My experience with the Irish Indo must be very different to yours. My experience is that every article in the main edition of the paper and the major supplements (like Thursday's Business supplement) are available in the archive. The only stuff not in the archive from my experience is the more 'fluffy' supplements on motoring or health. It is ironic that you deem it appropriate for Connolly to have to answer the hard questions, but you give no answer to the simple question of identifying the article to support your claims. And please don't go blaming the recycling bin - you were originally asked the question within a week of the alleged appearance of the article. If you want your claims to be taken seriously, show your source.
Your interpretion of Labour's position as 'swallowing' anyone's line is flawed.As I've explained earlier, attacking McDowell on this matter does not indicate support for Connolly/SFIRA. Attacking McDowell indicates support for our system of natural justice, and not McCarthy-ite/Stalinist political interference in our justice system - no more, no less. You have chosen to interpret this as indicating support for Connolly - but that is your interpretation. This correlates with the words of Pat Rabitte in today's Irish Times;
Dealing with the recent row over the Centre for Public Inquiry, Mr Rabbitte said that Frank Connolly had refused to give answers to questions that he would regard as perfectly legitimate if he were asking them as a journalist. He added, though, that a lot of people were uneasy about the manner in which Minister for Justice Michael McDowell had handled the controversy.
"I think the Minister undermined his own case somewhat by not coming into the Dáil and making whatever statement he had to make in the Dáil. It is no secret that both Fine Gael and Labour were uncomfortable with the fact that reasonable questions remain unanswered by Frank Connolly but there is a great deal of unease about the manner in which the Minister put Garda files into the public domain in a selective fashion."
The precedents that you mention in relation to Noonan/Spring bear no comparison to McDowell's actions. Noonan/Spring didn't leak information anonymously to their drinking-buddy-pet-journalists. Let's not forget that now we have a Justice Minister indebted to Independent Newspapers. If the threat to the security of the State was so significant, why didn't McDowell simply hold a press conference (as Noonan did iirc) to release this information. Why did he leak it to Sam Smyth and only come clean when cornered? Why did he wait for the PQ from Finian McGrath to release the information to the Dail? If this is such a critical matter, why didn't he give a statement to the Dail at the earliest opportunity?
It seems that the pro-McDowell brigade have swallowed his spin without question, and without any consideration for the damage he has done to our system of justice.
It is grossly unfair that you continue to cast doubt over the DPP's decision not to bring charges against Connolly. Like it or not, the DPP's decision in this case (and every case) is a Yes or No response. They don't deal in nearly's or possibly's or maybe's - they don't deal in the kind of FUD (fear, uncertainty,
doubt) that you are spreading. They deal in Yes's or No's. In this case, it was a decision NOT to bring Connolly to trial. Any other spin you choose to put on the DPP's actions are just that - your own spin.