dead.
I think if things had happened as above it really would have been "voices from the Graves" and not just "Voices from the Grave" which I bought when first published.
Why can we not have a history like everyone else? Why?
ReplyDeleteThose involved Collin's 'Squad'
provided candid accounts.
If Ivor had of been party to the 'process' this would never have happened to him.
If the tapes are the key to the 'debacle' why has the main protagonist not been arrested?
I for one was quite glad to read Brendan's account.
Ed Maloney is an author by profession is sensationalism not the mechanism that sells books.
should he maybe have told the respondents, 'thanks but we'll keep it all low key'
The mayor in Derry has been party to a process that advocates informing and yeah he too had issues.
I don't know about the revolution eating it's children, this one seems to have created thinking so insular that we are now devouring ourselves.
If people can come here and provide a conclusive case that these arrests can be led firmly at the door of the research, well and good but I seriously doubt it.
Fionnuala,
ReplyDeleteThese tapes were always going to cause a furore in the unionist community. I think on reflection people are just thinking maybe it could have been handled better. I have not meet anybody who doesn't believe the tapes shouldn't have been done or our history shouldn't be recorded.
The real hazards of the project are beginning to come into fruition, first Anthony had been the victim of intimidation by those in government who also attempted to smear his family and now those who participated in giving testimonies who have steadfastly refused to show their support for the piss process are being investigated.
ReplyDeleteWas it all worth the aggravation?
Would it not have been better for everyone involved to be dead and gone and then let someone else argue over it in the future.
Does anyone believe that Adams will do time over all this? not a chance. McGuinness will request a wee pardon for him at the dinner table.
David Higgins.
ReplyDeleteI have heard it said and I have heard it said over and over!
Brendan was dead two years when the book went to publication.
That publication was greeted with an echo of voices from Sinn Fein, all saying Brendan was unhinged when he took part.
A treacherous bastard who actually tried to murder Brendan added his voice to the chorus.
Then the unhinged line died a death, to be replaced by Brendan the tout.
Of course Brendan was embittered and he was perfectly entitled to be.
Sold and lied to by a friend who was his commander. Can anyone imagine what betrayal on that scale feels like?
What other commanding officer ever denied being
part of his regiment?
Time out of number I have heard people come here
and say they understood his denial. But his denial had
Nothing to do with breaking IRA codes, because he had no problem wiping his feet over all the other Army orders when he overseen the surrender of weapons and all the other treachery he bathed himself in.
Then, the arch Adams betrayer tells the world. During the gore and the less palatable bits I wasn't there I was in goal or up in Clonard selling them all down the bloody Swanee.
Max,
I don't care if Adams does time or not! As a Republican I don't believe in advocating the arrest of people for Political offences.
What I do find strange though, is if these tapes are as detrimental as we are told why has he not been arrested.
No doubt he has been schooled that anything said about him constitutes hearsay but then how come a statement that isn't made under caution and in the presence of two cops constitutes evidence?
There may be a case that it could have been handled better, however, trust is a two way agreement and if one party reneges who is guilty? The reneger or the people reneged upon?
Fionnuala,
ReplyDeleteI don.t have a problem with anything you said. I met Brendan Hughes only once but he is a hero of mine. I didn't say anything about Brendan or Adams my only point is in the future the parties involved will have to be a little bit wider with people they give materials to.
I believe it is imperative that our volunteers tell their stories uncensored when possible.
David
ReplyDeleteI don’t think giving an assurance of a 30 or 50 year embargo is a form of censorship else the assurance that a participant’s testimony is not revealed until that participants death is also a form of censorship. Obviously the purpose of any assurance on publication in these circumstances was to safeguard the participants against going to jail via self incrimination. I think the safeguards were insufficient and as it turned out they were insufficient.
Max
I would agree with you and the assurance stipulations that you listed. There is some gap between those assurances and the assurance that was given. The assurance that was given seemed to suit those who had a desire to publish more than it afforded any protection to the participants. I don’t think any reasonable person would dispute that or that the whole thing has unfortunately turned into a debacle.
The only thing that remains to be queried is if the lack of safeguards were due to reasons of naivety or due to some other reason involving self-interest. It would appear that there are some here that think I shouldn’t raise that query and the same people talk about SF stifling debate. Thank Christ two of the three posts after my post were in some sort of agreement with my view else I might have found myself ostracised in the MH corner.
I would be all for us having a history but not at the expense of somebody going to jail for writing it, especially when I myself wouldn’t be prepared to write it and go to jail.
Eddie my take on the release of 'Voices' is simple.
ReplyDeleteBrendan Hughes wanted his truth in print before he died and Anthony said something like "Can't do that Brendan because of X,Y & Z.." And Brendan replied "Fair enough but shake my hand and promise as soon as possible after my death, you'll get it into print".. And Anthony simply honoured a commitment to a friend..
I believe it's as simple as that.
Thanks for that Frankie and that sounds more like the Brendan Hughes we all knew and loved. But your intervention raises more questions than it answers. I assume what you say is correct else I imagine Anthony would not have published your comment without commenting himself.
