What happened during the 81 Hunger Stikes?

by Jim Gibney Wed May 17, 2006 14:22

The protest for political status in Armagh Women's prison and the H-Blocks of Long Kesh lasted for five years between September 1976 and October 1981.

At no time before the first hunger strike in October 1980 did the British government try to end the protest by any means other than brutalising and degrading the prisoners.

The first hunger strike involved seven men in the H-Blocks and three women in Armagh jail. It lasted 53 days.

The British deliberately waited until Sean McKenna had hours to live before sending a document to the hunger strikers outlining a changed prison regime if they ended the strike.

Hours before the document arrived the strike was ended rather than let Sean McKenna die.

The document could have been the basis on which the prison protests ended.

However the document was an offer from the British to the prisoners not an agreement. There is a huge difference.

The first hunger strike ended on December 18 1980. The second hunger strike started 72 days later on March 1 1981.

The British government could easily have prevented the second hunger strike by implementing the prison regime detailed in their December 18 document.

They refused to do so.

Bobby Sand's 25th anniversary occurred last Friday May 5. He died after 66 days on hunger strike. At no stage during those 66 days did the British government offer an agreement to end the hunger strike.

Francis Hughes died on May 12, seven days later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Raymond McCreesh and Patsy O'Hara died on May 21, nine days later. The British did not offer an agreement before they died.

Joe McDonnell died on July 8, 47 days later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Martin Hurson died on July 13, five days later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Kevin Lynch died on August 1, 18 days later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Kieran Doherty died on August 2, 24 hours later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Thomas McElwee died on August 8, six days later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Mickey Devine died on August 20, 12 days later. The British did not offer an agreement before he died.

Five years of protest; 270 days of hunger strikes, 10 men dead. The prisoners ended the hunger strike without the offer of an agreement.

Within days they had their own clothes and within a year political status.

They paid an awful price.

These are the unassailable and incontrovertible facts from that heroic and tragic period.

Judge these facts against the claim by Richard O'Rawe in his book Blanketmen that three days before Joe McDonnell died he and Bik McFarlane, the O/C of the prisoners, discussed out their cell windows a 'set of proposals' from the British acceptable to them but rejected by the republican leadership outside the jail.

Bik said there was no conversation with O'Rawe out the window.

Two cells separated Bik and O'Rawe. Bik's cellmate and O'Rawe's cellmate did not hear such a vital exchange.

There were 46 men in the wing. None of them heard the alleged conversation and they would have.

O'Rawe as PRO wrote regularly to the leadership outside. He never wrote to them about the rejected 'set of proposals'.

On his release he worked for a year in Sinn Fein's press office with Danny Morrison.

He never mentioned the rejected 'set of proposals' to him.

For 24 years he was regularly in the company of ex-prisoners. He never mentioned the rejected 'set of proposals' to anyone.

O'Rawe's 'set of proposals' are first mentioned 'exclusively' by him in the Sunday Times of all papers.

Before the extract from his book appeared he did not have the decency to warn the relatives of the dead hunger strikers who are deeply hurt by his bogus claims.

On the eve of Joe McDonnell's death the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace six times asked the Northern Ireland Office to put to the hunger strikers what the NIO was claiming to be offering. Six times it refused. Joe McDonnell died and the ICJP left in disgust.

Had the British offered an 'agreement' they would have told the world about it at the time and used it against Sinn Fein and the IRA since.

O'Rawe stands alone on this, awkwardly close to those who stood with Thatcher 25 years ago this year.

by Brendan McFarlane - Leader of H-Block prisoners during 1981 hunger strikes Wed May 17, 2006 14:27

18.3.05
Brendan McFarlane denies Hunger Strike deal
Irelandclick.com

McFARLANE DENIES HUNGER STRIKE ‘DEAL’ WAS STRUCK

**from Bobby Sands Trust - Brendan McFarlane, OC H-Blocks

Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the H-Block prisoners during the hunger strikes of 1981, has rejected any suggestion that a deal was rejected before the death of Joe McDonnell.

The North Belfast man said the claims in Richard O’Rawe’s book entitled Blanketmen: The Untold Story of the H-Block Hunger Strike had caused distress among the families of the hunger strikers.
In his book O’Rawe claims the final six men to die were sacrificed for political reasons and to help the election of Owen Carron to Bobby Sands’ Westminster seat.
"All of us, particularly the families of the men who died, carry the tragedy and trauma of the hunger strikes with us every day of our lives.
“It was an emotional and deeply distressing time for those of us who were in the H-Blocks and close to the hunger strikers,” said Brendan McFarlane.
“However, as the Officer Commanding in the prison at the time, I can say categorically that there was no outside intervention to prevent a deal.
“The only outside intervention was to try to prevent the hunger strike.
“Once the strike was underway, the only people in a position to agree a deal or call off the hunger strike were the prisoners – particularly the hunger strikers themselves.
"The political responsibility for the hunger strike, and the deaths that resulted from it, both inside and outside the prison, lies with Margaret Thatcher, who reneged on the deal which ended the first hunger strike.
“This bad faith and duplicity lead directly to the deaths of our friends and comrades in 1981".
Raymond McCartney, a former hunger striker and now Sinn Féin MLA for Foyle, also said O’Rawe’s claims lacked credibility.
“Richard's recollection of events is not accurate or credible.
“The hunger strike was a response to Thatcher's criminalisation campaign.
“The move to hunger strike resulted from the prisoners' decision to escalate the protest after five years of beatings, starvation and deprivation.
“The leadership of the IRA and of Sinn Féin tried to persuade us not to embark on this course of action.
“At all times we, the prisoners, took the decisions."

by Steven McCaffrey - Irish News www.irishnews.com 12.3.05 Wed May 17, 2006 14:32

.

by Richard O'Rawe, Irish News Wed May 17, 2006 14:34

Former Blanketman Speaks Out Against ‘Vitriolic Attack’

Richard O'Rawe, Irish News • 15 May 2006

A fellow republican said to me last week that over the period of Bobby Sands’ anniversary, the republican movement had done everything except paint the Star of David on my windows and daub Juden Raus on my front door.

I laughed when he made that analogy but when I had time to think about it, I don’t think he was too wide off the mark.

The recent attempts to demonise me from on high, the vitriol, raw hatred and the ferocious endeavours to destroy my integrity have, in terms of sheer viciousness, been unprecedented within the republican family.

The same republican pointed out that Freddie Scappaticci had not received such a ‘battering.’

Sinn Fein’s silence on the question of this super-tout contrasted sharply with their crazed attacks on my character. An agent, it seems, is better thought of than a blanketman. Scap apparently had both the republican movement’s blessing and its promise of ‘omerta’ as he made haste from Dodge, his saddlebags full of Brit money.

Yet when audacity arose to challenge mendacity, I got the jackboot on the neck treatment. No free passage to Italy in my case. But then Scap was the leadership’s man. I was not.

The root cause of their anger is that they are losing the argument about what actually happened in the days that preceded hunger striker Joe McDonnell’s death and they know it. They are losing the argument wherever they make it, in print or on TV and everyone can see that.

Denis Bradley, who had previously acted as an intermediary between the British government and the republican leadership, has confirmed in a recent RTE documentary that the Brits had made an offer to end the hunger strike – before Joe McDonnell died.

Danny Morrison has also confirmed that an offer had been made, most recently when he was interviewed on RTE Morning Ireland 10 days ago. So has Hugh Logue who was involved with the Irish Commission during this part of the prison protest.

Contrast this with Bik McFarlane’s interview with UTV’s Fearghal McKinney on February 28 2005, on the day that my book, Blanketmen, was published in which he responded to a question about the British proposal by saying that there was no offer “whatsoever.”

