johnfás wrote:

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin

Maura has not altered her stance at all. It has always been about the theft of Irish resources and the needless risks to life and limb just to facilitate this precedent-setting experiment for Shell.

Maura's demand is not that the Solitaire leave the area. The demand is that it leaves Irish territorial waters. The onus is now on Shell to make an announcement. From this point on, Shell has lost this particular battle. If the Solitaire leaves, Maura wins. If the Solitaire doesn't leave and Maura dies, Shell shows exactly how much value they place on Irish lives - Maura wins.

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin

Maura has not altered her stance at all. It has always been about the theft of Irish resources and the needless risks to life and limb just to facilitate this precedent-setting experiment for Shell.

Maura's demand is not that the Solitaire leave the area. The demand is that it leaves Irish territorial waters. The onus is now on Shell to make an announcement. From this point on, Shell has lost this particular battle. If the Solitaire leaves, Maura wins. If the Solitaire doesn't leave and Maura dies, Shell shows exactly how much value they place on Irish lives - Maura wins.

Well, not really, because she'll be dead, of course.

The boat is doing nothing illegal by staying in an Irish port whilst its sea worthiness is inspected. In fact it would be wrong to leave port when there is a question surrounding sea worthiness. We can't have the right of boats to berth in our ports held to ransom by a single individual.

Why should this issue be framed as a matter of Shell, and more to the point the captain of a ship who is only doing his job, allowing a woman to die? This woman is killing herself.

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin

Maura has not altered her stance at all. It has always been about the theft of Irish resources and the needless risks to life and limb just to facilitate this precedent-setting experiment for Shell.

Maura's demand is not that the Solitaire leave the area. The demand is that it leaves Irish territorial waters. The onus is now on Shell to make an announcement. From this point on, Shell has lost this particular battle. If the Solitaire leaves, Maura wins. If the Solitaire doesn't leave and Maura dies, Shell shows exactly how much value they place on Irish lives - Maura wins.

Well, not really, because she'll be dead, of course.

I'd hate for Maura to die. But victory is measured in this case with regard to Shell's position.

In the first instance, if the Solitaire moves out of Irish territorial waters and Maura lives, it's a victory but it's a marginal victory. Shell can always say that the protest had nothing to do with the Solitaire having to leave. In other words, the propaganda potential of the victory is tainted.

In the second instance, if Maura dies. Shell are shown to be totally uncaring about Irish life, so too is the State. Afterall, the Solitaire has to be repaired or scrapped outside the Irish State and there's no reason, short of making a point to S2S and the rest of Ireland, for it not to leave immediately. Fair enough, it might turn out that it's not seaworthy, why not announce this now and maybe some deal can be arrived at. The victory in this instance will be in many areas: propaganda potential, still no pipeline down, escallation of non-violent direct actions with wider justification than before. However, the victory itself will be tainted by the needless loss of a good friend and activist.

There's no complete victory to be had in any battle. Nonetheless the war itself can be won and each victory counts.

Obviously, I'm removing my emotional feelings out of my analysis in this instance and may seem to be a cold hearted bastard for it. Like I said, there's no complete victory to be had.

johnfás wrote:

The boat is doing nothing illegal by staying in an Irish port whilst its sea worthiness is inspected. In fact it would be wrong to leave port when there is a question surrounding sea worthiness. We can't have the right of boats to berth in our ports held to ransom by a single individual.

Why should this issue be framed as a matter of Shell, and more to the point the captain of a ship who is only doing his job, allowing a woman to die? This woman is killing herself.

There are currently lots of questions surrounding the legality of this vessel and the flag of convenience it bears. More about this later...

Again, if there was an announcement concerning the ship's seaworthiness, positions would be reconsidered. However, one must remember that this boat was docked for quite some time before it set off for Glengad, it's strange that its seaworthiness wasn't established at this time.

