Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1132
July 4, 2018
July 3, 2018
Resolution Statement 02180-18 Flynn v Belfast Telegraph
A ruling from the Independent Press Standards Organisation has vindicated Marty Flynn in his assertion that the Belfast Telegraph had published misleading information about him.
Summary of complaint
Resolution Statement 02180-18 Flynn v Belfast Telegraph Decision:
Resolved - IPSO mediation Relevant code provisions
1 Accuracy (2018)
Publication
The Belfast Telegraph (Independent News & Media) Conclusion
Resolved - IPSO mediation
Resolution Statement 02180-18 Flynn v Belfast Telegraph
Summary of complaint
1. Martin Flynn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Belfast Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Victim’s sister who hugged soldier abused”, published on 14 February 2018. The article was published online under the headline “Troll targets sister of boy shot by Army in Derry after inquest into killing”.
2. The article reported that a woman whose brother had been shot dead by a soldier almost 46 years ago had “endured vile abuse because she hugged the killer’s commanding officer after he broke down during the inquest”. It reported that the woman had said that she had been “trolled by the man since the end of the inquest” and that she had “never spoken a word to him in [her] life”.
3. The complainant said that the article had contained false allegations against him. He said that although the article had not named him as the individual who the woman had claimed had sent abusive messages, the journalist had posted it to the woman’s Facebook page where she had repeatedly accused him by name.
4. He also denied that he had never spoken to the woman; in fact, they had known each other for a number of years. While he accepted that correspondence between them had become heated for one week 10 months after the inquest, they had always engaged with each other positively, including in the months following the inquest, and he provided examples to support his position. He expressed concern that the newspaper had made no attempt to contact him before it proceeded to publish the allegations.
5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that before publishing the article, the reporter had checked the woman’s Facebook page to verify that abusive comments had been made, and it provided three examples, which it said supported the report. It explained that it had not sought the complainant’s comment before publication because it had no intention of naming him in the piece, and the reporter had made no comment whatsoever when she posted the article to the woman’s Facebook page.
6. The newspaper noted that the article had not stated that the woman had never met the alleged troll; rather, it had stated that she had never spoken to him. In any event, it did not consider that this was a significant point in the context of the allegations.
Relevant Code provisions
7. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
Mediated outcome
8. During IPSO’s investigation of the complaint, the newspaper offered to publish the following clarification:
With reference to an article published on February 14, 2018 in relation to the alleged trolling of Derry Troubles’ victim Helen Deery, we would take this opportunity to clarify that a number of the claims made in the article were misleading.
9. The complainant accepted the publication of this wording as a resolution to his complaint.
10. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 06/03/2018
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/06/2018
Summary of complaint
Resolution Statement 02180-18 Flynn v Belfast Telegraph Decision:
Resolved - IPSO mediation Relevant code provisions
1 Accuracy (2018)
Publication
The Belfast Telegraph (Independent News & Media) Conclusion
Resolved - IPSO mediation
Resolution Statement 02180-18 Flynn v Belfast Telegraph
Summary of complaint
1. Martin Flynn complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that the Belfast Telegraph breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Victim’s sister who hugged soldier abused”, published on 14 February 2018. The article was published online under the headline “Troll targets sister of boy shot by Army in Derry after inquest into killing”.
2. The article reported that a woman whose brother had been shot dead by a soldier almost 46 years ago had “endured vile abuse because she hugged the killer’s commanding officer after he broke down during the inquest”. It reported that the woman had said that she had been “trolled by the man since the end of the inquest” and that she had “never spoken a word to him in [her] life”.
3. The complainant said that the article had contained false allegations against him. He said that although the article had not named him as the individual who the woman had claimed had sent abusive messages, the journalist had posted it to the woman’s Facebook page where she had repeatedly accused him by name.
4. He also denied that he had never spoken to the woman; in fact, they had known each other for a number of years. While he accepted that correspondence between them had become heated for one week 10 months after the inquest, they had always engaged with each other positively, including in the months following the inquest, and he provided examples to support his position. He expressed concern that the newspaper had made no attempt to contact him before it proceeded to publish the allegations.