Later he tried to amend this by saying: “There was no concrete proposals whatsoever in relation to a deal.”

So Morrison and Bradley say there was an offer – as does Hugh Logue – but Bik at first said there wasn’t, then that it wasn’t ‘concrete.’

It washes just about as much as we did during the blanket ‘dirty’ protest. Bik and Danny should have got their story right before going public because they now look downright silly.

This is what lies at the heart of the dispute between myself and those who pretend that the prison leadership did not convey their intent to settle up and save lives.

It is what prompted Jim Gibney to write a vituperative piece in The Irish News on Thursday May 11, which is so full of distortions and mutilations of the truth that it actually takes the breath away.

I wish to single out one of his allegations for special reply.

He claimed that the conversation between myself and Bik in which we agreed the British offer should be accepted, was not overheard by my cellmate. Does he have any evidence to back this up?

I now challenge him to produce it or withdraw the charge.

At no point have I sought to enlist my cellmate’s public support for my position and risk exposing him to the hate campaign that would surely follow where he to confirm my account.

But now that Jim Gibney has brought my cellmate into this, I strenuously challenge him to provide the evidence that my cellmate heard no conversation. I am confident he won’t or can’t.

There is another allegation which is so stunning in its inaccuracy that it must be answered.

He says that for 24 years I never mentioned this offer to any ex-prisoners. Such a ridiculous statement to make!

How could Gibney know the context of conversations I had with other ex-prisoners over a 24 year period? And what a selective memory he has!

Several years ago, when he and I were in Danny Morrison’s company in the Rock Bar, I told him about the British offer and that myself and Bik had told the leadership it was acceptable.

The fact is, I told many ex-prisoners about this as many of them, I am sure, can confirm.

In keeping the best nonsense to the last, Gibney writes: “O’Rawe stands alone in this, awkwardly close to those who stood with Thatcher 25 years ago this year.”

I stand with Thatcher? What a strange aspersion from someone so eager to stand beside Paisley.

As one of the blanketmen, I stand with the hunger strikers, Jim, six of whose deaths in 1981 have yet to be explained by the leadership of which you were a part.

by from the articles Wed May 17, 2006 14:42

From the Irish News article above: "Danny Morrison has also confirmed that an offer had been made, most recently when he was interviewed on RTE Morning Ireland 10 days ago. So has Hugh Logue who was involved with the Irish Commission during this part of the prison protest.

Contrast this with Bik McFarlane’s interview with UTV’s Fearghal McKinney on February 28 2005, on the day that my book, Blanketmen, was published in which he responded to a question about the British proposal by saying that there was no offer “whatsoever.”

Later he tried to amend this by saying: “There was no concrete proposals whatsoever in relation to a deal.”

So Morrison and Bradley say there was an offer – as does Hugh Logue – but Bik at first said there wasn’t, then that it wasn’t ‘concrete.’

It washes just about as much as we did during the blanket ‘dirty’ protest. Bik and Danny should have got their story right before going public because they now look downright silly." (Richard O'Rawe, Irish News)

From the interview in the Blanket: "A: Anyone listening to the likes of Laurny would think that the hunger strikers had the ultimate say in this. Let's get real here. Laurny is trying to protect Big Gerry. The foot-soldiers in the trenches never dictate strategy. Why, even the majors and the colonels - in this case, Bik and myself - didn't have that power. Tactics come from afar; from people who are removed from the field of conflict, but who have the power to determine strategy. People should read Bik's comm to Adams on page 336, Ten Men Dead. On that page Bik told the hunger strikers that, 'I explained the position about my presence being essential at any negotiations …'

Q: What is the significance of this? Would Bik not have a right, even an obligation to be there?

A: Let me give you an example which shows the real purpose served by Bik's presence. It also illustrates their tactic of dictating the ground on which the debate will take place - and they've done this rather successfully, I think. Right, they have restricted the whole debate to the four days before Joe died. But 11 days later, the Mountain Climber came back with the same offer. Adams was on the blower to him. Adams told the hunger strikers about this offer when he visited the camp hospital on 29 July, so there is no disputing that this offer was genuine. Yet when the Mountain Climber came off the mountain for the second and last time, Bik didn't even know what had been rejected on his behalf. This is evident from Bik's comm to Adams, dated 22.7.81, written after the Mountain Climber had gone. Bik said, 'you can give me a run-down on exactly how far the Brits went.' (Page 330 Ten Men Dead).

Q: This seems to suggest that the prison leadership had a very tenuous grip on the actual negotiations. They left it to outside leaders.

A: Outside was always in control. Whoever claims otherwise is talking bullshit."

by from the interview Wed May 17, 2006 14:45

Q: There is an irreconcilable tension between your account of the days prior to the death of Joe McDonnell and Brendan McFarlane's. Can you take us through that?

A: Bik was called up to the camp hospital on Sunday the 5th of July to meet Danny Morrison. I knew nothing about what was happening up there. He returned and sent me up a comm telling me that there was some guy called the Mountain Climber on board. He was from the British government and he had offered us a package of concessions.

Q: Which in your estimation was sufficient to end the hunger strike?

A: Absolutely.

Q: How close were they to the five demands?

A: We had eight men on hunger strike. To go beyond Joe took us into an abyss that I could see no way out of. I looked at the Mountain Climber offer for three hours. It was a fantastic offer. I never expected it. Remember, Danny Morrison told RTE's Good Morning show on 5 May, Bobby's anniversary, that what the Brits 'were offering us was more than they were, publicly or privately, offering the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace …'

Q: Was the fact that you were desperate to prevent your colleagues from dying not colouring your judgment and allowing you to overstate what was on offer?

A: Obviously not, if we're to believe Danny's account of the offer. No. I repeat that what was on offer was enough to honourably end the hunger strike. We had our own clothes - we didn't care if the ordinary prisoners had their own clothes as well. We had made this crystal clear in our 4th of July statement, written by myself. It was a bit like Eamonn De Valera - he deleted the idea of a republic in order to break deadlock with the Brits during the War of Independence, and we took out the term political status to also break the deadlock with the Brits during the hunger strike. After that everything was possible.

Q: Then why has Bik McFarlane held to his position that there was no offer?

A: I don't know why he started out from this position in the first place given that Morrison contradicted him so thoroughly. Since his initial claim that there was no offer he has shifted his position though to try to come into line with Morrison. He is now saying there was no deal. They want to river dance between deal and offer and blur the issue.

Q: Yet he knew that a deal was on offer?

A: Morrison told him the offer was made. In the RTE Hunger Strikes documentary, Danny said he visited the prison hospital on 5 July 1981. 'I went in and I think there were eight people there. Joe McDonnell was brought in as well. Joe was blind and was in a wheelchair. We told him what they were offering at that stage…' Is it possible that Morrison didn't tell the O/C of the prisoners about this Brit offer? Come on!

Read the full interview: http://lark.phoblacht.net/AMROR1605068g.html

by Laurence McKeown - Former H Block Blanket Prisoner 1981 Wed May 17, 2006 15:34

Laurence McKeown is a former H Block Blanket Prisoner - on hunger strike for 70 days in 1981 before his family intervened.

Last week I watched the first part of the RTÉ documentary about the 1981 hunger strike. I thought it very well made. It flowed easily – the result of careful editing. There were various voices heard, republican, British, unionist, prison service but all came together in a seamless hour-long programme. I was eager to see the second part of the series.