ReplyDeleteIf what you say is true and I dont doubt you but why could it not have been mentioned before now?
Having been privileged to some information do you know what the X, Y and Z reasons were?
Are you implying the reasons for not publishing his story before his death was solely in the interests of Brendan Hughes?
AM,
ReplyDeleteNot sure how the public would perceive this interview. You and Adams have come across as two old protagonists who are simply ‘bitching’ at each other....again. Hasn’t McGuinness openly admitted his role in the IRA and he wasn’t arrested and charged and his public persona is currently much more prominent. To be honest, Adams has gone as far as he can politically. He’ll never amount to more than the level he has achieved. What I think he is afraid of is an Omagh bomb type civil case against him...for through that what he has achieved, he would lose everything. What is surprising is that the Brits have never pushed for this and they hold all the cards...I wonder why?!?!??!?!?!
If what you say is true and I dont doubt you but why could it not have been mentioned before now? Having been privileged to some information do you know what the X, Y and Z reasons were?
ReplyDeleteIt has been mentioned before
It has been said by some that he should have vented his views when alive. The fact is that Brendan wanted his account out long before he died. It took an enormous amount of persuasion from both myself and Ed Moloney to have him stay his hand.
Are you implying the reasons for not publishing his story before his death was solely in the interests of Brendan Hughes?
I'm saying the opposite Eddie. Brendan Hughes was prepared to stand over his words while very much alive and in relativly good health. And he was persuaded by Anthony & Ed change his mind because of the other interveiwee's....
I'm also convinced that apart from Voices, no other material from the archieve would have been released until I was in old and and grey..(I've a few yrs in me before that happens)..By that time the interviewee's would be dead (natural or otherwise). I also reckon there were people interviewed who support the GFA.. I'm basing my opinion on reading both The Blanket and TPQ. Anthony has always let a wide range of opinions on his sites.. Both Pro and Anti GFA..Using the law of probability he's applied the same school of thought to the Belfast Project.
David,
ReplyDeleteThe furore has never ended over the tapes.
There are a sizeable amount of people who don't think our history should be recorded. As I said, when the book first came out there was an opening of the floodgates and all the wrath spilled out.
I didn't imply you said anything about Adams or Brendan.
I was just thinking out loud about some of the stuff that hit the fan when the book was published and how it was linked at the time to the recording of history.
Now we are left with the sorry conclusion that there will only be one view of history recorded here.
We are also left with the stern reminder that our is no longer our history, it has been bought and paid for and all the guarantees in the world were never going to make a dent in that agreement.
I think one MAJOR weakness of the Irish liberation movement was and still is this flunkeyism of looking up to the US and involving Americans into things they have nothing to do with and have no right to know. It beggars belief that any person in the right state of mind could/can seriously think that an imperialist power somehow would "pressurize" its own partner-in-crime for the sake of Irish or any other nation. I wonder where this pathetic disbelief in Irish people's own ability to sort out their own struggle came from. Is it a legacy of colonial mentality? In any case, today everybody can see that involving Americans into Irish liberation/unification struggle was a fatal mistake.
ReplyDeleteMartin Mc Guinness is as big a liar as the bearded one. He swore under oath that he left the IRA in 1974, anyone that believes that still believes in the tooth fairy !
ReplyDeleteMartin Mc Guinness is as big a liar as the bearded one, he swore under oath that he left the Ra in 1974, anyone who believes that must also still believe in the tooth fairy !
ReplyDeleteJane Drebin,
ReplyDeleteThere has always been an Irish / American connection a connection that dates back to the famine.
Not all the American people can be held responsible for their government's imperialist stance, just as not all Irish Republicans can be held responsible for the Sinn Fein sell out.
Having said that you do raise some very relevant points and in relation to the American / British connection I believe you are right.
Eddie
ReplyDeleteI think you would have to work very very hard at being very very stupid to earn yourself an exclusive page like McLvor, from what i've read of his posts it seems he had more lives than a city full of cats.
Oh...and being a councilor in PSF (progressive stupied fuckers) party would've helped.
ReplyDeleteJane
ReplyDeleteAs in the Malvinas war, buying weapons from the USA (Britain's friend was a fatal flaw on the Argentine military's part. It cost them the war. Every UK ship was hit before ever getting near the Malvinas only the munitions failed to explode.
No different in the Boston College research. Partners in crime, land of the 'free' and Perfidious Albion.
Eddie,
ReplyDelete'The one thing is – Brendan Hughes was hardly cold in his grave when Ed Maloney rushed to publish his story.'
Attention applied to any subject contributes significantly to informed opinion. TPQ, The Broken Elbow and the Boston College Subpoena News have comprehensively and consistently documented every aspect of the project, from it's conception to the present and ongoing controversy. Your commentary manifests an ignorance to key information and the most elementary of timelines.
David Ervine and Brendan Hughes died in January 2007 and February 2008 respectively. Voices From The Grave was published in March 2010.
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteyou seem a touch paranoid and unsure there is no elephant in the room you shouldn’t feel that you need others to give your own posts some creditability.
Mickey dug his own pit so why the need for the nonsense remark that you might end up sharing a corner with him.