5. The newspaper did not accept a breach of the Code. It said that before publishing the article, the reporter had checked the woman’s Facebook page to verify that abusive comments had been made, and it provided three examples, which it said supported the report. It explained that it had not sought the complainant’s comment before publication because it had no intention of naming him in the piece, and the reporter had made no comment whatsoever when she posted the article to the woman’s Facebook page.
6. The newspaper noted that the article had not stated that the woman had never met the alleged troll; rather, it had stated that she had never spoken to him. In any event, it did not consider that this was a significant point in the context of the allegations.
Relevant Code provisions
7. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and — where appropriate — an apology published. In cases involving IPSO, due prominence should be as required by the regulator.
Mediated outcome
8. During IPSO’s investigation of the complaint, the newspaper offered to publish the following clarification:
With reference to an article published on February 14, 2018 in relation to the alleged trolling of Derry Troubles’ victim Helen Deery, we would take this opportunity to clarify that a number of the claims made in the article were misleading.
9. The complainant accepted the publication of this wording as a resolution to his complaint.
10. As the complaint was successfully mediated, the Complaints Committee did not make a determination as to whether there had been any breach of the Code.
Date complaint received: 06/03/2018
Date complaint concluded by IPSO: 13/06/2018
July 2, 2018
Billy Wright & Heaven
Forgiveness – now that can be the elephant in the theological room at times in the Christian community. In his Fearless Flying Column today, political commentator Dr John Coulter recalls an awkward interview he did in which a cleric maintained why he believes murderers, including murdered loyalist terror boss Billy Wright – dubbed King Rat – are now in Heaven.
I’m doing a Bible study course at the moment and one of the topics concerns the at times thorny subject of justification – or to put it in everyday Christian English, how can someone be sure they are getting into Heaven?
As my thoughts wandered through this subject, I recalled a number of stories which have caused me difficulty during my four decades in journalism – all of them in Ireland. There was the time a Baptist evangelist told me that my youngest son’s severe autism was a punishment from God and that he would never see Heaven.
Whilst not naming the evangelist, I wrote about him in a national tabloid newspaper. He contacted me very soon after to say that he had changed his theological opinion on the matter and he now believed my son would be in Heaven! Did the Lord really speak to him, or was he simply scared I would name him in my next tabloid article on the matter? You decide!
But the most awkward interview I’ve ever done was with a Protestant cleric who maintained that murdered loyalist terror boss Billy Wright was a ‘born again’, although backslidden, Christian who is now in Heaven.
The interview was done in 2007 to coincide with the 10th anniversary of Wright’s murder of in the Maze jail by three INLA prisoners on 27 December, 1997. In terms of ethics, I even asked that cleric if he was sure he wanted me to quote him on the ‘Billy Wright’s in Heaven’ stance and he said he was. Needless to say, the lid came off after publication!
After falling out with the Belfast leadership of the UVF after the 1994 Combined Loyalist Military Command ceasefire, Wright then set up the breakaway Loyalist Volunteer Force in the mid-1990s. This cleric was no street corner tub thumper. Although he possessed an honours degree, masters and doctorates in theology, his comments on the former Mid-Ulster LVF boss Wright being in heaven sparked an uproar in both nationalist and Protestant church circles.
Speaking exclusively to me at that time in 2007, the cleric said: “99 per cent of what has been written about Billy Wright has been written by Billy Wright’s enemies.
And the cleric also claimed many other, internationally well-known murderers, are also in Heaven!
He quoted a series of Bible verses as proof of his views: (Exodus 2:11-15) (Judges 3:20-26) (Judges 14:11-20) (1 Samuel 15:32-33) (Acts 7:55-60; Acts 8:1-3).
It was clear to me that the cleric knew Wright personally. Wright, he claimed, joined the UVF aged 15 on 31 July 1975. The cleric said he first met Wright in the late 1970s in Belfast’s now closed Crumlin Road jail.
The cleric even quoted from a letter which he said Wright wrote to him in the early 1980s. “I believe the Lord is once again using you and what has happened in your life to speak to my heart and to show me my need of Salvation in and through the Cross of Jesus Christ,” wrote Wright.