Then last Sunday I got a call from a friend who works in the media to tell me s/he had just discovered that RTÉ had instructed the makers of the programme, DoubleBand Films, to re-edit the second programme. The reason given was that the first programme was too ‘pro-republican’. There had been negative feedback from certain quarters. My friend wondered if I’d heard anything along those lines as they knew I had given a lengthy interview to DoubleBand for the making of the programme. I hadn’t heard anything but on Monday morning I contacted Daily Ireland and repeated what I had heard. Daily Ireland got on to RTÉ. A spokesperson there admitted there had been some editing following the screening of the first part but that that was customary practice. I inquired of others in the business if it would be normal for additional editing to take place after a programme had already been submitted to a broadcasting company and especially after one part of a two-part documentary has just been screened. They found it highly unlikely given the number of technical and editorial processes that it would have to go through.

The reporter from Daily Ireland then put in a call to DoubleBand Films. The producers were unavailable but he was promised a call from them at three o’clock. The call never came. I myself put in a call to the same producer and left a message to call me. Again no response – which I thought strange as I believe it was myself and Mike Ritchie, Director of Coiste na nIarchimí, who first spoke to the producers (at their request) when setting out on their research and advising them as to who it might be good to speak to.
I don’t know if DoubleBand Films re-edited the second part of their documentary in response to pressure from RTÉ. What I do know is that the second part was qualitatively different from the first. It was incoherent and repetitive, stuck in a groove around the claim by Richard O’Rawe that a deal was on offer at one point and that the IRA Army Council rejected it. Various other voices came into the programme which took us off periodically on different tangents only to return again to the same allegation. If you hadn’t listened closely you wouldn’t have heard Fr Oliver Crilly, one of the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace delegation, say that he would, “never trust the British again”. Unfortunately we didn’t get to hear the rest of what he said but it was clear that he and the delegation felt that they had been exploited by the government. Neither did we get to hear much more about the experience of the hunger strike post July, comments confined to those who were observers or back again to the O’Rawe claim. By the end of the programme you were left with a sense of confusion and a bad taste in your mouth, yet there has never been that sense of the hunger strike before now, certainly not amongst those involved in it.

When Nor Meekly Serve My Time, an account of the blanket protest and hunger strikes, was written by the prisoners ten years after the hunger strike there was not a mention of Richard’s claim yet the camp was buzzing with recollections of that period. During the numerous events that marked the 20th anniversary in 2001 there was again never a whimper of such allegations. Then in 2005 Richard made them.
Cynics will say that he only made the allegations to promote his book about the blanket protest, a book that I hear is an interesting read in terms of the everyday life of the wing, but which was never going to come to any prominence among the general public. What gave it a life was his claim about a supposed deal being rejected by the IRA a claim eagerly taken up by the Sunday Times and promoted as fact.
Let’s assume for the moment that the claim genuinely originated with Richard and despite the abundance of evidence that refutes his allegation (from republican, British and church sources) let’s just assume that it’s true - that the British government offered a deal to us that was both definite and definitive.
This would have heralded a major shift in their thinking. That shift would not have come about as the result of some humanitarian gesture on their part but based on the collective wisdom of their extensive security and intelligence services and diplomatic corps worldwide advising them that to prolong the hunger strike situation was not in the long-term interests of the government.

So, make concessions. Do whatever is needed. Go as far as possible without conceding the full demands. Cloak the initiative in terms of change in prison regime for all prisoners (as was the government line taken at the end of the hunger strike). Drop the story to a few well-placed journalists beforehand that a deal is imminent – to fire up expectation among the prisoners, their families and the Movement – then tell the IRA and the prisoners (not negotiate with them) what’s on offer.

They can take it or leave it but at 6pm that evening the British Secretary of State would go on television to announce the government’s position. The Dublin government would have rowed in behind it, so too the Catholic Church and the SDLP.

We would have been left in a totally untenable situation where to continue the hunger strike in light of the concessions offered would have appeared to be extreme.

So what happened? The British we are told approached the IRA’s Army Council who told them to take themselves off and the Brits immediately did that.

The government which decimated entire mining communities in north England and Wales, that sank the Belgrano with horrific loss of life when it posed no threat, that destroyed the public services, that crushed the trade unions and much more, suddenly lost their bottle when confronted by the Army Council. They ignored the advice of their intelligence and diplomatic corps and allowed the hunger strike to drift on for another three months and six more deaths.

The British never had any intention of proposing a deal that they would follow through on.
What we had was smoke and mirrors. Bernard Ingham, Maggie Thatcher’s secretary, confirmed on the programme there was never any consideration of concessions and as Danny Morrison made clear, had the NIO something like that to hang on the republican movement and Gerry Adams they would have used it a long time ago.

And yet that claim now sits as a cloud over this year’s 25th commemoration, eagerly taken up by those who wish to believe republicans are duplicitous, sinister, evil. It fits with the view they are comfortable with.

Much worse though, is that six families now have the additional pain to bear of that needling thought in the back of there heads – what if?

It’s ironic when we recall that at one point in 1981 the pressure shifted from the British government to concede our demands onto our families and that in this, the 25th anniversary year, the focus has again been shifted to some degree from the actions of that government onto those who were doing all in their power to assist us, promote our cause and end our nightmare.

Leaving my daughters off at the Bunscoil in Newry on Wednesday morning the mother of another child summed it up: “Isn’t it a shame it’s always your own who are the worst.”

by rebuttal to McKeown's article Wed May 17, 2006 15:46

Laurny knows the truth and is trying to fudge matters to an audience that he is taking advantage of, who might not be in a position to know better. The Brits didn't sit across the table from the A/C and he knows it.

Read on:

Q:This seems to suggest that the prison leadership had a very tenuous grip on the actual negotiations. They left it to outside leaders.

A: Outside was always in control. Whoever claims otherwise is talking bullshit.

Q: It certainly reveals the true nature of the balance of power between the leadership and prisoners. I consistently argued within the prison in the mid-1980s that the jail leadership was a mere extension of the outside leadership into the ranks of the prisoners. Its primary function was to represent the interests of the leadership against the prisoners and then only to represent the interests of the prisoners against the regime. They did both quite well.

A: Bik was Adams' man. When Bik spoke, Adams spoke. Everybody knew that. The hunger strike was in safe hands when Bik was in control. The frustrating part in all of this is that the likes of Laurny and Bik know the score. But rather than confront the leadership and ask for an account as to why their last six comrades died, they feel a perverse duty to defend that leadership. It's part of the shameful cover-up to protect the leadership from acute questioning. The first four lads knew the score. They accepted that there was little chance of them surviving. But Joe reaching critical point was different. And this was eating away at me. What made it all the worse was that people were running around as if the history of the hunger strike was a beautiful box of chocolates wrapped in roses. I knew that the roses were nettles, there to jag your finger if you tried to open the box. Everyone could look at and admire the chocolate box but no one was ever really allowed to open it up and look inside to see what was really there.

more...

by rebuttal on points Wed May 17, 2006 15:52

Q:...But the real point of controversy is your assertion that the Army Council stopped a deal being reached that would have delivered to the prisoners the substance of the five demands. Army Council people of the time seem to dispute this. Ruairi O'Bradaigh, for example, is on record as saying that the council did no such thing although he does state that your claims must be explored further. It seems clear that he suspects you are right in what you say but wrong in whose door you lay the blame at. What have you to say to this?

A: At the time we had no reason to believe we were dealing with any body other than the Army Council of the IRA. What reason was there to think otherwise?

Q: And not a sub-committee specifically tasked with running the hunger strike?

A: Whether they called it a sub-committee or not, we were of the view that everything went to the Army Council. Nobody led us to believe any different. Did you think any different?

Q: At the time, no.

A: We all felt it was the Council. Brownie was representing the Council and he wrote the comms. Why would we think we were dealing with anything less than the Council when he was the man communicating with us?

Q: You might not wish to say it but for the purpose of the reader - and this has been publicly documented in copious quantities - Brownie is Gerry Adams, who was a member of the Army Council and the IRA adjutant general during the hunger strike.

