Catholic Church Child Abuse

The excoriation by Enda Kenny of the Catholic heirarchy and Vatican is long overdue but raises the question which I have frequently posed; why was there no criticism of that organisation by the PIRA/SinnFein and the SDLP over the past 40 years. Quite clearly their proclaimed concern for human rights did not encompass the children of their community – the basic human right to life was one which of course the IRA treated with contempt unless it was their lives that were at risk. If an enquiry is to take place into the activities of the Catholic Church in Ireland it should include not only the question of child abuse but also the involvement of the hierarchy with the murderers of the PIRA. I look forward to hearing from Martin, Gerry and Peter with a call to such an enquiry.

State murder of Intelligence Personnel

Since the crash of the Chinook helicopter in Scotland I have claimed that these  people were deliberately sacrificed by the Westminster mandarins using the personnel  of MI5 and MI6 to achieve their objectives; the purpose was to destroy the leading local intelligence experts as the plans to capitulate to the PIRA murderers were advancing and these personnel could have exposed the informers within the PIRA leadership and scuppered the betrayal which has taken place. As the review now clears the pilots one is left to ask what caused the crash and of course we are informed they cannot tell us.; of course they could; but state murder is still murder and falls into the category of Nazi Germany activities.

WRIGHT WHITEWASH NO2

THE DECISION BY  THE INQUIRY INTO BILLY WRIGHT`S MURDER WILL NOT SURPRISE ANYONE WHO HAS FOLLOWED THE LYING OF THE LONDON BASED INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS.  ON THEIR PAST RECORD OF FRAMING COLIN WALLACE , ARRANGING THE MURDER OF REV ROBERT BRADFORD, ARRANGING SCAPPITTICCI  BE ADVANCED IN THE PIRA TO KILL AND SUPPORTING MARTIN McGUINNESS  WHY SHOULD SUCH AN ORGANISATION  BE BELIEVED?

WILL THE CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL CLARIFY IF HE INQUIRED FROM THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE  WHY 2 DAYS BEFORE THE CHRISTMAS THAT WRIGHT WAS MURDERED THEY ANNOUNCED THAT THE PROPOSED TROOP WITHDRAWAL WAS  COUNTERMANDED ON THE BASIS THAT AN UPSURGE OF VIOLENCE WAS EXPECTED AFTER CHRISTMAS. THE UPSURGE OF VIOLENCE AROSE BECAUSE OF WRIGHT`S ASSASSINATION.  COULD IT APPEAR THAT THE  TRIBUNAL IS  TAINTED  BY THE ALLEGATION OF NOT BEING  IMPARTIAL IF NO EXPLANATION IS SOUGHT FOR THIS MINISTRY OF DEFENCE DECISION.

DID THE CHAIRMAN COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT MR MOG WAS AWARDED A CB A SHORT TIME AFTER WRIGHT`S MURDER; COULD  THIS BE INTERPRETED AS BEING MOG`S REWARD FOR MAKING THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS TO FACILITATE THE MURDER.

WHY WAS THE INLA  CEASEFIRE NOT PERMITTED UNTIL WRIGHT WAS MURDERED?

WHY WAS THE COUNSEL TO THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED?

I PREDICTED ON MY BLOG BEFORE THE DECISION THAT IT WOULD BE A WHITEWASH ; WAS I WRONG?

 LYLE CUBITT

Critique of Claudy Bomb Report

The press comments on the long awaited Claudy Bomb Report while informative in some respects do not comprehensively give a critique of the contents and leave many unanswered questions.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION.

 

A. The parameters of the inquiry were restricted into alleged misconduct/criminality of the RUC investigation of the CLAUDY Bomb; the terms of reference almost makes one wonder why not blame the RUC for being responsible for the offence rather than the PIRA MURDERERS

B. The Inquiry did not include; investigation of MI5`s  role in N.I at that time; the blatant lies of Government in covering up the meeting in England of JULY 1972 with McGuinness/Adams etc with the London based Intelligence Service; possible criminality of the Catholic Church                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

C.  It took from 2002 until 2010 for the Report to be completed and published. WHY? If this report had been produced before the DUP betrayal would the corruption of democracy now exist at Stormont. Did Government or any Government Agency interfere advise or suggest directly or indirectly that this inquiry should be prolonged?