We most certainly can have entities and individuals 'held to ransom' by individuals in cases where such actions are not unlawful. In this case Maura's action is lawful. The only question here is to do with morality. And that question swings down both sides of the street. This "only doing one's job" is an excuse that has no merit with regard to describing the morality of a situation. It sounds similar to the phrase: "I was only following orders." In this instance, it is meant to turn off the Irish thinking apparatus, due to us being deprived of the ability to make a living for so much throughout our collective history. It's purely an emotive appeal with no logical substance to to.

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin

Maura has not altered her stance at all. It has always been about the theft of Irish resources and the needless risks to life and limb just to facilitate this precedent-setting experiment for Shell.

Maura's demand is not that the Solitaire leave the area. The demand is that it leaves Irish territorial waters. The onus is now on Shell to make an announcement. From this point on, Shell has lost this particular battle. If the Solitaire leaves, Maura wins. If the Solitaire doesn't leave and Maura dies, Shell shows exactly how much value they place on Irish lives - Maura wins.

I'm not worried about the Solitaire, I have to say. They will be paid regardless of what is happening, and from my own experience offshore, there are probably some entirely cheerful workers on board who are being paid their day-rate to do nothing while Shell foots the bill.

Why is that the demand, though? What's the rationale behind the Solitaire having to "leave Irish territorial waters"?

I wish Maura Harrington nothing but good, but I don't agree with what she is doing.

I'm against hunger strikes. The reason for this is, that I think if you are up against bastards, they won't care if you die. They are more likely to be pleased, firstly to because you are dead and won't bother them any more, secondly because its a macho demonstration of how tough they are.

Evo Morales has won the Presidency of his country and has won a National Referendum allowing him to nationalise gas and oil reserves, and to distribute the wealth from them and use it to develop the country. He is coming from every kind of pressure, and may or may not win, but he is in a lot stronger a position than the campaign against Shell is in Ireland.

We need some strong principled people to stand for election to represent people who want sustainable, safe, fair and equal use of resources. Even if they don't get elected they will raise the stakes in terms of what we do with our resources. We don't need good people killing themselves.

Hasn't that already been tried, cactus and it failed. Perhaps she feels and believes that no one is paying attention to this problem - maybe she feels that it's seen as a purely environmental tree-hugging nimbyism problem preventing Something Good from happening to Mayo and the rest of Ireland and that her death might draw attention to it. The Territorial Waters request is telling.

How widely is it or isn't it known that this field will yield shag all for this nation?

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin

Maura has not altered her stance at all. It has always been about the theft of Irish resources and the needless risks to life and limb just to facilitate this precedent-setting experiment for Shell.

Maura's demand is not that the Solitaire leave the area. The demand is that it leaves Irish territorial waters. The onus is now on Shell to make an announcement. From this point on, Shell has lost this particular battle. If the Solitaire leaves, Maura wins. If the Solitaire doesn't leave and Maura dies, Shell shows exactly how much value they place on Irish lives - Maura wins.

I'm not worried about the Solitaire, I have to say. They will be paid regardless of what is happening, and from my own experience offshore, there are probably some entirely cheerful workers on board who are being paid their day-rate to do nothing while Shell foots the bill.

Why is that the demand, though? What's the rationale behind the Solitaire having to "leave Irish territorial waters"?

There might be some folks on board cheerful that they're getting paid (is it above minimum wage in all cases I wonder?) for just sitting there. But, I doubt that everyone's happy. Shell paid for a job to be done and the ship, being below standard, wasn't up to it.

The reason that she demands that the Solitaire leave our waters is that it's entirely possible that there's very little wrong with the Solitaire and that they could steam right back to Glengad once the protest is called off. Shell play a very dirty game. Though it's more unlikely as the days pass and the window of opportunity associated with weather closes. It's becomes an exercise in teach Shell to do what they're told. No mean feat if it can be accomplished.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Hasn't that already been tried, cactus and it failed. Perhaps she feels and believes that no one is paying attention to this problem - maybe she feels that it's seen as a purely environmental tree-hugging nimbyism problem preventing Something Good from happening to Mayo and the rest of Ireland.

How widely is it or isn't it known that this field will yield shag all for this nation?

