Organization: Rohm and Haas Company
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 11:24:47 EDT
From: Aengus Lawlor <RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic,soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: Update on the Caraher shooting
 <1992Apr9.140801.29545@rdg.dec.com>

In article <1992Apr9.140801.29545@rdg.dec.com>, preece@sbpexe.enet.dec.com (Ian
Preece) says:
>
>In article <1992Apr9.123937.6164@e2big.mko.dec.com>,
>holohan@mark.enet.dec.com (Mark Holohan) writes:
>>At the time of the incident, the British armed forces alleged that the
>                                                       ^^^^^^^
>>Caraher testified at the June 1991 Public Inquiry into the shooting
>         ^^^^^^^^^
>
>        Interesting slant in the use of words, there.....
>        one side "testifies", the other merely "alleges".
>        Just a smidgeon of bias, maybe ?
At the time of the incident, the security forces released statements that
stated that Caraher ran a checkpoint. This was an allegation. (Webster's
dictionary "Allegation: an assertion or statement yet to be proved.")

Last summer, there was a public inquiry into the incident. It was not an
official inquiry under British Law, but the legal members of the team included
a number of foreign lawyers. Caraher gave evidence to this inquiry. Webster's
dictionary defines "Testify" as "(law) to give evidence" and "to affirm,
esp. under oath".

Mark Holohans bias is well known, but this is hardly an example of it. It
certainly hints at a certain paranoia on your part, though. (Or maybe you're
just biased.)
>
>
>>There is a widely-held belief that the British operate a shoot-to-kill
>>policy throughout northern Ireland.
>
>There is a widely-held belief among British civilians and servicemen that
>they are the targets of a shoot-to-kill policy themselves.
>Odd coincidence, no ?
So if the IRA are guilty of murder when they operate a shoot-to-kill policy,
why aren't the security forces guilty of murder when they operate shoot-to-
kill? Or do you think that shoot to kill is a perfectly acceptable policy,
but only if the people being shot are nationalists?

Now, I know that various people are rolling their eyes and saying "they're
at it again", but Mark Holohan takes a lot of stick for the stuff he posts,
but he's one of the few to quote his sorces. In this case, his facts are
straight, and I for one won't stand by and watch the facts be drowned out
in howls of innuendo.
>
>
>>
>>  Mark Holohan, DEC, USA        "Character is what you are in the dark" - BB
>                      ^^^
>
>Odd, isn't it, how the further one gets from the situation, the more
>entrenched and volubly-expressed one's opinions become ?
Of course, nobody in Ireland or the UK has entrenched and volubly-expressed
views! Particularly on the subject of NI!
>
>Some of us have to live here.....
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>ObDisclaimer:
>       "I wouldn't *work* for a company that held opinions like mine."
>Ian Preece,                                         Digital Equipment, UK.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aengus (who doesn't work for DEC yet!)
--
RBYAML@ROHMHAAS.COM                    Aengus Lawlor
RBYAML@ROHVM1.BITNET                   (who used to be ALAWLOR@DIT.IE)
"How about some of that famous Dublin wit, Barman?"
"Certainly, sir. Would that be Dry or Sparkling?"
Newsgroups: soc.culture.celtic