D. The leader of PIRA in Londonderry McGuinness does not appear to have been questioned as to the role (if any) he played in the planning and execution of this terrorist act or his knowledge of Murderer Chesney.

Questions re the minutiae of the Report

1. 1.    Page 3. para 2. Why did it take from Dec 2002 until August 2010 for this Public Statement to be made? Why did it take a letter dated 7^th Sept 2002 to motivate an inquiry by the ombudsman when so many people were aware of the situation for years? Was there any political interference in the inquiry as questioned above? Was it politically inconvenient for the Government to have an earlier and full inquiry
2. 2.     Page 3. para.2.4 The acknowledgment by the Ombudsman of the limitation of his investigation without comment in respect of the involvement of Government,MI5 and the Army intelligence in the dealings with The Catholic Church and Murderer Chesney immediately diminishes the validity of the conclusions. Are we expected to believe that Chesney was not mentioned in the secret dishonest talks convened by JUDAS WHITELAW in JULY 1972 when the PIRA murderers were flown to London. These fundamental failures destroy much of the  credibility which the Report might claim. We must of course remember that JUDAS Whitelaw was a “conservative friend” of Northern Ireland. When will Patterson and the new idol CAMERON apologise not as members of Government but as members of the Conservative Party for the duplicity of their Party?
3. 3.     Page 3. Para 2.3 As many people have known for years of the murder campaign led by MURDERER Chesney and his killer crew of McGlinchey, Milne and Hughes why were the Inquiry terms not inclusive i.e. to consider the role Murderous Priest Chesney played in the PIRA including the Claudy Bomb and how many members of the Security forces were murdered as a result of his activities and his role as a PIRA commander?
4. 4.     Page 6; No explanation is given for the original papers  not being located nor is it indicated what inquiries were instigated to ascertain where they could have gone; this was a major terrorist incident; were copies not forwarded to the DPP and RUC HQ? Why is there no adverse comment/criticism of this failure of command by the Commander in Londonderry?
5. 5.     Page 7; Why is there no suggestion that Man A, who was obviously involved, should now be extradited and freshly interviewed; when did  he leave  the country, where did he go, where is he now?
6. 6.     Page 8. Did the investigation request  MI5 and other Agencies  to divulge information which they held  and if not why not? Was the Catholic Church asked for copies of the interviews carried out by Murderer Chesney`s Superiors and were they supplied?
7. 7.     Pages8/9Did the limited intelligence on MURDERER Chesney suggest  his involvement in murders of UDR and Policemen in the South Derry/Mid ULSTER areas and his leadership role? Did the Murderer Chesney use the Parochial house as the base for planning murders in the area? Were McGlinchey Milne and Hughes directed by him to carry out many murders and was the Parochial House used as a safe house. Was Murderer Chesney the only occupant in the Parochial house and if not was the other occupant/occupants  interviewed during the Inquiry?
8. 8.     Page 9-11/20; What was the religion of Officer 3 who blocked Officer 1`s request to arrest MURDERER Chesney? Is there any indication why Officer 3 wrote direct to the NIO without going through headquarters?  Surely such an action required much deeper scrutiny and comment. Did Officer 3 speak to senior Roman clerics before contacting NIO direct? Was any query raised as to whether Officer 3 had been primed by other Intelligence organisations or NIO personnel to initially write the letter or/and have contact with Senior members of the R C Church? Did the letter from the NIO go to police headquarters or to Officer 3? If direct to OFFICER 3 this is bound to have been a breach  of the proper protocol to be followed by the NIO. Was the NIO afraid that if the deal was not done with the Cardinal the Senior Officers might reject same but faced with a fait accompli then they were forced into accepting this underhand deal.  On  30^th Nov1972 Officer 3 writes to NIO; the NIO reply on 6^th Dec, Whitelaw having met the Cardinal on 5^th Dec. Does this time scale not raise suspicions of connivance between Officer 3 Cardinal and NIO? The time scale of the letter of 30^th Nov 1972 until letter of 6^th December could lead a cynic to believe that it was all too convenient and indeed was contrived.
9. 9.      Did the inquiry ascertain if in fact Officer 3 actions compromised the senior officers and as such should he not be lambasted as being in gross dereliction of his duty, insubordination and breach of proper protocol. Was it not his inaction and action which is the source of the finding against the RUC and surely this is an unfair finding in the light of the quite clear evidence that apart from this “rogue” policeman there was no evidence to suggest any improper action by the RUC.  Is  the Ombudsman living in the real world when he blames the RUC for accepting the NIO directive in the light of the TRIP to LONDON by the PROVO MURDERERS courtesy of LIAR WHITELAW in July 1972
10. 10.                                                 Page 12; The unquestioning acceptance that the Cardinal had no authority to take action against MURDERER Chesney is not questioned; was any opinion obtained from a canon lawyer?  Traces were found in the boot of the car; does the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church not provide for investigation against priests who are suspected of involvement in murder; had the Cardinal no power under canon law to act and if Officer 3 was a Roman Catholic how much more evidence did the Cardinal require. Was Chesney`s admission of transportation of “some people” on it`s own not an admission of associating with terrorists . It appears the Cardinal stated MURDERER CHESNEY was a “VERY BAD MAN” In the light of this admission can one seriously accept the failure of the Catholic Church to defrock the MURDERER and how could  his denials of involvement be accepted at face value?
11. 11.                                                 Page 14; Para4-36; 17 JAN 1973  Officer 3  received a  report from the SB Inspector in Coleraine  who was prepared to meet the challenge head on but  the evidence how OFFICER 3 dealt with it could be interpreted as  thwarting the due processes; to claim no response was seen from Headquarters is seriously unfair comment on HEADQUARTERS staff as who is to say anyone other than OFFICER 3 knew of the letter; surely this man should be exposed; are the people of Claudy and the families who had loved ones murdered as a result of  Chesney`s actions not entitled to know who he was ?