I appreciate her frustration, but I don't think people are getting any clearer about what she is campaiging for. Even on this thread people aren't sure.
I think there would be big popular support for a campaign for safe and sustainable use of our natural resources, to the benefit of the whole population.
We've got national and european elections coming up. Why not give it a lash.

Bloody Greens should be doing that, but they are too busy playing with widgets and waffling.

cactus flower wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Hasn't that already been tried, cactus and it failed. Perhaps she feels and believes that no one is paying attention to this problem - maybe she feels that it's seen as a purely environmental tree-hugging nimbyism problem preventing Something Good from happening to Mayo and the rest of Ireland.

How widely is it or isn't it known that this field will yield shag all for this nation?

I appreciate her frustration, but I don't think people are getting any clearer about what she is campaiging for. Even on this thread people aren't sure.
I think there would be big popular support for a campaign for safe and sustainable use of our natural resources, to the benefit of the whole population.
We've got national and european elections coming up. Why not give it a lash.

Bloody Greens should be doing that, but they are too busy playing with widgets and waffling.

The country gets no money from this resource which is being extracted through a high-pressure pipeline that locals do not want in an area which experiences bogslides. There is also questions over the contamination or potential pollution of Carrowmore Lake, a freshwater supply nearby.

cactus flower wrote:

I wish Maura Harrington nothing but good, but I don't agree with what she is doing.

I'm against hunger strikes. The reason for this is, that I think if you are up against bastards, they won't care if you die. They are more likely to be pleased, firstly to because you are dead and won't bother them any more, secondly because its a macho demonstration of how tough they are.

Evo Morales has won the Presidency of his country and has won a National Referendum allowing him to nationalise gas and oil reserves, and to distribute the wealth from them and use it to develop the country. He is coming from every kind of pressure, and may or may not win, but he is in a lot stronger a position than the campaign against Shell is in Ireland.

We need some strong principled people to stand for election to represent people who want sustainable, safe, fair and equal use of resources. Even if they don't get elected they will raise the stakes in terms of what we do with our resources. We don't need good people killing themselves.

Say someone did take such a path. What party would they join? The Greens? They were on message before the election and shafted us at every avenue after the election. Go as an independent and even if you get in you'd be trying to put out a raging inferno by urinating on it.

I don't like hunger strikes. Personally, I'd put a bullet in my oppressor before I went down that road. But a hunger strike can get the message out. If I had been in charge of things, I'd have folks give the Gardaí as good as they get - that'd get the message out too. My way might facilitate more bloodshed than a hunger strike though. Tis all a matter of picking the lesser of evils I'm afraid.

Hermes wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I wish Maura Harrington nothing but good, but I don't agree with what she is doing.

I'm against hunger strikes. The reason for this is, that I think if you are up against bastards, they won't care if you die. They are more likely to be pleased, firstly to because you are dead and won't bother them any more, secondly because its a macho demonstration of how tough they are.

Evo Morales has won the Presidency of his country and has won a National Referendum allowing him to nationalise gas and oil reserves, and to distribute the wealth from them and use it to develop the country. He is coming from every kind of pressure, and may or may not win, but he is in a lot stronger a position than the campaign against Shell is in Ireland.

We need some strong principled people to stand for election to represent people who want sustainable, safe, fair and equal use of resources. Even if they don't get elected they will raise the stakes in terms of what we do with our resources. We don't need good people killing themselves.

Say someone did take such a path. What party would they join? The Greens? They were on message before the election and shafted us at every avenue after the election. Go as an independent and even if you get in you'd be trying to put out a raging inferno by urinating on it.

I don't like hunger strikes. Personally, I'd put a bullet in my oppressor before I went down that road. But a hunger strike can get the message out. If I had been in charge of things, I'd have folks give the Gardaí as good as they get - that'd get the message out too. My way might facilitate more bloodshed than a hunger strike though. Tis all a matter of picking the lesser of evils I'm afraid.

I trust that Machine Nation can exert a calming influence over you Hermes. It is a long game and a big game and the temptation to respond to a dig is well resisted.

