Former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams wins libel lawsuit against BBC
LONDON (AP) — Former Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams won his libel suit against the BBC on Friday over a claim he authorized the killing of an informant.
A jury at the High Court in Dublin ruled in Adams' favor and he was awarded 100,000 euros ($113,000) in damages.
Adams sued Britain's public broadcaster over a claim in a documentary and online article that he sanctioned the killing of Denis Donaldson, a long-serving Sinn Fein official who acknowledged in 2005 that he had worked for British intelligence. He was shot dead at his cottage in rural Ireland four months later.
In the BBC program broadcast in September 2016, an anonymous source claimed the shooting was sanctioned by the political and military leadership of the IRA and that Adams gave 'the final say.'
Adams denies involvement and called the allegation a 'grievous smear.'
Adams, 76, is one of the most influential figures of Northern Ireland's decades of conflict, and its peace process. He led the IRA-linked party Sinn Fein between 1983 and 2018. He has always denied being an IRA member, though former colleagues have said he was one of its leaders.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can we still be Britain without the British? We'd rather you didn't ask
I couldn't care less about the burka debate. Not a tinker's. Why? Because it's a concession of defeat, a belated response by panicked politicians to a change that's already happened and that they largely encouraged. Last week, a meteor hit Britain with the publication of a demographic study by the queerly named Centre of Heterodox Social Science. By 2063, say the sociable hets, white Britons will be a minority; come the new century, almost one in five citizens will be Muslim. This forces us to consider a very politically incorrect question: will Britain still be Britain if it's no longer majority white British? The official answer is 'absolutely, yes'. Elite liberals believe nations are defined by values, and thus anyone, from anywhere in the world, can become British if they conform to them. It helps that these values are universal. Fairness, tolerance, kindness... this is a portable identity that is uncontroversial, because it demands nothing except to pay one's taxes and avoid murder. Keir Starmer warns that we are becoming an 'island of strangers', while promoting a vision of citizenship that is entirely passive. It's also based on a misreading of human nature. Liberals assume that values shape culture, such that we could pass a law – ban the burka, ban Islamophobia – and we'd become good neighbours overnight. But it's the other way around. Culture shapes values, and culture is the product of non-abstract, substantial qualities, such as climate, geography, religion, language and ethnicity. We can shorthand it as 'history'. Thus: we are democratic in Britain not because a committee decided it over one wild weekend, but following nearly a thousand years of revolution and reaction, baked into memory and expressed as temperament. Such a society is light-touch and self-governing, at least in theory, because we've been marinating in its ethics and customs since birth. The English, Welsh, Scots etc do exist as cultures – not superior to others, nor unaffected by migration, but really real – and if they undergo a profound change in composition, this is bound to change the nature of Britishness, too. Isn't that obvious? It's regarded as axiomatic elsewhere. We rush to recognise and cultivate the historical identity of First Nations people, just as we step back nervously from a Holy Land conflict shaped by competing ethnic claims over biblical territory. And even if you regard ethnic conflict as sinful, as I do, or based upon a category error, as academics insist, we have to accept that identity matters to a lot of people. In which case, I struggle to think of a society in history that has faced the scale of change happening to us without descending into violence or authoritarianism. Today, the liberal understanding of nationhood is already in retreat. Remigration is being trialled in the United States. Donald Trump is reducing inflows by banning travel from named countries, cutting asylum and militarising his border. He's also increasing outflows by expelling as many people as he can on any pretext he can find. For instance, when an Egyptian asylum-seeker assaulted protesters in Colorado, the administration not only arrested the attacker but detained and is seeking to deport his entire family – a 'sins of the father' policy that judges are resisting. Elsewhere, the BBC's Simon Reeve has caused a stir by highlighting the integrationist policies of Denmark, a country that offers people cash to go home and dismantles ghettos. That this is done by social democrats comes as no surprise. Scandinavia is historically conformist; a welfare state requires high levels of solidarity to function. Evidence of my 'history-shapes-identity' theory is offered by how countries respond to the immigration challenge in light of their own traditions. Here, when a Reform UK MP asked the PM for his views on the burka, the PM had no answer and his MPs sounded as shocked as a maiden aunt offered cocaine. Why doesn't Labour want to have this debate? A cynic will say: it offends their core constituency. A Tory will claim: they don't really care about immigration. And yet Labour's immigration White Paper looks tough, and it has already increased deportations compared with the last government. Historically, it was Labour that restricted Commonwealth immigration in the 1960s, and Boris Johnson, of Brexit fame, who threw the borders open. Boris, who liked to play both sides of the immigration game, infamously compared the burka to a letter box – yet did not wish to ban it. Do we not say 'an Englishman's home is his castle'? By extension, they are free to wear whatever they want in the street. The problem, reply nationalists, is that by clinging to a liberal vision, we open the door to illiberal attitudes that might, by strength of conviction, overwhelm us. If the culture goes, our old values will follow. We are not, however, as tolerant as many assume. It has been reported that Prevent now regards 'cultural nationalism' – the fear that society 'is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration' – as a 