 

 

1. 12.                                                 Page 20; Page 22; The allegation of RUC senior officers seeking Government assistance is not accurate in that on the evidence only one possibly “rogue” Senior Officer did so and therefore it would seem an unfair and inaccurate conclusion that there was a collusive act by the RUC. If Chesney had been the only Catholic Priest assisting and participating in PIRA terrorism would it be proper to condemn the entire Catholic Church.     Contrast the RUC  with the actions of JUDAS WHITELAW who arranged for the PIRA Murderers ADAMS and McGUINNESS to be ferried to London for talks when  MI5 probably knew of MURDERER CHESNEY.
2. 13.                                                  The conclusions are seriously flawed for the following reasons;      A. One of the organisations which could supply information is MI5 and yet there is no reference to any application to that body; why not?                                                                              

B Army intelligence could also have been approached but no suggestion that this was done;                                                                                                                          C.   No inquiry appears to have been made re the talks with Adams and McGuinness which took place in London. How could this not be considered relevant?                                                 D.   Chesney was not the only Priest involved in terrorism as highlighted by O`Callaghan and therefore why was he O`Callaghan not interviewed;

 

1. E.   Does the cover up of the abuse of children over the years  by the Roman Catholic Heirarchy not cast serious doubt on the actions and words of that Church e.g are there relevant documents held in the Vatican and if so have they been revealed
2. F.    The  Report is seriously flawed in coming to conclusions without access to the other Government Agencies and reference to the dirty dealings of GOVERNMENT itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quite clearly the RUC OFFICERS on the ground were prepared to face the challenge and this was thwarted by OFFICER 3 and the NIO. The real conclusions should be   (i)there was a DIRTY GOVERNMENT DEAL which was more concerned about political  intention than saving lives and that has not changed as the Government of today could have ordered  other Agencies such as MI5 and Army Intelligence to voluntarily supply information for this inquiry;

(ii)Their failure to do so only pinpoints the continuing dishonesty of the Government which is exemplified by their protection of the GODFATHERS of terrorism and their lack of concern for the victims of these psychopaths

(iii)The actions of OFFICER 3 should have been the subject of greater scrutiny and to criticise the RUC for in effect the actions of one “rogue” officer is grossly unfair and  a travesty of Justice.