The Lisbon Referendum vote showed that over half the population are alienated from the message of the main parties. You aren't alone in feeling frustrated. We have got over the shock by now of finding that the Greens are the eco-PDs. Its a good time for putting something constructive together.

cactus flower wrote:

I trust that Machine Nation can exert a calming influence over you Hermes. It is a long game and a big game and the temptation to respond to a dig is well resisted.

The Lisbon Referendum vote showed that over half the population are alienated from the message of the main parties. You aren't alone in feeling frustrated. We have got over the shock by now of finding that the Greens are the eco-PDs. Its a good time for putting something constructive together.

Well there's Libertas but I'd like something with a good Green/Red mix with plenty of knowledge about all that economic and banking shite that's going on - someone like Cael . Are Sinn Fein or their crowds or flavours out there helping out at all Hermes?

Hermes wrote:

ibis wrote:

Hermes wrote:

johnfás wrote:

Mind you, Maura Harrington does seem to alter her motive. The issue has shifted from merely the safety of the pipeline to a broader crusade against the procedure in place for the licensing of the extraction of natural resources.

The ship has left the area. Perhaps it should be incumbent upon Ms Harrington to now halt her hunger strike? We can't have everyone's consciences held to ransom by the futile stubborness of a single person. Why is there not an equal call for her to halt her hunger strike?

Only askin

Maura has not altered her stance at all. It has always been about the theft of Irish resources and the needless risks to life and limb just to facilitate this precedent-setting experiment for Shell.

Maura's demand is not that the Solitaire leave the area. The demand is that it leaves Irish territorial waters. The onus is now on Shell to make an announcement. From this point on, Shell has lost this particular battle. If the Solitaire leaves, Maura wins. If the Solitaire doesn't leave and Maura dies, Shell shows exactly how much value they place on Irish lives - Maura wins.

I'm not worried about the Solitaire, I have to say. They will be paid regardless of what is happening, and from my own experience offshore, there are probably some entirely cheerful workers on board who are being paid their day-rate to do nothing while Shell foots the bill.

Why is that the demand, though? What's the rationale behind the Solitaire having to "leave Irish territorial waters"?

There might be some folks on board cheerful that they're getting paid (is it above minimum wage in all cases I wonder?) for just sitting there. But, I doubt that everyone's happy. Shell paid for a job to be done and the ship, being below standard, wasn't up to it.

Well, no, that's unlikely. Stuff breaks in the offshore industry all the time, and you wind up waiting for however long to replace it.There may be some kind of reduced rate built into the contract, but it's all quite normal. I've gone offshore for a two week stretch, and spent the whole of it "waiting on weather" while the rig did no drilling. Over a year a rig in an exposed location might well spend 3-4 months doing nothing profitable for the oil company, easily costing a few hundred thousand a day.

Hermes wrote:

The reason that she demands that the Solitaire leave our waters is that it's entirely possible that there's very little wrong with the Solitaire and that they could steam right back to Glengad once the protest is called off. Shell play a very dirty game. Though it's more unlikely as the days pass and the window of opportunity associated with weather closes. It's becomes an exercise in teach Shell to do what they're told. No mean feat if it can be accomplished.

The maximum that can be accomplished is to teach Shell not to bother getting involved in Irish projects, at least off Mayo. The other oil companies will presumably also draw the same conclusion.

ibis wrote:

The maximum that can be accomplished is to teach Shell not to bother getting involved in Irish projects, at least off Mayo. The other oil companies will presumably also draw the same conclusion.

Couldn't this be a good thing in the long term? In the medium term the lack of supply from Ireland would in a small way contribute to reduced global supply which would give more of an incentive to renewables and ultimately getting away from oil. Ireland might find itself a lot richer for this oil in ten years time if they decided to come back (someone would) - it's not as if we're going to get stunningly wealthy out of it is it? I mean, a lot of us are really well-off already aren't we with our two and three houses at home and abroad ...

Quote :

I trust that Machine Nation can exert a calming influence over you
Hermes. It is a long game and a big game and the temptation to respond
to a dig is well resisted.

