If there was any doubt that the Guildford 4 were innocent then you would not get the British PM apologising unreservedly. End of.

The clamour to "get the terrorists" must never override basic human rights and the rule of law. With the same evidence today the case would never have gone to court and 4 innocent people would not have been locked up for years. It's easy to say you should err on the side of caution and lock people up anyway - the "of course they did it, there's just no evidence to prove it" approach as obviously in the aftermath of a terrorist attack no-one feels pressure to "get the b@stards", no emotions are running high and no-one really minds if you lock up some innocent person for 10, 15, 20 years. That's what makes British justice the envy of the world after all... :rolleyes:

A public apology from the PM is therefore the least that these people should get. The only question for me is "why now"?

Another one who thinks you can be convicted just because your Irish. I really would like to know how this works in court, oh he is Irish m'Lord, right send him down! :rolleyes:

Oh and if you think I have my username because I am some wannabe SAS you are very wrong but then you seem to think yourself so educated you must be right :rolleyes: How are you basing this fact, just on my username? Very presumtious. And sitting there insulting me shows yes you do need to be educated if you can't debate in an adult manner.

FB and Puff I did think that I may get some response for yourselves when I posted this. Do you really find it plausable that these men were convicted just because of them being Irish? Also just because these mens forensic evidence could have pointed to something other than plastic explosives like the soap or the toothpaste mentioned does that mean then they are innocent on that basis and that in fact then they never touched any plastic explosives?

And Puff just on your point you raised, do you really think the IRA can be justified as freedom fighters when they deliberatley murdered innocent women and children on mainland Britain? If they had targeted purely military targets then I would tend to agree you could refer to them as freedom fighters, but not when they did what they did.

100% correct. I don't like Blair very much and hate the IRA. But I thought the apology and meeting was the decent thing to do. I don't know why now but it had to happen some time. DL

Moses you are a mong! Wash your mouth out and hang your head in shame! :mad:

I have no comment to make with respect to the people whose convictions were quashed since I am not qualified to do so.

As far as the other chap is concerned, it is amazing what they will do when there is an election in the wind!

Watch out for the technicolour yawn.

Les :(

Why did it have to happen David. Does the Prime Minister have to go around apologising for all that is wrong in this country. Does he apologise to the families of victims from Omagh, Enniskillen, Brighton, Hyde Park, Droppin well,Harrods, Warrenpoint, Birmingham, Milltown, Manchester etc. No he does'nt.

They were released due to the evidence that was given in court being unreliable. The judgement did not say that they had nothing to do with what happened.

Chip

How come he's not apologising to the families of those servicemen sent illegally to their deaths in Iraq? Or the relatives of the innocent slaughtered Iraqi civilians?

I'm glad Chip I am not the only one who sees it like this!

OK Chip, I take your point about the victims of course, although, to be blunt it wasn't Blair's or the governments' fault that they were victims (the Iraq scenario may be different). But this was a high profile thing although I suppose it was partly/mostly political and he was apologising for a wrong committed by the government of the time. But I am pretty sure that Blair wouldn't have apologised unless he had made sure that this was a genuine miscarriage. I am usually one of the first to take the "no smoke without fire" line. I should also record that I think that historically Britain behaved appallingly to Ireland but don't take that to mean that I support or in any way sympathise with the IRA. David

Trust me you are not the only one.

thats the thing they werent caught in a cave with a ak-47 get your facts right same as gerry and his pals and dad, they werent caught and no one had evidence against them

your brain must be smaller than the size of your ding dong dude.

u should hang your head in shame, dont see things with english eyes see it with human eyes peebrain

Moses, I think the issue is that there was evidence against them but some of said evidence was flawed and consequently the conviction was unsafe.

The flaws in the evidence could have been anything ranging from its complete fabrication all the way down to a technicallity on how a single piece of it was gathered.

As with most things - I doubt if we will ever know the truth. :(

p.s. All the best mate :)

Bliar at his best doing the :D:D:D for the camera again.
Slimey git



Made a great film though-

mate the thing is since he has been released he hasnt been a rich man and the others having been working as cleaners and stuff and if they were i.r.a terrorists surely they would have had so much in their back accounts offshore and till this day its not proven since they got released if they ever met the i.r.a at all bud

movie was excellent :)

As I said - I don't know if they were innocent or not, but based on the evidence the conviction was unsafe. I've always sort of thought they were guilty, but as a rule, convicted terrorists over here just do the time without appealing.

As far as murdering innocents go - there are plenty of examples of the army, RUC and security force backed UDA and UVF killing innocents. Many people believe that the army was behind the construction and planting of car bombs in Dublin and Monaghan. Loyalist paramilataries got blamed, - three bombs went off within 90 seconds in Dublin and then another went off an hour later, killing 33 people in total. Given the precision involved and the fact that loyalists failed in every single subsequent attempt to set off a car bomb, it seems unlikely that they did it. Regardless of who carried them out, the bombing campaign in England was direct retaliation for these killings. Seems similar to the US and British army blowing the sh1t out of Iraq in retaliation for 9/11.