Describing Wright as “a son in the faith”, the cleric said to me:
However, the cleric also noted that, in March and April 1986, as a result of serious clashes in Portadown between loyalists and the then RUC, “Billy seriously backslid from his faith”.
The death of Portadown teenager Keith White from an RUC plastic batten round “was the last straw used to break the sincere Christian resolve and full commitment of Billy Wright”.
Justifying his belief Wright was still a Christian and now in Heaven, the cleric told me in 2007: “How then can one, even one like the late Billy Wright, lose something that has not ever been his to have – outside the sovereign grace of Almighty God?"
He quoted from his Bible: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
“If Eternal Salvation be the gift of God and not of works, then how would it be possible for Billy Wright - or any other believer in Christ - to lose that which has never belonged to him in the first place?” said the cleric in 2007.
After the interview was published, the cleric never spoke to me again. Ethically, I feel as a journalist, I did my duty by advising this cleric that expressing that honestly held opinion of Wright’s location in the afterlife would spark rage.
I do not mean to re-open a can of worms by reproducing extracts from that interview in 2007 in this column, but merely to illustrate the theological debate in my own mind over the subject of justification in relation to my own spiritual beliefs as an evangelical Christian and my work as a journalist.
So here’s the key question – if someone becomes ‘saved’ or ‘born again’ according to the Biblical Salvationist theology; then ‘backslide’ or ‘lose their faith’ and commit a litany of crimes, can they still get into Heaven? Is this a case of what is known in Scripture as The Unpardonable Sin? Or is it a case of ‘Once saved, always saved’?
Yup, theology can become a real mind-melter at times!
Dr John Coulter has been a journalist working in Northern Ireland since 1978. As well as being a former weekly newspaper editor, he has served as Religious Affairs Correspondent of the News Letter and is a past Director of Operations for Christian Communication Network television. He currently also writes political analysis articles for national newspaper titles. He is author of the ebook,
An Saise Glas’: The Road to National Republicanism,
available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter. @JohnAHCoulter
I’m doing a Bible study course at the moment and one of the topics concerns the at times thorny subject of justification – or to put it in everyday Christian English, how can someone be sure they are getting into Heaven?
As my thoughts wandered through this subject, I recalled a number of stories which have caused me difficulty during my four decades in journalism – all of them in Ireland. There was the time a Baptist evangelist told me that my youngest son’s severe autism was a punishment from God and that he would never see Heaven.
Whilst not naming the evangelist, I wrote about him in a national tabloid newspaper. He contacted me very soon after to say that he had changed his theological opinion on the matter and he now believed my son would be in Heaven! Did the Lord really speak to him, or was he simply scared I would name him in my next tabloid article on the matter? You decide!
But the most awkward interview I’ve ever done was with a Protestant cleric who maintained that murdered loyalist terror boss Billy Wright was a ‘born again’, although backslidden, Christian who is now in Heaven.
The interview was done in 2007 to coincide with the 10th anniversary of Wright’s murder of in the Maze jail by three INLA prisoners on 27 December, 1997. In terms of ethics, I even asked that cleric if he was sure he wanted me to quote him on the ‘Billy Wright’s in Heaven’ stance and he said he was. Needless to say, the lid came off after publication!
After falling out with the Belfast leadership of the UVF after the 1994 Combined Loyalist Military Command ceasefire, Wright then set up the breakaway Loyalist Volunteer Force in the mid-1990s. This cleric was no street corner tub thumper. Although he possessed an honours degree, masters and doctorates in theology, his comments on the former Mid-Ulster LVF boss Wright being in heaven sparked an uproar in both nationalist and Protestant church circles.
Speaking exclusively to me at that time in 2007, the cleric said: “99 per cent of what has been written about Billy Wright has been written by Billy Wright’s enemies.
I believe Billy Wright is in Heaven right now – perhaps even sat next to the ‘repentant thief’ who died on a cruel Roman cross next to Christ on the day of Crucifixion. The repentant thief couldn’t do any good works, get baptised in water, lead a pure and exemplary life, or contribute any other thing towards the salvation of his soul or, through religious rituals, keep himself in ‘a state of continuing grace‘. Jesus did it all for him. He did it all for me and for Billy Wright and for an innumerable host of repentant souls whom He alone could save.