(iv)The finding is an unjustified slur on the many brave officers who wore the dark green uniform and who suffered for their integrity and loyalty to duty in the face of betrayal and indeed treasonable acts by the Government which was in breach of the Primary human Right namely the right to Life.

LYLE CUBITT

 THE RUC WERE BETRAYED AND SACRIFIED BY THE UK GOVERNMENT

CLAUDY BOMB REPORT

 

                                                                                                                                                      22nd August 2010

          Would a cynic conclude that it is no mere coincidence that the Claudy Bomb report will be issued around the same time as the Billy Wright Inquiry Report; lets get rid of the bad news all at the one time and the double report splits the attention all being focused on  one report.

          What role if any has the sticky and duplicitous fingers of Government subversive agencies played in the timing of the release and how could we believe any denial from Government in the light of their treacherous actions over the years.

          So that no one can claim I am commenting after the Claudy bomb report I am making these claims prior to it`s publication ; I have stated for years that the state colluded with the Roman Catholic hierarchy  to prevent the arrest and prosecution of the priest McChesney who was the PIRA  organiser in South Derry. The facts are as follows;

1. The Parochial house was used as the meeting place for McGlinchey, Millen and Hughes to plan the murders of UDR/RUC and Army personnel.
2. On one occasion McGlinchey arrived late for  a meeting and the priest McChesney put his arm round him and announced that if there was a few more like him the problem would soon be solved
3. Special Branch was aware of the Priest`s important role in the South Derry PIRA and wanted him arrested for questioning for various murders and attacks.
4. The Government refused; was this because the murders of Unionist people suited their long term strategy of ethnic cleansing and would reduce a unionist majority into a minority?
5. Did Senior Special Branch officers meet the Secretary of State and threaten that the Branch would all stand down and go public unless action was taken.
6. In the face of this action a hasty meeting was arranged with the Cardinal and he was advised that unless he took action then there would have to be an arrest of the priest.
7. The solution was simple; he would be moved to another parish outside the jurisdiction.   He could continue his murder campaign from Donegal; is it any wonder there were so many Protestants targeted and murdered on the Fermanagh/Donegal border.

These are the basic facts but what are the conclusions to be drawn.

A.  The murder campaign against Protestants of Mid Ulster suited the Government policy.

B.  The dishonesty of the Cardinal in facilitating the escape of a mass murderer from justice   condemns not only the Murderous Priest but also the Cardinal and confirms the view of many Protestants that the Roman Catholic Church was complicit in the annihilation of  Protestants  and  Unionist Roman Catholics.

C.   If McChesney was the only priest involved in the murder campaign then the Church as a whole might just escape censure but he was only one of many involved in such atrocious activity.

D.   Protestants will no longer be surprised at the Judas actions of the Catholic Church hierarchy in the light of duplicitous actions of “Reverend Gentlemen” in the Unionist Society.

E. What was the role of the Dublin Government in accepting  a known murderer into their Society; Quite clearly  he continued his murderous actions without hindrance

COMMENTS AND SUGGESTED COURSE S OF ACTION

ALL FAMILIES WHO LOST LOVED ONES OR WHO HAD FAMILY MEMBERS INJURED SHOULD IMMEDIATELY ISSSUE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH .PIRA/SINNFEIN LEADERSHIP AND THE DUBLIN GOVERNMENT

A CAMPAIGN SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO HAVE THE TWO GOVERNMENTS AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BROUGHT TO THE WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL AT THE HAGUE

IMAGINE THE OUTCRY IF SUCH  ACTIONS HAD OCCURRED INVOLVING PROTESTANT CHURCHES.

WHY DID NO UNIONIST MPS RAISE THE FACTS IN WESTMINSTER YEARS AGO?

OATLEY THE PIRA MINDER

It is good of Martin to inform us that the British Government had contact with him. Exactly what was the deal with MICHAEL OATLEY the MI5 Agent who regularly and frequently was in touch with Martin; Did they exchange information and what exactly was the information? Did Oatley tell McGuinness about Scappitticci; was Scappitticci also protecting Martin. Did Oatleyarrive on the scene when Martin was taken over at Silly Willy`s behest in the early seventies. Are we to know when Paisley first had contact with the PIRA murderers either directly or indirectly. Lies damned lies and statistics applies equally to the dealing of MI5 with terrorists

   QUESTION;  WILL MARTIN TELL THE FULL TRUTH BEFORE HE DIES?  HARDLY LIKELY

                  lyle cubitt

“A WRIGHT WHITEWASH”?