'sub-category of extreme Right-wing terrorist ideologies', and thus worthy of referral to the authorities. GB News is up in arms – admittedly a permanent condition – but I've yet to hear a guest point out that white Christians are merely experiencing what the security services have done to Muslim Britons since 9/11: slander and harassment. Between 2016 and 2019, over 2,000 children under the age of nine were referred to Prevent, including a four-year-old Muslim boy who talked about a violent computer game at an after-school club. Right and Left are chasing a mirage of British liberalism that, in an age when you can get 31 months for a social-media post, no longer reflects reality. Immigration is ultimately a numbers game. A democratic society can get along fine with any minority, so long as it remains small in number. But when a government fails to police its borders, and thus loses control over numbers, it will feel obliged to police society to maintain harmony: monitoring, deporting, rewriting history, and indoctrinating us in a strange new variant on national character, a parody of kindness best described as 'sinister twee'. If you want a vision of the future, it is a Dawn French-shaped woman, with a midlife-crisis fringe, talking to you about diversity and inclusion as if you were a baby. Then, when you raise an objection, ending the discussion with a disturbingly final 'NO'. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senator 'Fighting for His Life' After He Was Shot While Speaking to Supporters at a Park, Teen Arrested
A senator and presidential hopeful was shot multiple times during an event with supporters at a public park on June 7 Miguel Uribe Turbay was speaking with locals in the Fontibón neighborhood of Colombia when the incident took place 'He is fighting for his life," the politician's wife said in a statementA presidential hopeful was shot multiple times while speaking to supporters at a public park over the weekend. Miguel Uribe Turbay, a senator part of Colombia's center-right Centro Democrático party, was attacked on Saturday, June 7, while in the Fontibón neighborhood of the country's capital Bogotá. A 15-year-old, who was carrying a Glock-style pistol, has since been arrested, according to CNN and the BBC, both of which cited the local attorney general's office. Colombia's president Gustavo Petro said during a television appearance later that day that it wasn't clear if the teen was acting alone, per The New York Times. According to an update shared on X by Turbay's wife, Maria Claudia Tarazona, the senator was "fighting for his life" following the shooting. She thanked his supporters for their "solidarity" and "prayers" in a later statement on Sunday, June 8, writing that updates about his health would be shared by the hospital. 'He came out well from the surgery,' his wife later told reporters, per CNN, which cited the Agence France-Presse (AFP). 'He fought the first battle and fought it well. He is fighting for his life.' Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, the hospital where Turbay was admitted, announced in a statement on June 8 that the politician was treated with procedures on his head and his left thigh and remains in intensive care. The hospital called his condition "extremely serious." The BBC reported that Turbay was shot three times on June 7, including twice in the head. Turbay was speaking to supporters at the park over the weekend when loud bangs rang out. He fell to the ground after appearing to be shot from behind, according to widely shared footage from the scene. Later footage showed supporters assisting and carrying the presidential candidate, who appeared to be covered in blood, as he was placed near the hood of a white car. At least three other people were also shot at the park, including a 20-year-old man, a 36-year-old woman and a 15-year-old, the Secretaría de Salud de Bogotá said. Bogota Mayor Carlos Fernando Galán said on June 8, per CNN, that Turbay has since entered 'the critical hours' of recovery following his own procedures. President Petro added during his broadcast on June 7 that "no resource should be spared" when tracking down those responsible for the shooting. "Not a single peso," he said, per the Times, adding that Turbay's security would be investigated for protocol failures. Eyewitness Victor Mosquera told reporters outside of the hospital that he was near the senator during the shooting and still had blood on his clothing while outside of the hospital, per the Times. 'Everyone was screaming and running,' he said, adding, "When I turned around, I saw Miguel lying next to me.' Pedro Sánchez, Colombia's defense minister, has since announced on X that a reward is being offered of up to 3 billion Colombian pesos — roughly $728,000 — for more information. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
First troops arrive in LA before feared third day of rioting
National Guard troops have arrived in Los Angeles as the city braces for a potential third day of rioting over raids on undocumented migrants. Donald Trump has sent 2,000 members of the National Guard to the California city after two days of violent clashes between police and demonstrators. Protesters launched fireworks at police on Saturday as cars were set on fire and a gas station was looted. A van was attacked with rocks while being driven away by border officials from a demonstration in the Paramount area, according to footage posted by Fox News. On Sunday morning, Mr Trump said on his Truth Social platform: 'Great job by the National Guard in Los Angeles after two days of violence, clashes and unrest…These Radical Left protests, by instigators and often paid troublemakers, will not be tolerated.' Gavin Newsom, the California governor, said Mr Trump's decision to send in troops was 'unnecessary' and 'purposefully inflammatory', stressing that there was no shortage of law enforcement. 'The federal government is taking over the California National Guard and deploying 2,000 soldiers in Los Angeles – not because there is a shortage of law enforcement, but because they want a spectacle,' Mr Newsom added. 'Don't give them one. Never use violence. Speak out peacefully.' Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, later threatened to mobilise active duty marines, which Mr Newsom went on to describe as 'deranged'. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