A: I have nothing to add to that.

Q: But do you still hold to the view, despite the protests from O'Bradaigh, that the Council actually prevented a satisfactory outcome being reached?

A: No, I do not. Army Council was the general term I used to describe the decision makers on the outside handling the hunger strike. I was not privy to Army Council deliberations. But I believed they were the only people who had the authority to manage the hunger strike from the outside. So it seemed safe then to presume that when we received a comm from Brownie it was from the Army Council as a collective.

Q: But what has happened to lead you to change your mind and accept that the Council may have been by-passed on this matter by Gerry Adams?

A: I have since found out that people on the Army Council at the time have, after my book came out, rejected my thesis and refused to accept that the Council had directed the prisoners to refuse the offer.

Q: Bypassing the Council as a means to shafting it and ultimately getting his own way would seem to be a trait of Gerry Adams. Do you believe then that the bulk of the Council did not approve blocking an end to the hunger strike before Joe McDonnell died?

A: Absolutely. The sub committee managed and monitored the hunger strike. Given that comms were coming in two and three times a day it is simply not possible to believe that the Council could have been kept informed of all the developments. Could the Council even have met regularly during that turbulent period?

Q: Could they not be covering for their own role?

A: I have not spoken to any of the council of the day. But those that have claim that they appeared genuinely shocked that my book should implicate them. And they do allow for the possibility that the wool was pulled over their eyes by the sub-committee handling the strike.

Q: So what do you think did happen?

A: As I said in my book, Adams was at the top of the pyramid. He sent the comms in. He read the comms that came out. He talked to the Mountain Climber. As I said earlier, we know that he, and possibly the clique around him, decided to reject the second offer, at least, without telling Bik what was in it. Nobody knows the hunger strike like Adams knows it. And yet he is maintaining the silence of the mouse, the odd squeak from him when confronted.

Here's what he said in relation to the Mountain Climber in the RTE Hunger strikes documentary,

'There had been a contact which the British had activated. It became known as the Mountain Climber. Basically, I didn't learn this until after the hunger strike ended.'

He didn't learn what? About the contact and the offers, or the Mountain Climber euphemism? If he's saying he didn't know about the offers, then why did he show the offer to the Father Crilly and Hugh Logue in Andersonstown on 6 July 1981? And if he's saying he didn't know of the Mountain Climber euphemism, I'd refer your readers to Bik's comm to Adams on pages 301-302, Ten Men Dead, where Bik tells Brownie, who is Adams, that Morrison had told the hunger strikers about the Mountain Climber: 'Pennies has already informed them of "Mountain Climber" angle…' So he knew about the Mountain Climber euphemism, and he knew of the offers. As a defensive strategy, this lurking in the shadows, this proceeding through ambiguity, can only work for so long. At some point academics and investigative journalists are going to ask the searching questions and Gerry Adams is not going to be up to them.

Q: Are you now suggesting that Adams may have withheld crucial details from the Army Council?

A: I don't know the procedural detail of the relationship between Adams and the Army Council. What I do know is that my account of events is absolutely spot on. You said yourself on RTE on Tuesday that there was independent verification of the conversation between myself and Bik McFarlane.

Q: Indeed. I think you realise there is a bit more than that. As you know I have enormous time for Bik. It goes back to the days before the blanket. But I can only state what I uncovered. I am not saying that it is conclusive. These things can always be contested. But it certainly shades the debate your way. If Morrison and Gibney continue to mislead people that there is no evidence supporting your claim from that wing on H3 I can always allow prominent journalists and academics to access what is there and arrive at whatever conclusions they feel appropriate. That should settle matters and cause a few red faces to boot. We know how devious and unscrupulous these people have been in their handling of this. They simply did not reckon on what would fall the way of the Blanket. Nor did I for that matter. A blunder on their part.

A: If the Army Council say they received no comm from us accepting the deal, and also say that they sent in no word telling us effectively to refuse the deal, then I think the only plausible explanation is that those who sent in the 'instruction' to reject the Mountain Climber's offer were doing so without the knowledge or approval of the Army Council.

Q: When you say 'those' you presumably mean Adams and Liam Og who was also sending in comms coming to the prison leadership?

A: Yes.

Q: Liam Og has been identified by Denis O'Hearn, author of the biography of Bobby Sands, as Tom Hartley. It appears that Hartley was privy to every comm between the leadership and the prisoners.

A: That would be the case.

Q: How can we be sure that Adams rather than Liam Og was responsible for withholding information from the Army Council?

A: Because, while we might not know the procedural detail, Adams had a relationship with the Army Council that was vastly different from Liam Og. You point out that this is well recorded in public.

Read the full interview:http://lark.phoblacht.net/AMROR1605068g.html

by Fergus Wed May 17, 2006 15:56

"Laurny [Lawrence McKeown] knows the truth and is trying to fudge matters to an audience that he is taking advantage of..."

You are talking about someone who was on hunger strike for 70 days in 1981, whose life O'Rawe is accusing the IRA of potentially squandering for no reason. He does not buy O'Rawe's story - he should know.

Everyone is right except Richard O'Rawe who feels marginalised, persecuted and demonised because those who were there do not (missing word added by editor at author's request) accept his memory of events.

(What is this "Laurny" crap - unwanted familiarity obviously.)

by Sheila Wed May 17, 2006 16:16

"Shame on Laurny for misleading the public" (headline above)

I think his publicist just lost the audience for Richard there.

by Davy Carlin Wed May 17, 2006 16:18

I think on this issue that there will of course be those who have already made up there own minds about this Hunger Strike. That is, from being in whatever organisation and none - from reading about it over the years, or more importantly being 'involved at the time.

I must say though, personally, that I find this 'debate, of immense and ‘personal interest, more especially given that those who are ' debating' or at least seeing all their ‘various words posted -where at the forefront at the time.

by rebuttal Wed May 17, 2006 16:23

First, let's dispense with the personality aspect of things - how long Laurny was on hunger strike or how persecuted O'Rawe feels today is irrelevant. What we are trying to establish is the facts of what happened. So let us look at the arguments.

Laurny wrote: "So what happened? The British we are told approached the IRA’s Army Council who told them to take themselves off and the Brits immediately did that.

The government which decimated entire mining communities in north England and Wales, that sank the Belgrano with horrific loss of life when it posed no threat, that destroyed the public services, that crushed the trade unions and much more, suddenly lost their bottle when confronted by the Army Council. They ignored the advice of their intelligence and diplomatic corps and allowed the hunger strike to drift on for another three months and six more deaths."

Laurny is misleading the public. He knows that the A/C as a whole did not negotiate with the Brits as he has characterised it. It was Adams, Hartley, Gibney, Morrison on the outside, with Adams main point of contact with the Brits man, 'Mountain Climber', believed by most to be Michael Oatley (http://www.iauc.org/oatley.html). Given that the British made an offer via the Mountain Climber, they obviously did not ignore their intelligence and attempted to end the hunger strike.

The contention is that O'Rawe says the prisoners accepted the deal, but that their outside representatives rejected it for them. Did the full A/C know of the deal, and all the negotiations between Adams and the Mountain Climber?

Laurny also writes, "The British never had any intention of proposing a deal that they would follow through on. What we had was smoke and mirrors. Bernard Ingham, Maggie Thatcher’s secretary, confirmed on the programme there was never any consideration of concessions and as Danny Morrison made clear, had the NIO something like that to hang on the republican movement and Gerry Adams they would have used it a long time ago.

Morrison's point is spurious, as at the time Thatcher was having no truck with 'terrorists', and it was not until much, much later that the British government even admitted talking to the republican movement. So if they were to hang Adams on the hunger strikes, they would have in effect hung themselves, which explains one reason why they did not expose the rejection of their offer.