And the cleric also claimed many other, internationally well-known murderers, are also in Heaven!
Moses, Ehud, Samson, the prophet Samuel, Israel’s King David, and for evangelicals, Saul of Tarsus who later became the apostle Paul - all these murderers are in Heaven also, according to the Word of God contained in our Bibles.
He quoted a series of Bible verses as proof of his views: (Exodus 2:11-15) (Judges 3:20-26) (Judges 14:11-20) (1 Samuel 15:32-33) (Acts 7:55-60; Acts 8:1-3).
It was clear to me that the cleric knew Wright personally. Wright, he claimed, joined the UVF aged 15 on 31 July 1975. The cleric said he first met Wright in the late 1970s in Belfast’s now closed Crumlin Road jail.
The cleric even quoted from a letter which he said Wright wrote to him in the early 1980s. “I believe the Lord is once again using you and what has happened in your life to speak to my heart and to show me my need of Salvation in and through the Cross of Jesus Christ,” wrote Wright.
Describing Wright as “a son in the faith”, the cleric said to me:
Billy caused me much spiritual joy when the Lord Jesus saved him and called him to be a witness to many with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. As I, and all Christians, have no doubt caused God, our Heavenly Father, much consternation over the past 28 years since He saved me, Billy also caused me much spiritual and emotional consternation during his chequered and often turbulent young life from 1983 to 1997. For three years between 1983 and 1986 my late friend and ‘son in the faith’ Billy Wright proved to be a tremendous evangelist and lay-preacher in the service of his Saviour. There are countless Christians throughout Northern Ireland and beyond who willingly testify today concerning Billy’s genuine conversion to Christ and his forthright manner of sincere preaching and witnessing at church meetings and Christian missions.
However, the cleric also noted that, in March and April 1986, as a result of serious clashes in Portadown between loyalists and the then RUC, “Billy seriously backslid from his faith”.
The death of Portadown teenager Keith White from an RUC plastic batten round “was the last straw used to break the sincere Christian resolve and full commitment of Billy Wright”.
Justifying his belief Wright was still a Christian and now in Heaven, the cleric told me in 2007: “How then can one, even one like the late Billy Wright, lose something that has not ever been his to have – outside the sovereign grace of Almighty God?"
He quoted from his Bible: “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)
“If Eternal Salvation be the gift of God and not of works, then how would it be possible for Billy Wright - or any other believer in Christ - to lose that which has never belonged to him in the first place?” said the cleric in 2007.
After the interview was published, the cleric never spoke to me again. Ethically, I feel as a journalist, I did my duty by advising this cleric that expressing that honestly held opinion of Wright’s location in the afterlife would spark rage.
I do not mean to re-open a can of worms by reproducing extracts from that interview in 2007 in this column, but merely to illustrate the theological debate in my own mind over the subject of justification in relation to my own spiritual beliefs as an evangelical Christian and my work as a journalist.
So here’s the key question – if someone becomes ‘saved’ or ‘born again’ according to the Biblical Salvationist theology; then ‘backslide’ or ‘lose their faith’ and commit a litany of crimes, can they still get into Heaven? Is this a case of what is known in Scripture as The Unpardonable Sin? Or is it a case of ‘Once saved, always saved’?
Yup, theology can become a real mind-melter at times!
Dr John Coulter has been a journalist working in Northern Ireland since 1978. As well as being a former weekly newspaper editor, he has served as Religious Affairs Correspondent of the News Letter and is a past Director of Operations for Christian Communication Network television. He currently also writes political analysis articles for national newspaper titles. He is author of the ebook,
An Saise Glas’: The Road to National Republicanism,
available on Amazon Kindle. Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter. @JohnAHCoulter
July 1, 2018
Most Americans Oppose Business' Refusal Of Service To LGBTQ Customers
From Atheist Republic, a poll is cited purporting to show that most Americans oppose businesses discriminating against LGBTQ customers on the basis of their own religious opinion.
