Alt Amháin - Single Article


airgead  glas  oráiste  corcra  buí  liath

Please email your comments to:

All fair comments, criticisms and praise will be posted!

Pól Ó Lorcáin
Paul Larkin

Chroniclers are privileged to enter where they list, to come and go through keyholes, to ride upon the wind, to overcome in their soarings up and down, all obstacles of distance, time and place.
Charles Dickens - Barnaby Rudge, Chapter The Ninth

Ed Moloney wrote lengthy submission in support of FRU spook Ian Hurst

Some Cic Saor aficionados will already be aware that the Guardian has now upheld my complaint against its Ireland correspondent Henry McDonald over its coverage of the Smithwick Tribunal and his use of Ian Hurst as a supposedly credible witness. The Guardian’s ruling can be read here:

I won’t go into the details of my arguments – either against Hurst or McDonald, which will be familiar territory to most of you. Rather, I will point to something very revealing that Henry McDonald says in (vainly) trying to undermine my argument. For McDonald correctly says that my complaint was an attempt by me to expose a source “widely used in the media”. Look:

The Guardian's Ireland correspondent says that this is an attempt to undermine the credibility of a source, Hurst, widely used in the media, including the Guardian.

A source widely used in the media. That’s what Ian Hurst is. Of course, the actual truth is that I’m not “attempting” to discredit Hurst. He is already discredited. The point of my Guardian complaint was to ask why McDonald specifically and indeed the commentariat in Ireland and Britain generally, continue to boost a disreputable FRU spook. The answer seems obvious to me.

In correspondence with the Guardian over my complaint, readers editor Chris Elliot asked me to answer certain points made in lengthy responses, not only from Henry McDonald and Ian Hurst but also from Ed Moloney. Thus Moloney's arguments in support of Hurst have also been rejected. (March 2014 has not been a good month for Moloney.)

This serves to illustrate my point. Ed Moloney’s allegedly definitive book on the IRA (it is no such thing) uses the discredited Ian Hurst as a key witness. Many other journalists and media outlets, as McDonald rightly avers, have cited Hurst as a credible source without seeming to properly check that his claims were true. The reason for this can only be that they so badly wanted to believe what Hurst was saying they abandoned their usual journalistic standards in the way that Henry McDonald did over the Smithwick Tribunal.

Owning up to having made a huge mistake is not easy but that is what these journalists and media outlets should do. Why? Because there will be more revelations about Hurst and his FRU spook comrades like Peter Keeley. In particular their links to News International. Or was it OK to be a FRU hacker and dissimulator in Ireland and on Irish issues but not in England?

I put this to one "campaigning" journalist in England and his reply was that "Ireland is so complicated".

@Paul Larkin
Carraic, Gaoth Dobhair
Mí an Mhárta 2014
No comments yet:


Comments must be approved before being published.

Meta Information:

Title: Ed Moloney wrote lengthy submission in support of FRU spook Ian Hurst
Date posted: 31 Mar '14 - 14:04
Filed under: General
Next entry:  » McGuinness “backshooter” Norman Tebbit unwittingly lets the Black Ops cat out of the bag.
Previous entry:  « <b>The Irish Government and Garda Special Branch have consciously ignored the hacking scandal for years – one has to ask why.</b>

Baile - Home