Secondly, that an offer was made, via the Mountain Climber, is known and has been documented as demonstrated - it is the rejection of it that is contentious. So Laurny is employing smoke and mirrors himself when he makes it appear as though the deal was not offered.

In addition, he inadvertantly gives away an explanation for why the deal was rejected on the outside - 'the British never had any intention of proposing a deal that they would follow through on'. So the prisoners tell the outside they are prepared to accept the deal, but the outside representatives reject it because: 'the British never had any intention of proposing a deal that they would follow through on'.

Laurny's argument is not persuasive, and when looked at closely does not hold up.

by By Any Means Necessary Wed May 17, 2006 16:52

The inspiration of those who resisted British mis rule in Ireland will live on despite this ill timed argument by begrudgers and political opponents of Sinn Fein.

I salute those who at this most difficult time, can return our focus on what these hunger strikers' sacrifices mean to us now.

For me they stood for solidarity and total resistance to colonial arrogance and mis rule, in 2006 their commitment and strength of conviction still burns strongly.

This debate has been started by self seeking individuals to sell books and to score cheap points for their political masters.

by Jim O'Neill Wed May 17, 2006 17:23

The O'Rawe interview is linked already at the start, but everytime there a post of something from a former prisoner criticising him, someone from the O'Rawe camp dumps huge wodges of text from the same interview into the page - we can read it already, we don't need signposts - we can make up our own minds thank you.

Jim

by scap - fru Wed May 17, 2006 17:48

this scandal is gerry adams's watergate and like 'tricky dick' what will sink him is the cover-up unravelling, one lie at a time - in fact that is already happening - the chuck's version just does not stand up to forensic scrutiny despite the best efforts of danny 'haldeman' morrison or jim 'erlichman' gibney to paper over the ever-widening cracks - the most convincing aspect of this story is that while o'rawe has no motive to lie or fabricate (he supports the adams peace strategy for instance) the chuck leadership not only has reasons to lie but has a long and sordid track record of so doing - ciao bella from sunny italy!!

by Clay Shaw Wed May 17, 2006 18:06

The above is typical disinformation - know it all speculative rubbish designed to confuse gullible conspiracy wonks. Read what the former prisoners say - read McFarlane and McKeown - and make up your minds.

by scap - fru Wed May 17, 2006 18:23

'clay shaw' writes: "Read what the former prisoners say - read McFarlane and McKeown - and make up your minds."
O'Rawe is a former prisoner as well or is mr shaw is saying that in the world that Kim Jong Adams rules he is being airbrushed out of history?

by Clay Shaw Wed May 17, 2006 18:34

O'Rawe is in a minority of one - has got loads of publicity for the views he is entitled to (wonder why?) - and you are a Brit. Your contempt shines through your feeble wit - try and hide it if you want to win friends here.

by Sean Wed May 17, 2006 19:43

No matter what went on during the 81 hunger strikes the fact of the matter is that today's leadership have betrayed everything the 10 men stood for. Who then could have imagined that Republicans would have surrendered their weapons and dismissed the army all to curry favour with Fascist Unionists, even accepting Paisley as the First Minister. Power at any Price. I think that there would have been a mass squeaky booting from the blanket had we foreseen this. It's easy to point to certain people and say they agree but the fact is that these are company men. A great majority of Ex-Blanket men do not agree with the present day De Valeras.

by scap - fru Wed May 17, 2006 20:00

clay shaw! with a name like that you accuse me of being a brit?! o'rawe is not in a minority of one, lots of people, former blanket men included, agree with him and if they don't say so out loudly it is only because they know they will be bullied by the likes of danny 'haldeman' morrison and jim 'erlichman' gibney - you're losing the argument clay and the clue is that you are resorting to insults - you still haven't answered my point, what is o'rawe's motive? - its not money (at his level books don't pay, for the kim il adams's that's a different story) and its not politics (because he agrees with the peace) so what is it, clay? won't say, or can't say?

by Clay Shaw Thu May 18, 2006 00:34

Let me see if I have this right: these former blanket men who stood up to the British Army, the loyalist RUC-UDR, Maggie Thatcher, loyalist screws, the sticky run media and the rest of the right wing reactionary press are now cowering in their boots at the thought of Jim Gibney and Danny Morison saying some harsh words about them. These shrinking violets known personally to you now have their blankets over their heads, too timid to say hello.

Pull the other one.

By the way, the last time I heard a variation of that phrase "silly man" was when it was used about Chekov Feeney of Indymedia on Newstalk by Jim Cusack, who was then desperate to pin the Dublin riots on Sinn Fein. Jim's branch men informants were no match for Feeney's eye witness account. When it transpired that Jim was not even there and that Feeney was, Jim was heard to mutter "He's a silly boy". Jim said he had the goods on the Sinners and would report it in the following week's Sindo. A promise unfulfilled.

Here is the link:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/74602

You look to be from the same stable as Jim. Does your information come from the same source?

Here is a test for you: give us your analysis of British repression in the North of Ireland from 1968 on, and of the reasons for the emergence of the armed campaign of resistance against it. Keep it short. Try and stick to facts and leave out the 'funny' names.

by *yawn* Thu May 18, 2006 01:04

Clay: can you try sticking to the subject under discussion, and the substance of it, instead of trolling the thread with a load of aul nonsense that has nothing to do with anything but your own paranoid fantasies?

Point no 1: Let me see if I have this right: these former blanket men who stood up to the British Army, the loyalist RUC-UDR, Maggie Thatcher, loyalist screws, the sticky run media and the rest of the right wing reactionary press are now cowering in their boots at the thought of Jim Gibney and Danny Morison saying some harsh words about them. These shrinking violets known personally to you now have their blankets over their heads, too timid to say hello.

A number of former blanketmen, and former hunger strikers, have been threatened and intimidated by the PIRA, while the likes of Gibney and Morrison egged them on. Many of these republicans have been made an example of when they have broken ranks and spoken out against the leadership: here is what happens to you if you open your mouth. Threats, vilification, intimidation, ostracism, socially outcast, violence, much of it documented. Not everyone wants to subject themselves to that sort of treatment.

Case in point, look at the abuse you're heaping on people in this thread who are expressing a different opinion from yourself. Disagree and you're automatically a 'Brit'. Mild in comparison, of course, but same tactics writ small.

However, Point no 1 has little to do with the substance of the subject at hand, namely, what happened during the hunger strikes, but a fine cul de sac you've trolled into it is.

Point no 2: By the way, the last time I heard a variation of that phrase "silly man" was when it was used about Chekov Feeney of Indymedia on Newstalk by Jim Cusack, who was then desperate to pin the Dublin riots on Sinn Fein. Jim's branch men informants were no match for Feeney's eye witness account. When it transpired that Jim was not even there and that Feeney was, Jim was heard to mutter "He's a silly boy". Jim said he had the goods on the Sinners and would report it in the following week's Sindo. A promise unfulfilled.

Totally irrelevant to the subject being debated. Trolling. Shows you in a weak position; you cannot contest the facts presented so you dredge up Jim Cusack. What does he have to do with anything, least of all the topic of this thread? (Note, rhetorical question: Please don't answer this)

Point no 3: You look to be from the same stable as Jim. Does your information come from the same source?

More weakness, and trolling, on your part. Has nothing to do with anything but personal abuse because you can't debate or argue your corner.

Point no 4: Here is a test for you: give us your analysis of British repression in the North of Ireland from 1968 on, and of the reasons for the emergence of the armed campaign of resistance against it. Keep it short. Try and stick to facts and leave out the 'funny' names.