The Lisbon Referendum vote showed
that over half the population are alienated from the message of the
main parties. You aren't alone in feeling frustrated. We have got over
the shock by now of finding that the Greens are the eco-PDs. Its a good
time for putting something constructive together.

I'm an incredibly calm individual. But nonetheless, I'd never turn the other cheek if violence were inflicted upon me. Having said that, I've been in many tense situations, lots of them face to face with the Gardaí, where I've been able to talk sense to people. I've never been assaulted or arrested. Bit of luck combined with a bit of charm I guess, but added into that mixture is a genuine desire not to have to resort to violence.

More than half of those who bothered to vote showed that they were alienated from the message of the various stooges. Those of us who didn't vote are a larger percentage than those who voted 'no.' Our views are rarely recognised, never mind represented. And it's been that way for a while, so it's always a good time to put something together.

Audi wrote:

Well there's Libertas
but I'd like something with a good Green/Red mix with plenty of
knowledge about all that economic and banking shite that's going on -
someone like Cael . Are Sinn Fein or their crowds or flavours out there helping out at all Hermes?

I honestly dunno if a political party can fix what ails us, if they take part in the current system. The devil pays a good price for souls.

I like Cael, he's an idealist. I don't know how his ideals would translate into something tangible. I don't mean that as a rebuke against him, I just think the system is already geared up to nullify any good he'd intend. Same with the Shinners, some good intentions, but not enough people. If they had enough people, they'd end up no better than FF. They're perfect where they are, as agitators, imo. I'm speaking about politics in the Republic here. I think their actions (the main bunch of Shinners that is) up north and their willingness to kiss the hand of the likes of George Bush are problematic.

If we must beat the system from within, it's my opinion that only a mass of independents could come close to achieving it. Politics would be slower without party politics, but it'd be fairer. Such a system would be more honest. An independent not affiliated to and protected by a party, knows who feeds him and where his next meal comes from.

Fighting violence with violence is hardly a great sounding from a supporting of a non-violent direction action movement. Movements which model themselves on historical non-violent movements tend to falter on their half baked adherence to the principle of non-violence.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

The maximum that can be accomplished is to teach Shell not to bother getting involved in Irish projects, at least off Mayo. The other oil companies will presumably also draw the same conclusion.

Couldn't this be a good thing in the long term? In the medium term the lack of supply from Ireland would in a small way contribute to reduced global supply which would give more of an incentive to renewables and ultimately getting away from oil. Ireland might find itself a lot richer for this oil in ten years time if they decided to come back (someone would) - it's not as if we're going to get stunningly wealthy out of it is it? I mean, a lot of us are really well-off already aren't we with our two and three houses at home and abroad ...

We wouldn't get stunningly wealthy out of Corrib anyway, as you say. It's a little smaller than Kish - not sure of the revenue stream there, but it certainly isn't anything spectacular. The other enormous reserves frequently cited as existing in the Irish offshore are currently hypothetical rather than real.

johnfás wrote:

Fighting violence with violence is hardly a great sounding from a supporting of a non-violent direction action movement. Movements which model themselves on historical non-violent movements tend to falter on their half baked adherence to the principle of non-violence.

I'm not a member of S2S. I support fully their right to practice pacific non cooperation with the authorities. I don't agree with it, but see that they're a bigger number than me and thus will be a lot more effective than me, so their cause is more important than mine. Our end goals are the same mind you, so I'll support them in any way that I can that doesn't include some uniformed thug stomping on me.

I think society is geared to be able to nullify pacifists. I hope I'm wrong.

Hermes wrote:

If we must beat the system from within, it's my opinion that only a mass of independents could come close to achieving it. Politics would be slower without party politics, but it'd be fairer. Such a system would be more honest. An independent not affiliated to and protected by a party, knows who feeds him and where his next meal comes from.

I'd have to put faith in Machines myself - in this case the tiny little biological machine - algae or other fuel-making bacteria which would produce oil and obviate the struggle Maura and others have to face by making it comparatively too expensive to haul energy ashore.

