The facts of the hunger strikes have already been established

[Katayusha Mk2]

Irrespective of your standard bile, the terms of this offer are full of ambiguity. Prison work, as directed by the authorites, was most certainly part of the equation - the kind of things that criminals get to do. No amount of goal post shifting, evasion or lack of integrity on your part can get away from that.

Another wee hobby horse for Picador who's 'so not a shinner' to focus on.

The prison leadership, Bic McFarland (who later denied the existence of the offer) and Richard O Rawe considered the classification of OU study as work to be a significant enough concession. They believed that there was enough in the offer to end the protest. Do you consider your judgement to be superior to that of those actually in the prison at the time? I wonder where you get that attitude from.

[the dark angel]

[SIZE="2"]Thatcher[/SIZE] was unlikely to have admitted to 'talking to terrorists' as she would have put it, without good reason. Adams had the draft copy of the speech that she was to deliver announcing resolution of the protest; all they were waiting for was his ratification of the deal. This never happened. The British did actually 'go public' to an extent on various aspects of the offer through the medium of the ICJP negotiations, particularly in regard to clothing.

It is likely however that international leaders and some churchmen would have been informed of the offer confidentially, such knowledge may well have been part of [SIZE="2"]Denis Faul's [/SIZE]motivation. After all, Garret Fitzgerald has since admitted that he knew about the offer so it's logical to conclude that the Catholic church and Americans knew.

Thatcher, Faul and Garret Fitzgerald, the Holy Trinity of Kat the tout. Is he an embarrassment to himself or what?

[picador]

Another wee hobby horse for Picador who's 'so not a shinner' to focus on.

The prison leadership, Bic McFarland (who later denied the existence of the offer) and Richard O Rawe considered the classification of OU study as work to be a significant enough concession. They believed that there was enough in the offer to end the protest. Do you consider your judgement to be superior to that of those actually in the prison at the time? I wonder where you get that attitude from.

Try getting his name right. It's McFarlane not McFarland. And I'm sure that he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

[Katayusha Mk2]

So the bone of contention here then is that

- Adams & Co blocked the prospective deal being put to the Hunger Strikers?

Now even if that is so what the hell is the reason that would have stopped the British putting the deal directly to men on the Strike themselves?

If they were genuine in their intentions none as far as I can see.

There is the issue of direct negotiations with the hunger strikers; 'talking to terrorists' as they would have put it and of course the protocols put in place by the element of the Republican leadership handling negotiations. The Brits did make the offer and they also told Garret Fitzgerald about it. The offer was the same as the reforms that accompanied the end of the strike.

The 'bone of contention' as you put it is that the knowledge of the negotiations and offer was limited to a select few and withheld from elements of the Republican leadership, the hunger strikers and their families. There has been a cover up of this ever since.

[the dark angel]

There is the issue of direct negotiations with the hunger strikers; 'talking to terrorists' as they would have put it and of course the protocols put in place by the element of the Republican leadership handling negotiations. The Brits did make the offer and they also told Garret Fitzgerald about it. The offer was the same as the reforms that accompanied the end of the strike.

The 'bone of contention' as you put it is that the knowledge of the negotiations and offer was limited to a select few and withheld from elements of the Republican leadership, the hunger strikers and their families. There has been a cover up of this ever since.

Yawn...................................

Out of interest, just how much are you getting paid for this Internet campaign to make one of the most heroic acts in Irish history sound dirty?

[Katayusha Mk2]

Try getting his name right. It's McFarlane not McFarland. And I'm sure that he's more than capable of speaking for himself.

He has had 'issues' with his recollection in the past, indeed his story has changed as the debate has unfolded.

[picador]

Perhaps he's a witch. Burn him!

[Katayusha Mk2]

Yawn...................................

Out of interest, just how much are you getting paid for this Internet campaign to make one of the most heroic acts in Irish history sound dirty?

There was nothing heroic about the actions of those in whom the hunger strikers entrusted their lives. The courage and integrity of the hunger strikers remain unimpeachable and the examination of the truth can in no way change this.

[picador]

There was nothing heroic about the actions of those in whom the hunger strikers entrusted their lives. The courage and integrity of the hunger strikers remain unimpeachable and the examination of the truth can in no way change this.

And it's just a complete coincidence that you're implacably opposed to the peace process!

[the dark angel]

And it's just a complete coincidence that you're implacably opposed to the peace process!

If it was as simple as that. This Kat guy has a much more sinister agenda than even that.