Photo Credits: American Civil Liberties Union
US Supreme Court recently ruled that baker Jake Philips could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
In Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released this month, 72 percent of respondents said business owners, because of their religious beliefs, should not be allowed to refuse to serve customers based on sexual orientation, while 14 percent said they do have that right. Another 9 percent said businesses have the right “only in certain circumstances” and 6 percent said they do not know. The Reuters/Ipsos survey collected responses online in English throughout the United States from 722 American adults.
It is not surprising that while a majority of Americans oppose religion-based refusal of service to LGBT customers, most white evangelicals support such measures. Actually, 51% of white evangelicals supported such refusals, as did 37% of all Christians, 32% of Catholics and 41% of Protestants also expressed support.
For white Evangelicals, views on service refusals vary depending on religion, as USA Today reports:
When asked if they supported allowing small business owners in their state to refuse to provide products or services to LGBT individuals if doing so violates their religious beliefs:
➤Christian small business owners: 60% of white evangelicals vs. 43% of Christians overall
➤Jewish small business owners: 55% of white evangelicals vs. 41% of Christians
➤Muslim small business owners: 46% of white evangelicals vs. 36% of Christians
➤Mormon small business owners: 50% of white evangelicals vs. 38% of Christians
Their opposition: ➤ Christian small business owners: 43% of Christians overall vs. 27% of white evangelicals ➤Jewish small business owners: 43% of Christians vs. 26% of white evangelicals
➤Muslim small business owners: 44 % of Christians vs. 32% of white evangelicals
➤Mormon small business owners: 44% of Christians vs. 30% of white evangelicals
The poll also found out that the number of Americans who support gay marriage has increased in recent years. Of all respondents, 53% said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry legally, with all the same rights as marriages between a man and a woman.
About Atheist Republic
Follow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
Photo Credits: American Civil Liberties UnionUS Supreme Court recently ruled that baker Jake Philips could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs did not violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.
In Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll released this month, 72 percent of respondents said business owners, because of their religious beliefs, should not be allowed to refuse to serve customers based on sexual orientation, while 14 percent said they do have that right. Another 9 percent said businesses have the right “only in certain circumstances” and 6 percent said they do not know. The Reuters/Ipsos survey collected responses online in English throughout the United States from 722 American adults.
It is not surprising that while a majority of Americans oppose religion-based refusal of service to LGBT customers, most white evangelicals support such measures. Actually, 51% of white evangelicals supported such refusals, as did 37% of all Christians, 32% of Catholics and 41% of Protestants also expressed support.
For white Evangelicals, views on service refusals vary depending on religion, as USA Today reports:
When asked if they supported allowing small business owners in their state to refuse to provide products or services to LGBT individuals if doing so violates their religious beliefs:
➤Christian small business owners: 60% of white evangelicals vs. 43% of Christians overall
➤Jewish small business owners: 55% of white evangelicals vs. 41% of Christians
➤Muslim small business owners: 46% of white evangelicals vs. 36% of Christians
➤Mormon small business owners: 50% of white evangelicals vs. 38% of Christians
Their opposition: ➤ Christian small business owners: 43% of Christians overall vs. 27% of white evangelicals ➤Jewish small business owners: 43% of Christians vs. 26% of white evangelicals
➤Muslim small business owners: 44 % of Christians vs. 32% of white evangelicals
➤Mormon small business owners: 44% of Christians vs. 30% of white evangelicals
The poll also found out that the number of Americans who support gay marriage has increased in recent years. Of all respondents, 53% said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry legally, with all the same rights as marriages between a man and a woman.
About Atheist RepublicFollow Atheist Republic on Twitter @AtheistRepublic
June 30, 2018
‘Agreed New Ireland’ A Further Usurp Of The Irish Republic
Sean Bresnahan considers a possibly border poll but has no faith in an agreed Ireland.
Mellows described the Irish Free State, with the wider Partition system of which it was part, as a bulwark between capitalist power and the Irish Republic. What is being mounted here at present is designed to effect that same purpose, with the agreed new Ireland of constitutional nationalism set to further usurp the Republic.