Governments don't send people to prison, courts do.

OK. But I think you see the point I was making (whether you agree with it or not).

So you haven't heard of internment then?

Just want to make it clear that for all my hatred of the IRA I also think the Loyalist groups were just as bad for doing what they did, and if the RUC were involved with them then thats just as dispicable. However the bombs should have been directed only at them, and not at innocents like the Manchester shopping centre for example. It still makes me sick though to see the British Government doing business with terrorists like Gerry Adams, it seems Tony is prepared to forgive and forget everything the IRA did to help along the peace process, thats not right.

I thought the point was it could have been something other than explosive rather than it wasn't explosive.

I have to say I want to punch Gerry Adams face everytime I hear his smug grating version of arrogance. but... It would unfortunately not surprise me one little bit to discover that in the 70s "confessions" were nothing of the sort and politcial pressure "to get a conviction" was immense - so although I dont particularly enjoy hearing the government apologise - I accept it may be necessary.

And Moses - I for one am English - so will with great pleasure look at everything with my own English eyes . I'm fortunate enough though that I will interpret what I see through those eyes for myself with a Brain not tainted by religous doctrine or embittered by a clear unbridled hatred of the sort you regularly show for people not of your personal religous following.

thats the problem bud, u see things with blinkers on, i see them as a humanist and a muslim i see it from both sides , something u dont do

anything i talk about isnt tainted my religious doctrine, i talk about oppression and liberation, well we all know what happens in the middle east dont we, coz the whiteman cant stop sticking his tongue in other peoples soups or wealth and these zionists who like to use others to do their dirty work

the puppet masters the controllers of the world

it aint just me, majority of the uk people feel the same, maybe u dont watch the polls

Fair enough. I must have been in pedant mode earlier (and I still don't agree that Blair should've apologised). :)

I have, but that is a whole different ball game. These guys were convicted in a normal (albeit on dodgy grounds) court of law.

and anything that aint white, your leaders like to control them and support their dictator regimes and blast them with bombs or accuse them

anything that aint english or white is considered inferior

same as these innocent irish, it aint the first time when the i.r.a used to blast a bomb somewhere u guys used to go and attack any irish living in england one time, just go back in history and check

the reason i use the " white" word is coz some of u guys only understand the language of colour and religion thats all.


thats what u guys are about pick on the minority groups, they must be all terrorists or fanatics or sickos or dole scroungers aint that right dude but u dont look at yourselves , majority of u guys are dole scroungers when u see a coloured man working hard and got a nice car u pick on them or vandalise their property, but u dont wanna get off your arse and work yourself


by the way we were talking about gerry, but u led me astray picking on religion again when it had nothing to do with it.

Maybe learn some history?

I resent the fact that you are tarring all white English people with the same brush. I am white and English, but am guilty of none of the things you describe.

But moses is oppressed don't you know! If he wants to know about oppression he should go and live in the countries he pontificates about so often.

But mosees - you see "muslims", "christians", "whitemen" and "zionists" - I dont. I just see "people" with different views.

Take a step back and read your posts. *Every* post you make is full of reference to your religion or that of others. You are as blinkered in your own way as any Zionist, Racist, Extremist or other "ist" you care to mention.

So what's the alternative B20?

If you think that taking a tough line, no compromises, sending more troops over there etc would have worked then you are very sadly mistaken. They tried that for 20 or 30 years and all you got was a spiral of violence. The only path to some sort of solution was by negotiation. The price to be paid to have that negotiation and secure the move away from violence was release of convicted terrorists on licence. That was an unpalatable thing to have to do but if you stand back and analyse it, it looks like it was the correct decision. History will be the judge.

You should also remember that the process did not start with this Labour government. Margret Thatcher and the Tory government started the ball rolling in 1985 with the Anglo Irish Agreement. The process continued under John Major's government, with secret discussions with the IRA revealed in 1993, shortly followed by the Anglo Irish Pact. Then the process continued under Labour and The Good Friday Agreeement was signed in 1998 by Tony Blair's government.

I don't really disagree with what you are saying to a point, but to let Gerry Adams step foot in this country and even allow him to Downing Street, to me that was taking it too far. Negotiation is one thing, treating Gerry Adams as your next buddy is just disgusting which is how it looked. Negotiate fine, but forgetting and forgiveness is not the right thing to do and nor is letting Gerry Adams and his cronies entry into mainland Britain.

Would it be right to allow OBL to come to Downing Street to negotiate? No it would not so why should Gerry Adams be allowed to? And to add to that the Real IRA still exist and always will.