24TH FEB 2016
SANDS FAMILY RESPONDS TO PUBLICATION OF BOOK – ‘BOBBY SANDS FREEDOM FIGHTER’
The Sands family wish it to be known that at no time were they consulted regarding the accuracy of the content published in the book Bobby Sands Freedom Fighter, which is claimed to be factual.
It is reprehensible that the family, including our elderly mother, was first made aware of this book when confronted by extracts displayed in the media today.
We are given to understand that the book contains intimate family scenes that no one, other than our family members, would be privy to.
It is unfortunate that well meaning people, such as Mr Hunt (author) are misled by those who profess to be authorities on Bobby’s life story.
Our family once again reiterates that the Bobby Sands Trust does not act on behalf of Bobby, nor does it represent our family, in any shape or form. We again call upon the Trust to disband and desist from using Bobby’s memory as a commercial enterprise.
Once again an opportunity to promote Bobby’s ideals and sacrifice that he died for has been diminished by those who seek to promote different agendas - both personal and political.
The Sands Family
What a feckn disgrace.ReplyDelete
Just as Che Guevarra's image has been used as a neo-liberal cash cow, milking Bobby's sacrifice is appalling. Show some feckn respect and respect his families wishes.
My first thought is if the author did not do any basic research to verify his information then it does not sound like a good book --I am also surprised the publisher did not catch this just to avoid anything that might be defamatory.ReplyDelete
never worry about those who don't worry about you ,in this instance I,m worried about neither !ReplyDelete
Does the book mention the allegation by Sir Charles Moore in Volume 1 of his magnum opus on Margaret Thatcher that Bobby Sands was a wife-beater?ReplyDelete
Is this the same Sir Charles 'Hypocrit' Moore who believes "in the importance of concealment in these [matrimonial] matters and, if you like, hypocrisy." And the same Sir Charles who George Galloway kicked his ass in court for making up false claims about him?
it was never a serious question to begin with and would easily have been seen through. A weak attempt to introduce a smear without accepting responsibility for introducing it: using Moore as a proxy. But free speech also extends to that type of commentary as well.
Over 7000 page views in a day. That must be a record for this blog which can at times take quite a lot of traffic. It indicates a clear interest in something other than the lies pumped out by those associated with the Bobby Sands Trust.ReplyDelete
I figured that much but sometimes when bogus claims like that are left off then they can arise again as an unchallenged claim that becomes fact.
I wonder how 7000 pages views translates into book sales?
you were right to pose the challenge
Bobby and nine other brave men died on Hunger Strike before they would surrender to Thatcher's demands that they accept the tag of criminality.ReplyDelete
In recent months the Shameless Shinners surrendered Welfare back into the hands of Thatcher's Tory party to save their jobs and the very Stormont the PRM swore to smash around the time of the Hunger Strikes.
How can such a spineless party lay claim to the name of Bobby or any of those brave men?
"They will not criminalise us, rob us of our true identity, steal our individualism, depoliticise us, churn us out as systemised, institutionalised, decent law-abiding robots. Never will they label our liberation struggle as criminal."- Bobby Sands.
When I watch them toasting the British Queen or grasping the hand of her son Charles or on TV acting as propaganda mouth-pieces for the British I see 'Systemised, institutionalised, decent law-abiding robots.'
Despicable but typical attempt by Morrison to label Bobby Sands' Family as being anti-Peace Process.ReplyDelete
Can these West Brits stoop no lower?
"Commenting on the Sands family’s call for the Bobby Sands Trust to disband, Danny Morrison said the latest call echoes a similar plea from family following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in late 1990s." - Danny Morrison.
before I hit the bed the page views came up at 7777 - a neat way to end the dayReplyDelete
Since the trust was initially set up to raise money for prisoners and their families, does that money now go to those currently in prisons? Can the sands family not legally challenge the trust for abuse of the purpose of the trust? I support the Sands family but I think a legal challenge rather than a statement would have more of an impact, would force them to reveal where the profits are going, how much the trust members are making and to be honest to show once and for all that their only concerns now and for power and money as they have long abandoned the beliefs that the 10 huger strikers died for.ReplyDelete
I had a veteran journalist here last year. He had been working abroad for some time. During the course of the conversation he asked me what Morrison was doing these days. I replied "smearing people". He laughed and asked me was he still doing that as he was doing it 30 years earlier when he had dealings with him. There is absolutely no surprise in learning that Morrison is trying to smear the family of Bobby Sands.
If his job is to smear he's not very good at it. He comes across as a nasty has been who is still trying to regain the favour of his master.ReplyDelete
Unless you have credibility you can't smear successfully. Who would buy it? He has none so the smears never work.ReplyDelete
I was only reporting on an allegation by Sir Charles Moore which to my knowledge nobody in the "Republican Movement" has contested or attempted legal action against. There again, certain "Volunteers" have form when it comes to spousal abuse e.g. Pearse McAuley not to mention Liam Adams and the perhaps 100 other sexual offenders protected by the "Republican movement".