The latest thing now is to take the CO2 from our power stations and put it in a hole under the Kinsale seabed. Those fuel-making bacteria and micro-organisms convert CO2 back to energy ...

Hermes wrote:

I honestly dunno if a political party can fix what ails us, if they take part in the current system. The devil pays a good price for souls.

If we must beat the system from within, it's my opinion that only a mass of independents could come close to achieving it. Politics would be slower without party politics, but it'd be fairer. Such a system would be more honest.

There I completely agree. Even the outlawing of the Party Whip system would be a start.

MikeW wrote:

A couple of thoughts on this. Firstly a couple of posters have said that this could have been the state as they have "history" of false flag operations. Any examples of these? That are at least half way proven? The only thing I can think of were those Donegal Gardai, and that wasn't particularly the state.

Secondly, (and cactus, not getting at you again!) the UK has a fleet of 13 Nuclear submarines. The nuclear sub is designed to be the most covert secretive bit of machinery ever. They do not surface unless they are coming into base (or unless they are ironically in the process of sinking). They cannot be detected except by the most state of the art military sonar. It is against the Official Secrets Act ( or some variation thereof) for anyone in the UK to divulge the whereabouts of these subs, and outside of a small subset of the UK military (and probably the US) nobody else knows where they are.

Except the ShelltoSea guys?

Just got around to looking for the Donegal "history" - here it is

REPORT OF THE
TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
Set up Pursuant to the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts 1921-2002
into Certain Gardaí in the Donegal Division
CHAIRMAN:The Honourable Mr. Justice Frederick R. Morris
REPORT ON EXPLOSIVES ‘FINDS’ IN DONEGAL
Term of Reference (e)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/special/2004/morris/index.pdf

The Chapter and section headings are worth repeating: example:
Chapter 7
Chapter 5 MS. MCGLINCHEY AND MS. DEVINE IN BUNCRANA
5.01. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95
5.06. The Move to Buncrana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97
5.08. Cheque Frauds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .98
5.12. Bullets in the Convent Grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
5.17. Treatment of Adrienne McGlinchey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101
5.19. Mischief . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102
5.23. Angle-Grinder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104
5.27. Inspector Lennon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
5.29. Seven Bullets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .106
5.34. Detective Sergeant Walsh’s Memo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109
5.36. Point Inn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111
5.37. Tripod Drawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112
5.39. Men in Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
5.42. Another Tripod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113
5.49. A ‘Kidnapping’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .115
5.54. The Gun Incident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118
5.65. More Metal Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123
5.69. Walkie-talkies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
5.75. A Hoax Call . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
5.77. Theft of Car Registration Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128
5.80. Telephone Wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
5.81. Shotgun Cartridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129
5.85. The ‘Confidential Interview’ of the 18th of May 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
5.90. “Hands-Off” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .133
5.96. Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
5.98. Memorandum of Disquiet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .136
5.99. The Lack of Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
5.109. A Search Called Off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
5.112. More Guns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A tiny extract...just to give the flavour...

Analysis of the Bridgend Incident
6.139. The Tribunal is satisfied that the thrust of the statements made by Superintendent Lennon, prior to any intense questioning of him taking
place, was to the effect that the materials were to be taken by Adrienne McGlinchey from Buncrana and brought through to Derry, with no stop at
Bridgend. Notwithstanding the fact that his diary entries indicate that there was a new location for grinding fertiliser in Buncrana, he claims not
to have known that the coffee grinding machines were working overtime in the manufacture of explosives in her flat.365 The Tribunal rejects this.
Detective Garda McMahon’s statements on the matter, while contradictory, tend towards the view that there was to be a drop-off of
materials at the roundabout. The entire scenario is bizarre. Adrienne McGlinchey did not have a mobile phone. Nor did she have a telephone in
her flat. The closest telephone to the flat was in fact the public telephone box across the road from the Garda station.

Today's newspapers describe the "device" as a bottle containing petrol, a can of spray paint and an alarm clock, not connected to each other.

link?