Originally Posted by Mr Aphorisms

Ah, so you loathe the old I.R.A as well? Well, at least you're honest. I actually agree with you about Breen. However, he was very good friends with the Big Fellow. But according to some on here, you'd expect Michael Collins to have ostracized someone like Breen from his company. Collins got excited by the Tip Brigades antics in January 1919 when the first Jerry McCabe instances happened in the Tan War.

We've nothing really to say then. You hate them all and I expect you're of the opinion that the volunteers of 1916 were all scum as well. Again, no problem with that at all, your opinion.

Correctamundo.
So pleased that you're willing to grant me my opinion....

Originally Posted by Henry Thomas

Correctamundo.
So pleased that you're willing to grant me my opinion....

No problem. I'm glad that you're not giving me your opinions, just your talking points.

I can honestly imagine you thinking in your head I am wearing a Celtic Jersey now. Do you want to throw the next line out? That anyone who doesn't run around saying "I.R.A bad men" wears a Celtic Jersey?

Honestly, you'd actually turn me to Dutch Gold and a Celtic Jersey with a Rat fringe haircut! Would you ever start debating instead of this foolishness. Your decrepit talking points are stupid.

Originally Posted by Mr Aphorisms

No problem. I'm glad that you're not giving me your opinions, just your talking points.

I can honestly imagine you thinking in your head I am wearing a Celtic Jersey now. Do you want to throw the next line out? That anyone who doesn't run around saying "I.R.A bad men" wears a Celtic Jersey?

Honestly, you'd actually turn me to Dutch Gold and a Celtic Jersey with a Rat fringe haircut! Would you ever start debating instead of this foolishness. Your decrepit talking points are stupid.

You really are quite extraordinarily self-absorbed!!!!
I don't think about you at all.
I'm just having fun returning your puerile attacks with interest!!!!

Originally Posted by Henry Thomas

You really are quite extraordinarily self-absorbed!!!!
I don't think about you at all.
I'm just having fun returning your puerile attacks with interest!!!!

They are puerile. You've brought me to your lower and the conversation's quality(if it had any) is dropping precipitously with each post. But I want you to debate instead of false accusations of antisemitism or that I hate the English.

Originally Posted by Sync

I really don't get the issue here. Taped interviews have been recorded which relate to terrorist offences. These tapes were recorded of the participants own free will without any sort of privilege being in place whatsoever. Of course concerned authorities investigating open cases are entitled to listen to those tapes.

I seriously doubt that this was the understanding of the interviewees when they agreed to the tape recordings.

The end result of this case is that no-one involved in any kind of conflict or struggle anywhere in the world is ever going to give an interview, taped or not, ever again. History will suffer most.

Originally Posted by ObsessiveMathsFreak

I seriously doubt that this was the understanding of the interviewees when they agreed to the tape recordings...

much as i agree with your conclusion, and share the same concerns - the people involved should have thought a bit harder about giving such candid interviews to a body which, regardless of what it might have promised, had no power to grant either silence or anomimity.

personally, i'm saddened that because of this we will learn less about the conflict: what caused what, and how it ended. yes i accept absolutely that there are those who believe that the interviews will yeild them some 'justice', but for me, given that any evidence will be hearsay, or at best one mans word against another, and even if a conviction was acheived, an imediate release under the GFA would ensue, i'm not sure its worth it.

but, of course, its not my relatives murderer who'se walking the streets...

Can't see what all the fuss is about, its not the first time someone made accusations against republicans, unless there is going to be some new accusations made.

Originally Posted by ObsessiveMathsFreak

I seriously doubt that this was the understanding of the interviewees when they agreed to the tape recordings.

The end result of this case is that no-one involved in any kind of conflict or struggle anywhere in the world is ever going to give an interview, taped or not, ever again. History will suffer most.

Completely agree, witnesses of past actions have been told to STFU without a shot being fired. Not a baseball bat in sight not a knee capped. Job done but, like if it hadda been PIRA or the UVF well, that would be a whole different ball game...

Originally Posted by sidney higginbottom

much as i agree with your conclusion, and share the same concerns - the people involved should have thought a bit harder about giving such candid interviews to a body which, regardless of what it might have promised, had no power to grant either silence or anomimity.

personally, i'm saddened that because of this we will learn less about the conflict: what caused what, and how it ended. yes i accept absolutely that there are those who believe that the interviews will yeild them some 'justice', but for me, given that any evidence will be hearsay, or at best one mans word against another, and even if a conviction was acheived, an imediate release under the GFA would ensue, i'm not sure its worth it.

but, of course, its not my relatives murderer who'se walking the streets...

That just about sums it up; caveat emptor isn't just for shopping online.

Originally Posted by Collegebhoy

Can't see what all the fuss is about, its not the first time someone made accusations against republicans, unless there is going to be some new accusations made.

Even at that they are accusations. It's those who gave the information who will have the problem. It's still regarded as touting. Thankfully it wont have the old repercussions it used to have but it does carry the stigma. That's why McIntyre has probably been crapping himself. It's the stigma and the status of tout that carries the burden. Some other poster suggested use of caveat emptor and to some degree I agree with that.