SINCE THE STATE MURDER OF BILLY WRIGHT I HAVE CLAIMED THAT THE FULL POWERS OF THE STATE WERE USED TO EFFECT THIS DEATH.

QUESTIONS

      WILL THE INQUIRY EXPLAIN WHY THE COUNSEL TO THE INQUIRY WAS DISMISSED?   

   BY BEING DISMISSED WAS THE INQUIRY COUNSEL IN ANY WAY INHIBITED FROM  PURSUING HIS LINE OF QUESTIONS?

HAD  THE DECEASED GOVERNOR   MOG   ANY CONNECTION WITH MI5

WHY WAS MOG AWARDED A CB BEFORE HIS DEATH? NORMALLY SUCH A HIGH AWARD IS TO DENOTE SUCCESS;  WHAT CONCLUSION CAN THEREFORE BE DRAWN?  

WHY WAS THE DECISION TO WITHDRAW ARMY PERSONNEL CHANGED ON CHRISTMAS EVE ON THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS INFORMATION THAT AN UPSURGE IN VIOLENCE WAS EXPECTED AFTER CHRISTMAS; WAS IT BECAUSE MI5 HAD THE ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE FOR WRIGHT`S MURDER?

HAD  MO MOWLAM KNOWLEDGE  OF THE  AUTHORISATION OF   THE STATE MURDER 

WHO ULTIMATELY SANCTIONED THE KILLING AND WHO PROVIDED THE GUNS TO THE KILLINGS

COMMENT; MOG, MOWLAM AND MCWILLIAMS THE TRIGGER MAN ALL DEAD. INTERESTING

OLD RED TURNCOAT

After years of Paisley berating the Pope As OLD RED SOCKS would it be inappropriate to describe  Paisley as “OLD RED TURNCOAT”. Perhaps that he is now secure in the House of Lords with the protection of MI5 (just like Scappittici)  is it too much to expect OLD RED TURNCOAT  to do the decent thing and divulge all the information he has on the KINCORA Scandal which to date he has been so reluctant to reveal or was he like Scappittici namely doing the GOVERNMENT`s bidding. For years OLD RED TURNCOAT was quick to label an opponent as LUNDY ( descriptive northern ireland word for  a traitor) It seems the description has come home to roost on LUNDY SUPREME OLD RED TURNCOAT himself; he should remember there was no hiding place for Judas. Why should OLD RED TURNCOAT not meet the POPE in view of him having already met his official representative in IRELAND namely Cardinal BRADY!  Another opportunity for him to indulge in his well documented history of betrayal.

MORE MI5 involvement

Who is Mrs Nokes you might well ask. I bet MI5 knows; Who else would have known she changed her hotel at the last minute for her meeting with her lover? What a surprise she got the next day when she discovered a recording device had dropped off the ceiling and it contained the full works of her enjoyable night. Who set itup ? Why so little publicity when she took it to the House of Commons complaining. Are practically all the press other than tha Mail gutless. Why did I ask the question during the election about MPs being blackmailed by MI5 and did the N.I.MPs not know anything about it.  Am I psychic or is it just my logic combined with knowledge which drove me to ask the questions> Is it not time it was answered. Oh and by the way were any members of SINN Fein ever blackmailed or were they just willing colluders in  the Governments destruction of non cooperating Unionists. I bet the BBC won`t publish this or comment just as they didn`t mention the cutie Cameron cuddler Mrs Nokes. What A great thing a superinjunction is; it hides a thousand cuddlers perhaps some from N.I.

MI5 Benefits

 WERE SOME MPS CAUGHT IN A BROTHEL IN AMBLESIDE AVENUE

IN SOUTH LONDON A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO AND DID members of MI5 RESCUE  THEM

FROM THE POLICE. WAS THERE ANY PRICE TO BE PAID?

 DID ANY OF THE NORTHERN

IRELAND MPS HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHO THEY WERE  AND HAVE THEY DISCLOSED SAME?