Hijacking. Diversion. Trolling.

/moving on

by Herbert Woods Thu May 18, 2006 01:08

"hunger strike
author by scap - fru publication date Wed May 17, 2006 21:11Report this post to the editors
just keep gerry adams away from them or they'll all die"

The comment above was on a thread about solidarity in Belfast for the hunger striking asylum seekers in Dublin. No one who is a genuine activist or supporter of the hunger strikers would write that. He is a cop. Check it for yourself, link below.

by Clay Shaw Thu May 18, 2006 01:20

"....look at the abuse you're heaping on people in this thread who are expressing a different opinion from yourself."

Only on 'scap-fru', not on anyone else. I think the comments by a 70 day hunger striker and the leader of the prisoners in the blocks stand up pretty well. The stuff I complained of is disinformational abuse.

by Davy Carlin Thu May 18, 2006 11:32

Many such of the above, from Big Mackers of the Blanket {to which the article is linked}' through to Bik, Gerry, Danny, Laurny, Tom Hartley, and many such others I see regular , about the road’ even over the last few weeks or so.

Indeed some, similar, I had even seen about even as a child, and my memory goes back to the age of four and to the Murph’ of 1974

Yet when one thinks back to that time, all such persons were then young men, involved in a powerful struggle against the might of the British ‘Imperialism.

As so, I believe whatever disagreements there are {on this site} it is important not to loose sight of this fact.

While the ‘War’ is over the ‘war of legacy and Truth is only beginning – this in many avenues. Indeed this, of course, is historically repetitive and in many such cases it is the ‘Victor’s who determine the ‘truth.

Yet in such matters such as this, {Irish Hunger Strike} it is comrades and former comrades who are at odds with each other over such an historic event – an event that will probably be read about, debated and discussed for maybe centuries to come.

Therefore it is important that we today can read eaches point of view from those who were at the forefront of it – however much we may agree or disagree with whatever ‘version.

Indeed as I have already said that many will have already made up their minds on such matters – while others reading such and then deciding.

For oneself, I also look back at that time – having moved from the Falls Road {‘to get away from it all} up to the Twinbrook estate of Bobby Sands. It was only a short time before I was again, as a child, looking into more friends and children’s coffins, seeing more mangled bodies and ‘those lumps of meat, smelling that nauseating smell of burnt and burning flesh and much more – through to banging my bin- lid on the news of Bobby Sands death, before a short time later looking into his Coffin at his home.

Indeed as in my May Diary {online soon}

‘It was not long after Bobby Sands death – and others locally, that I had went back to the Murph’. On doing so I had went upon Black Mountain one evening and sat and listened to the ‘War and all of the events below me.

Then it started to rain ever so lightly and with that I knelt up upon my knees with my arms out stretched, and looked to the ‘heavens as the rain slowly came down and soothed my skin - and in part my mind

And with that, and from that position, and from the very depths of my soul, -from the very core of my being’ I let out the most almighty and heart wrenching cry which echoed not only around the streets below, but I believed around the streets of Belfast.

Indeed as a child, I had no gun, but I to was fighting a War’

-And so many have various memories of those times, some to be debated and discussed in the search for truth, others personal and kept hidden and to go to the grave, while others seeing only now or in future years themselves only beginning to talk about or attempt to come to terms with such times.

Whatever the case, it is important that each gets the chance to put their views, and in that regard then people can make up their own minds, one way or the other.

Whatever the case though - those men’s strength of conviction in their beliefs is something that can never be re - written.
.

by Barry - 32csm Thu May 18, 2006 13:34

Whatever the intracacies of who said what or when and to who( and ill just ignore the idiot who calls everyone who disagrees with him a Brit or a cop) the question people should be asking themselves about ORawes claims is a simple one - do his claims make political sense ? Leaving the intracacies aside for a second , are his claims credible from a political standpoint ? Or are they absurd ? And if so why ?

by Sean Thu May 18, 2006 15:33

It is a fact that any Ex-Blanketman who would dare to speak out or critise the Route now being taken by the leadership of The New Free Staters has been visited and told to Shut up or they have had their names blackened. The favourite one is "He has a chip on his shoulder" Many promidant Ex-Blanket have had to suffer this over the years. Go to http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75599 and read an example of this.

by Davy carlin Thu May 18, 2006 15:36

Above Jose post should be deleted -

And on the wider 'debate and discussion, I think for many, that the issues raised have indeed been both interesting and informative, whether one agrees or disagres with various raised.

by Cathal Thu May 18, 2006 16:58

Indeed everyone should read the above mentioned article, especially those in Ogra Sinn Fein with an interest in the truth. This is a man who led from the front. A Hero of the Volunteer on the street. A man who was set up by the Prison Authorities to lose his Political Status, who when he went to the blocks stepped to the fore and along with Bobby changed the course of a stagnant protest. He had the chance to appeal his sentence, but refused to do so preferring to stay and lead his beleaguered comrades in the squalor of the Blocks. A man who led the first Hunger strike, not for him the comfort of an armchair. He refused to take the path of Adams because he saw it as a betrayal and was vilified because of this. This is a true Hero of the war against British rule.

by Former Blanket man Thu May 18, 2006 18:02

I've just read Richard O' Raw's interview with Mackers and I must say I'm stunned at what Ricky has to say about those terrible times. I was in H4 at the time but I know that Ricky was in Bic's think tank, how Laurney and Pickles can say otherwise baffles me as this was common knowledge. What about Bic's cellmate, Ricky's cellmate and those others on the think tank, surely they would know something about these event's? What about the earwiggers who would have been listening to everything that the Staff would have discussed out the window? Maybe they are afraid to come across for fear of the repercussions, but I say this, the truth will come out someday. If Ricky is telling the truth then he is a very courageous man to put himself in the firing line.

by Cathal Thu May 18, 2006 20:07

We need answers. We need a public debate where both sides can put across their arguments. Why not on TV or radio? Bic, Gerry Adams, Laurney and the others on one side with Richard O' Rawe and Mackers on the other side arguing their bit. Accusations and counter accusations on the internet or in the press are not going to bring this issue to an end. The families of the Hunger strikers deserve no less. Have both sides the courage?

by Phil Thu May 18, 2006 20:35

The Public debate idea is the most sensible thing put across so far. What about Talk Back, Hearts and Minds or a Spotlight special debate?

by Joe O'Neill speaks out Thu May 18, 2006 21:34

It is all coming apart for the Adams cadre. They have told too many lies and they are starting to unravel.

As the 25th anniversary commemorations for the republican prisoners who died on hunger strike passed Mr O'Neill said, "I would like to point out the lies and the spin that Provisional Sinn Féin and the news media are putting on the hunger strikers of 1981," he told the meeting.

"Dáithí O'Connell, and not Jim Gibney was the man who who first proposed that Bobby Sands should fight for the Westminster seat in Fermanagh/South TirEoghan," he said.

"At a meeting in Clones around that time, Ruairí Ó Brádaigh had a very hard time getting Bobby Sands nominated because Gerry Adams and company did not want him to run. They weren't sure he would be elected by the people."

According to Joe O'Neill "In the lead up to nomination day, Noel McGuire had not withdrawn his nomination and Gerry Adams and Danny Morrison wanted Sands to withdraw his. They phoned across the border to Ó Brádaigh and Dáithí O'Connell who were both wanted by the English authorities in the six occupied counties but they said 'no' Bobby Sands was not to be withdrawn," Joe O'Neill explained.

And we all know who was right in the end," he added.

Mr O'Neill said he hoped the media would realise, once and for all, that newspapers, documentary makers and so-called historical books had their facts wrong, especially now on the 25th anniversary of Bobby Sands' death.