Republicans, then, must approach a border poll with caution, conscious and aware that core to its design is both an acceptance of its right to determine Ireland’s future and a paving of the path towards a revision of current structures, these to be dressed in the garb of a United Ireland. While there is a need for nuance in our forward direction, we ignore these matters at our peril.
Rather than campaign with a border poll as policy, which is set toward a further compromise with Britain — not unity in a full republic — Republicans must build a broader initiative, with the Irish Republic as its masthead. Such an initiative must stand in its own right, independent of the border poll process.
Equally, however, it can still be put forward in the event one were held or indeed passed. They need not form the one endeavour and indeed need not, necessarily, exclude one another. In any event, fail to organise for the Republic and be assured of its continuing usurp — even post-a ‘Yes’ vote border poll in a supposed United Ireland.
With constitutional change now firmly in sight, the stakes could not be higher. Republicans can either respond as they must or watch on from the rear as Britain makes good on her scheming. Will Ireland at last take her place among the nations or be further reconfigured in the interests of British power? A fundamental reckoning lies ahead.
Sean Bresnahan, Chair, Thomas Ashe Society Omagh blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
Mellows described the Irish Free State, with the wider Partition system of which it was part, as a bulwark between capitalist power and the Irish Republic. What is being mounted here at present is designed to effect that same purpose, with the agreed new Ireland of constitutional nationalism set to further usurp the Republic.
Republicans, then, must approach a border poll with caution, conscious and aware that core to its design is both an acceptance of its right to determine Ireland’s future and a paving of the path towards a revision of current structures, these to be dressed in the garb of a United Ireland. While there is a need for nuance in our forward direction, we ignore these matters at our peril.
Rather than campaign with a border poll as policy, which is set toward a further compromise with Britain — not unity in a full republic — Republicans must build a broader initiative, with the Irish Republic as its masthead. Such an initiative must stand in its own right, independent of the border poll process.
Equally, however, it can still be put forward in the event one were held or indeed passed. They need not form the one endeavour and indeed need not, necessarily, exclude one another. In any event, fail to organise for the Republic and be assured of its continuing usurp — even post-a ‘Yes’ vote border poll in a supposed United Ireland.
With constitutional change now firmly in sight, the stakes could not be higher. Republicans can either respond as they must or watch on from the rear as Britain makes good on her scheming. Will Ireland at last take her place among the nations or be further reconfigured in the interests of British power? A fundamental reckoning lies ahead.
Sean Bresnahan, Chair, Thomas Ashe Society Omagh blogs at An Claidheamh Soluis
Follow Sean Bresnahan on Twitter @bres79
Radio Free Eireann Broadcasting 30 June 2018
Martin Galvin
with details of this weekend's broadcast from
Radio Free Eireann.
Radio Free Eireann will broadcast today Saturday June 30th.
Michael Finucane, son of Irish civil rights lawyer Pat Finucane will give a first hand report on this week's dramatic hearing at the London Supreme Court and explain why almost 30 years later, the Finucane family is fighting for an Independent Judicial Inquiry as the only way to get to the truth about British state collusion in the brutal murder.
Dan Dennehy, National Director of the AOH and leading American immigration activist, will discuss current immigration problems and the impact on the Irish community as well as take part in a discussion about the surprising primary defeat of Congressman Joe Crowley, a champion on Irish issues.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
Radio Free Eireann will broadcast today Saturday June 30th.
Michael Finucane, son of Irish civil rights lawyer Pat Finucane will give a first hand report on this week's dramatic hearing at the London Supreme Court and explain why almost 30 years later, the Finucane family is fighting for an Independent Judicial Inquiry as the only way to get to the truth about British state collusion in the brutal murder.
Dan Dennehy, National Director of the AOH and leading American immigration activist, will discuss current immigration problems and the impact on the Irish community as well as take part in a discussion about the surprising primary defeat of Congressman Joe Crowley, a champion on Irish issues.
John McDonagh and Martin Galvin co- host.
Radio Free Eireann is heard Saturdays at 12 Noon New York time on wbai 99.5 FM and wbai.org.
It can be heard at wbai.org in Ireland from 5pm to 6pm or anytime after the program concludes on wbai.org/archives.
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
