I don’t think you read my response – I said that you seemed to have inferred from my comment my political standing…much as I ‘inferred’ from your review. Are you ‘implying’ that I don’t know the difference?
As for how much I’ve read of the Saville report; I would say quite a bit. & yes, it does speak of the difficulties it faced with regards to evidence – my point is that those difficulties made it impossible to give any real clarity to what happened that day, to the point that had this been a court case it would have collapsed due to inability to say with any true confidence what exactly took place. The Saville report was a way of handing to the deads’ families what they wanted in an attempt to shut them up & give Martin & Gerry something to sell the agreement with. The Saville report does not give the truth about that day – it only attempts to legitimise one groups version of it for political gain. The testimonies which didn’t fit in with that ‘truth’ were disregarded, the statements of the PIRA informer who detailed McGuinness’ whereabouts & actions on that day was deemed inadmissible due to the fact that he could appear publicly to give evidence, the testimonies of witnesses who supported his statements were dismissed because they didn’t ‘fit’, nor does it mention anywhere the evidence given that witnesses were approached by the PIRA & instructed on what to say when giving evidence to the original inquiry.
The truth is that there are that many different versions of that day that no one – no matter how many legal minds & money you throw at it – will ever know exactly what happened that day…but like I said, I don’t believe it was black & white – there were other factors involved.
I’d just like to say that I certainly never intended an aggressive tone in my comment or any of my responses…assertive yes, but not aggressive. & in my previous response I accept that you didn’t make the accusations I was referring to – I guess I was just trying to answer all that I’d read & so for shorthand attributed the remarks to you. I certainly haven’t (& never will) resort to abusive name calling…but I accept you aren’t responsible for other comments & its quite funny really. Troll? lol – brilliant. As for the U2 comment I really must apologise for that – but I defend my actions by pointing out that it was a quote from before Bono came out as asshole. The reference was that the song was used for the closing credits of Jimmy McGovern’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ & I always found that quite ironic. Also, it was an attempt to show you that I had a bit of a sense of humour – that & the Guardian comment (I mean The Guardian? Really?) & illustrate the tone of what I was saying – I certainly wasn’t shouting…if I had been I’d have written THE WHOLE THING IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!
I would ask you that you perhaps read it again applying a softer tone to the writer & seeing her as not someone with a political bias but one with what she thinks is a healthy cynicism.
I don’t think you read my response – I said that you seemed to have inferred from my comment my political standing…much as I ‘inferred’ from your review. Are you ‘implying’ that I don’t know the difference?
As for how much I’ve read of the Saville report; I would say quite a bit. & yes, it does speak of the difficulties it faced with regards to evidence – my point is that those difficulties made it impossible to give any real clarity to what happened that day, to the point that had this been a court case it would have collapsed due to inability to say with any true confidence what exactly took place. The Saville report was a way of handing to the deads’ families what they wanted in an attempt to shut them up & give Martin & Gerry something to sell the agreement with. The Saville report does not give the truth about that day – it only attempts to legitimise one groups version of it for political gain. The testimonies which didn’t fit in with that ‘truth’ were disregarded, the statements of the PIRA informer who detailed McGuinness’ whereabouts & actions on that day was deemed inadmissible due to the fact that he could appear publicly to give evidence, the testimonies of witnesses who supported his statements were dismissed because they didn’t ‘fit’, nor does it mention anywhere the evidence given that witnesses were approached by the PIRA & instructed on what to say when giving evidence to the original inquiry.
The truth is that there are that many different versions of that day that no one – no matter how many legal minds & money you throw at it – will ever know exactly what happened that day…but like I said, I don’t believe it was black & white – there were other factors involved.
I’d just like to say that I certainly never intended an aggressive tone in my comment or any of my responses…assertive yes, but not aggressive. & in my previous response I accept that you didn’t make the accusations I was referring to – I guess I was just trying to answer all that I’d read & so for shorthand attributed the remarks to you. I certainly haven’t (& never will) resort to abusive name calling…but I accept you aren’t responsible for other comments & its quite funny really. Troll? lol – brilliant. As for the U2 comment I really must apologise for that – but I defend my actions by pointing out that it was a quote from before Bono came out as asshole. The reference was that the song was used for the closing credits of Jimmy McGovern’s ‘Bloody Sunday’ & I always found that quite ironic. Also, it was an attempt to show you that I had a bit of a sense of humour – that & the Guardian comment (I mean The Guardian? Really?) & illustrate the tone of what I was saying – I certainly wasn’t shouting…if I had been I’d have written THE WHOLE THING IN CAPITAL LETTERS!!!
I would ask you that you perhaps read it again applying a softer tone to the writer & seeing her as not someone with a political bias but one with what she thinks is a healthy cynicism.
Apologies for any offence caused.