I don't suppose either the book makes any mention of the homosexual rumours which certain H-Block activists put about Noel Maguire in order to force him to stand down to make may for Bobby Sands' candidature in the first Fermanagh-South Tyrone by-election in 1981. Would not really fit with the modern gay-friendly image of the "Republican Movement".
I merely pointed out that you were using a proven discredited source known to make false claims about people --the British Judiciary is my source to back up my exposure of your mudslinging.
I exposed your 'authoritative source' and you launch into a homophobic rant. I could point out who in the Conservative party are homosexual because that would bother you but but it would be disrespectful to the LBGT community for me to do that so I wont.
But how about the involvement of leading Conservatives like Perfumo, Janner, Saville or Prince Andrew in pedophilia? My mention of these names in no way is a defense of Liam or Gerry Adams for their silence and/or abuse of children.
You were talking a lot of crap and got caught out. You are clearly a pretty guttural individual and so you are probably going to try and bring things lower to defend your little corner of some gutter; unfortunately, that is all your kind can do.
Ps: Oh Yes, in UK Law you cannot defame the dead so Sir Charles probably escaped another thrashing in a British Court.ReplyDelete
I am a supporter of gay and lesbian rights. It was H-Block supporters who displayed homophobia by trying to "out" Noel Maguire at a time when homosexuality was punishable by life imprisonment in Northern Ireland; they obviously knew what buttons to push. It is from one of Martin Dillon's books that I reference the Noel Maguire story.
I have never been a member of the Conservative Party so why do you drag up Profumo et al (Saville and Janner horrible individuals that they were did not belong to the Tories so do some fact checking)The covering up of paedophilia by the British establishment, Catholic Church and Provisional "Republican" movement all represent the abuse of power by undemocratic and unaccountable organisation with the capacity to bully and intimidate.
You have wilfully chosen to misrepresent what I have said; mind you it is hardly surprising that pathological killing machines such as PIRA would have had their in their franks a fair proportion of rapists and spousal abusers.
"You have wilfully chosen to misrepresent what I have said;" No I didn't, I stopped taking you seriously when I saw you were broadening into other arguments in attempt to deflect or bolster your original unfounded assertion that Bobby Sands was a wife beater. So your not homophobic that still has no relevance with what you claimed.
Nor did I say you were a member of the conservative party -Saville is reputed to have been a Conservative Party donor and personal friend to Maggie Thatcher whose name you happened to mention in your first post -Janner was what is considered to be part of the backbone or cream of British Hierarchy where the labels labour/conservative are merely fudging terms. You did however grasp my point that reprehensible conduct recognises no political, national or Class divide.
When I pointed out to you that your source was a confirmed liar who is prepared to make false claims about people in order to attack their reputation -you did not correct your error when caught out using such a disreputable source but you have continued to try and leave your claim standing as if it were true. And for clarity the British Judiciary have found him to be a liar and not I.
You posted your initial comment with one purpose in mind and that was to besmirch Bobby Sands. Bobby Sands does not care for obvious reasons but you have no right to cause unjustified hurt or distress to his family.
To repeat, I merely reported what Charles Moore had said about Bobby Sands; I did not make a definitive assertion that Bobby Sands was a wife beater as there iks no corroborating evidenc one way or the other. The libel battle with George Galloway which Moore lost is neither here nor there.
The deaths of Bobby Sands and the other nine hunger strikers were senseless and needless like every one of the 3,550 + Troubles deaths for which "Republicans" were responsible for just under 60% of them. The Hunger Strike was just another ghastly episode in the whole history of the death cult of "Republicanism". My motivation behind my postings was to shed some light on the nefariousness of the actors in that drama.
No you are not merely 'reporting' you have your own agenda. Having first attempted to use a discredited source known to make false claims about people your position now is a more general 'well it might be true'. That kinda reasoning reflects on you.
As for your 60% share of, as you put it, a 'death cult'. That 60% is also unreliable,for example the following case alone impacts on your statistics, currently a British government employee, Freddie Scappatcci, is being prosecuted for allegedly killing as many as 40 other government employees (excluding any members of the security forces he might also have killed). Now if there was a British Informers & Agents Union we could expect them to go on strike because of those harsh working conditions. Now here is a thought to your 'death cult' scenario; if such a Union did exist and all British Informers & Agents were to go on strike in all the wars and conflicts in which the British Government currently has its hand in, then such a strike could be mistaken for a unilateral global ceasefire.
Barry , did that magnum opus on thatcher u read mention anything about Jimmy savile being in chequers every xmas for ten years. Also, you say things like ghastly death cult etc etc when talking about Irish republicanism, just wondering are u one of those stunning hypocrites who turns a blind eye and says nothing about the slaughter of over one million Iraqis and fifty thousand Libyans . Someone who reads volumes of opus magnums on a psychotic deviant like thatcher probably spouts shite about democracy in those cases. Saddo.ReplyDelete