Mr O'Neill also said that Provisional Sinn Féin tried to dissuade republicans from fighting election in the 26 counties. He pointed to the fact four more Sinn Féin members were elected that year, including Joe Rice in Kerry, John Joe McGirl for Sligo/Leitrim, Gareth O'Hanlon in Monaghan and Ruairí Ó Brádaigh in Longford --"all on republican policy," Joe O'Neill said.

"The difference between the elections of the 1950s and 1981 was the earlier elections were held in support of the fight for Irish freedom while Provisional Sinn Féin used the fight for Irish freedom to support them getting elected." Donegal Democrat

Full text of article: http://www.donegaldemocrat.com/story/6613

by Barry Thu May 18, 2006 21:47

During the earlier banket protests OBradaigh and OConnail wanted republicans to stand in the European elections to highlight the prisoners plight , which Adams and his associates thwarted .
One wonders why Gibney makes this claim that Bobby Sands standing was his idea ?

There are major contradictions in these accounts and a number of urgent and serious questions that need answering given the seriousness of the scenario that is unfolding . I agree with the poster above that a public televised debate on the issue would be highly welcome , where these points and those making them can be held to account and scrutiny . Surely whoevers telling the truth would have nothing to fear from open and honest debate and scrutiny ?

by Former Blanket man Thu May 18, 2006 22:50

I'm in agreement with the open debate idea. Republicans must demand answers from the Leadership. Not only must they defend themselves about the accusations about the Hunger strikes but they must also give us answers on the Informers Scap and Donaldson. To date they have brushed this under the carpet but this can't be allowed to continue. George Bush would be pleased with his little Irish pals.

by today Fri May 19, 2006 10:13

From the Irish News.

‘O’Rawe never told me his views’
By GERARD HODGINS

RICHARD O’Rawe’s latest comments (May 15) are staggering.

He alleges that for 24 years he revealed his views to other ex-prisoners and didn’t just come out with it in his recent book. Really? I am an ex-Blanket man and ex-hunger striker.

Since 1981 I have met Richard on numerous occasions and he never mentioned any of this to me, alluded to it in any way or even intimated that things were not as they seemed.

The first I heard of his claims was when I read them in The Sunday Times last year.

Initially I was for giving him a fool’s pardon, thinking he was caught up in some sort of angst over 1981.

But the more I see his spurious accusations in the media, the more I am inclined to believe that he is following a political agenda through which he is happy to intensify and prolong the hurt and anguish the families of our dead friends and comrades endure.

GERARD HODGINS
Belfast

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘O’Rawe told me his concerns’
By BRENDAN HUGHES

IT is not my intention to take sides in the ongoing debate over the claims made in the book Blanketmen by its author Richard O’Rawe.

I am not in a position to speak authoritatively on the matter.

I was in the same block as Richard O’Rawe at the time of the events he refers to but not on the same wing.

However, there has been some attempt to present O’Rawe as a person who made no effort to tell any former prisoner of his suspicions over a 24-year period. This is simply not so.

I am a former prisoner whom O’Rawe talked to on a number of occasions about the things that concerned him and which eventually appeared in his book.

I can also state I am not the only former prisoner O’Rawe has raised the matter with.

BRENDAN HUGHES
Former O/C of the H-Block Blanket men
Belfast

by toussaint - none Fri May 19, 2006 16:55

Richard:

You claim in one of the early posts that

'A fellow republican said to me last week that over the period of Bobby Sands’ anniversary, the republican movement had done everything except paint the Star of David on my windows and daub Juden Raus on my front door.

I laughed when he made that analogy but when I had time to think about it, I don’t think he was too wide off the mark.'

Would you please detail for the rest of us exactly what you mean by this? Too many people reach for the nazi/fascist analogy these days without any reservations about engaging in hype. As an example, the Blanket recently referred to the trouble in Ballymurphy as a 'pogrom,' and compared it to events in August 1969. Interestingly, they were as outraged as Henry McD etc. when those under siege in the Short Strand several years back tried out an analogy with the Warsaw ghetto. I think the stuff is too serious to play fast and loose with, but some people don't seem to mind indulging as long as it raises a few eyebrows.

Do you mean by it that Danny M no longer wants to join you for a pint with you in the Rock bar, or that some of your former comrades who disagree with you are no longer on the same terms as they were? Or is there something more serious at work, something that would justify your resorting to the ''Juden Raus' hype? A very serious charge to make, don't you think? What's the story?

by (Irish News) Fri May 19, 2006 17:04

Controversy persisted last night (Tuesday March 2 2005) over allegations in a book that the IRA army council may have allowed some hunger strikers to die. Former IRA prisoner Richard O'Rawe has claimed the paramilitary leadership blocked an acceptable deal from the British government to end the 1981 protest before six of the 10 men had died.

The allegation has been dismissed by former IRA jail leader Brendan Bik McFarlane.

Mr McFarlane insisted "no deal was offered to the hunger strikers whereby they could say it was acceptable".

However, a woman connected to one hunger striker, who did not want to be named but said she had attended family meetings surrounding the hunger strike, last night backed Mr O'Rawe's claims.

"I want to support the views of Richard O'Rawe and Monsignor Denis Faul," she said.

"I went to all the relatives' meetings and the Sinn Féin meetings and I was there when the families told Gerry Adams to go in to the prison to order the men to come off the hunger strike.

"He went in and spoke to the men, but he told them it was up to them. He did not order them off the hunger strike.

"Those men put their names forward to go on that hunger strike but when it came to the point of dying it wasn't their decision."

The woman said she believed the men were "allowed to die for political gain".

"I thank God that at last someone has had the courage to tell the truth at long last," she said.

by news Fri May 19, 2006 21:58

Richard O'Rawe wrote (see above): 'A fellow republican said to me last week that over the period of Bobby Sands’ anniversary, the republican movement had done everything except paint the Star of David on my windows and daub Juden Raus on my front door.

I laughed when he made that analogy but when I had time to think about it, I don’t think he was too wide off the mark.'

Toussaint asks: Would you please detail for the rest of us exactly what you mean by this? Too many people reach for the nazi/fascist analogy these days without any reservations about engaging in hype. [...] Or is there something more serious at work, something that would justify your resorting to the ''Juden Raus' hype? A very serious charge to make, don't you think? What's the story?

This evening on the wall on the side of Richard O'Rawe's house, facing the street, someone spray painted 'R O'Rawe H Block Traitor'. Perhaps the painter couldn't spell Juden Raus?

Same tactics, same mindset - different scale, different place.

by Peter Mon May 22, 2006 10:25

Anyone who makes a comparison between daubing a paint slogan outside someone’s house over a political difference and what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany is living a fantasy existence. Maybe Mr O’Rawe feels marginalized, as in putting forward a minority position within a community with strong feelings on the matter.

Anyone who thinks about it will know that what is happening in places like Ballymena, where nationalists entering parts of the town are subject to physical attack, is a form of sectarian or racist demonization in the real sense of the term. If someone were to make a comparison between the position of nationalists in the North with what happened under fascism you could see potential parallels, but it would be a stretch. With O’Rawe it is an absurd position from top to bottom.

There is a difference between attacking people purely on the basis of their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion, and criticising the views of an individual on a political issue. The latter is clearly the case with Richard O’Rawe and he should get over it. I don’t agree with criticism by paintbrush, but it seems like a bit of a tradition up north on all sides. Words on screen seem more appropriate for this difference of opinion. I don’t agree with O’Rawe either.

