Constitutional Hypocrisy

Interesting hypocritical piece in the, struggling constitutional rag, AP/RN from former republican Leo Green about the hungerstrike and Thatchers policy of  the criminalisation of republicans

Firstly he speaks out about Thatchers criminalisation policy against republicans

"I laugh to myself sometimes when I think of all these super strategists the Brits had who put together their criminalisation policy – and along comes Kieran Nugent and tells them what to do with their prison uniform"


"The stand taken many years ago by republicans against the attempts to criminalise us, our politics and our struggle"


"The task of trying to break the prisoners as part of an attempt to criminalise republicans"

Then he takes a leaf right of her book and uses it against republicans himself !!!!

"The micro-groups are going nowhere. And I’m not even sure they have a desire to go anywhere. From what I know about their activities they are heavily steeped in criminality to the point that any politics that a small few within them may espouse has become totally irrelevant to their actions.


There is no place for criminality in the pursuit of a republican agenda. Nor is there any place for adventurism or ego-driven escapades. They don’t have a strategy. Their actions defy logic."


"I’m sure that when you strip away the rhetoric and look closely at those individuals who were formally involved in the republican struggle and try to understand why they are now associated with micro-groups you’ll find an axe to grind or an ego out of control or a personal interest."

http://aprnonline.com/?p=78964

Its also interesting to note that he mentions the first blanketman, Kieran Nugent, who spent his last days drinking cheap cider on a river bank. Kieran was known as a "river rat". It's saddening that men such as Kieran were left to suffer in such a way, whilst others swan around in the armani suit brigade.

Another thing i noticed was that Leo failed to mention the brave man that led the 1st hungerstrike, Brendan "The Dark" Hughes. I wonder why that was?

It makes you wonder who is pulling the constitutionals strings and who's benefiting from their anti-republican agenda and articles?