O’Rawe makes a big issue out of the meaning of particular words (“offer” versus “deal”) in a context where they hold a particular precise meaning for him but not for others. He is floundering around in inessential detail when, on the substantive point, he is not convincing and where others who were directly involved reject his view. The best that O’Rawe and his supporters can offer in opposition is to say everyone else is deliberately untruthful. Someone above mentioned Father Denis Faul, a priest who became consumed with anti-republican prejudice once it became clear that the nationalist population were deserting the middle class middle of the road SDLP for Sinn Fein in the early 1980s. If Richard O’Rawe wants to line up with Fr Faul I doubt that it will add much to his credibility. However, he is entitled to his view.

by Barry Mon May 22, 2006 12:04

Thus far the only excuse which can be found by ORawes detractors for his deviant behaviour is that he is financially greedy , attempting to sell his book by making sordid false claims about what happened in the blocks and waiting for the royalty checks to flood in . Asides from attributing these motives to his character they can offer no real explanation as to why he would fabricate these claims .
Its pointed out that many senior republicans have rallied to Adams defence and given sworn accounts that tally with Adams account ( with some quite glaring inconsistencies as has been pointed out but ingeneral they are in defence of Mr Adams). Why would they do this if Adams account was untrue ?
But one cannot help to be at least a little sceptical when one remembers only a couple of years ago senior ex-prisoners were publicly making fools of themselves during Adams denials that he had ever been a member of the IRA . In fact one person , Richard MacAuley even went to the lengths of publicly claiming that he was the writer " Brownie" and not Adams . Others devoted column after column , interview after interview impassionately lying through their teeth on the bosses behalf making utter fools of themselves in the process . After clearly showing a total disregard for the truth not to mention heaping insult on the intelligence of the Irish people they were trying to convince to play along with a massive lie its extremely difficult not to encounter a heavy dose of scepticism when one sees a repeat of the same tactics in this case . Its extremely difficult to get at the truth when one side have a track record of telling the most blatant lies with a straight face , even to the point of attributing dark motives to anyone who doesnt beieve it . In fact it could safely be regarded as a political tactic of the Sinn Fein leadership and to be expected .

As far as I know Mr ORawe doesnt have a record of this type of behaviour . But this in itself isnt proof that in this case his account is true and the others false . Merely that the Sinn Fein leadership have a record of instructing former prisoners to tell blatant and repeated lies to cover their backs . Its possible I suppose that they are telling the truth in this case and that this is a calumnous lie being told by greedy man seeking to cash in on the Hungerstrikers deaths . (By the way insinuating Mr ORawe is now a fellow traveller of Fr Faul isnt really a good idea when one considers the quite chummy relationship between the SF leadership and recently retired MI5 bigwig Brigadier General Michael Oatley "the mountain climber" . Mr Oately who was present at the 1972 truce talks in London was one of those who devised the counter insurgency strategy of Ulsterisation Normalisation and Criminalisation in the first place , an architect of the same HBlock regime that 10 men died resisting . It can be easily argued that Mr Oatleys strategy for defeating insurgency in Ireland has been a tremendous success)

So again we are back to a very basic question , does Mr ORawes account of these events make political sense ? And if not why not ?

by Peter Mon May 22, 2006 12:38

Laurence McKeown is a former H Block Blanket Prisoner - on hunger strike for 70 days in 1981 before his family intervened. He offered an opinion on the ‘motive’ issue in Daily Ireland, quoted above, extract below.

”When investigative documentary ignores the facts - Daily Ireland May 2006, author, by Laurence McKeown - Former H Block Blanket Prisoner 1981 Wed May 17, 2006 14:34
.......

"When Nor Meekly Serve My Time, an account of the blanket protest and hunger strikes, was written by the prisoners ten years after the hunger strike there was not a mention of Richard’s claim yet the camp was buzzing with recollections of that period. During the numerous events that marked the 20th anniversary in 2001 there was again never a whimper of such allegations. Then in 2005 Richard made them.

“Cynics will say that he only made the allegations to promote his book about the blanket protest, a book that I hear is an interesting read in terms of the everyday life of the wing, but which was never going to come to any prominence among the general public. What gave it a life was his claim about a supposed deal being rejected by the IRA a claim eagerly taken up by the Sunday Times and promoted as fact."

This is merely an opinion of course. By and large, it is not the responsibility of those who do not agree with O'Rawe's position to work out his motive. Only O'Rawe can tell us that and his explanation is likely to be self-serving (irrespective of whether or not it is true). The important question is the one asked by McKeown: why would the British make an offer conceding the substance of the five demands, see it squandered by the IRA and then keep quite about it? The British are quite good at media and political manipulation and have many friends in the media happy to spin the British line. They do not have to reveal their precise role, as O’Rawe appears to assert above. Of course, that is not necessary when ‘divide and rule’ is possible. In those circumstances, they can sit and smirk.

Lawrence McKeown has a particular personal interest in discovering the truth of O'Rawe's claims, much more so than O’Rawe, since his death would have been a possible result (and he nearly did die – some prisoners died before 70 days without food). To make accusations against McKeown in these circumstances because he rejects O’Rawe’s claims – see above – is not convincing.

(Barry, the association with Fr Faul was raised by someone who said: “I want to support the views of Richard O'Rawe and Monsignor Denis Faul”, quoted above. If you are unhappy with the association, don’t blame me.)

by here's why Mon May 22, 2006 13:28

Why would the British make an offer conceding the substance of the five demands, see it squandered by the IRA and then keep quite about it?

1. They were told that the prisoners refused the offer.

2. Thatcher was not going to admit under any circumstances that she offered the IRA concessions on an issue she said she wouldn't move on - "Crime is crime is crime"

3. They had no reason to sink the leadership (ie. the Adams circle) whom they were dealing with and had already determined that Adams was a man they could do business with (as stated by Brigadier General Glover). In 1993, Albert Reynolds said to John Major, "If [Adams] does not carry the coffin of Thomas Begley, he is of no use to you or me", showing that the governments were still keen to use Adams rather than sink him.

4. If the Brits did have an inkling that the IRA leadership had refused the offer rather than the prisoners themselves, why not use that information to turn some of that leadership rather than embarrass them? (such as Donaldson, and others who have been named but not publicly confirmed as yet)

5. In the course of secret diplomacy over the years, in which the British spooks/diplomats, including the Mountain Climber, were involved with both Adams and McGuinness as far back as 1972, much dirt can only have accumulated. For such diplomacy to work, knowledge about each side's misdemeanours is kept close in order to build trust and leverage.

McKeown is not the only man who deserves the truth about what happened. There were a significant number of hunger strikers and 300 blanketmen. McKeown, as a party man today, has motive for covering up the truth, as does McFarlane, Gibney and Morrison. Gibney and Morrison have vested interests in covering up the truth.

by Barry Mon May 22, 2006 13:29

By ascribing "motive" to ORawe one must assume he has a motive for telling lies or was motivated to simply tell the truth . His account only differs in a very small but crucial way from the Sinn Fein version . The difference of opinion doesnt even take up a lot of space in the book .Nothing else in the book could be regarded in the remotest bit controversial . There are no anti leadership rants or backstabbing ,no political agenda at work in his writing at all that I can find .

Its worth pointing out that the IRA wouldnt have been particularly damaged by these claims at the time of the Hungerstikes as the claims do not concern the IRA Army council merely a small group of Sinn Fein politicians . And as Mr Adams claims he was never an IRA member , if he and his aides whove vociferously argued this point in the press are truthful on that we can safely discount any supposition that the IRA manipulated the Hungerstrikes . What we cant discount as yet is the supposition that a small clique of people within Sinn Fein manipulated the Hungerstrikes for political purposes . Unfortunately their track record in lies and deception and persuading others to lie for the leadership for the greater good of the struggle is a matter of record so its hard to get at the truth here .

Again we are back to the issue of do the claims make political sense . The question as to why the British would remain silent about something that would have destroyed Gerry Adams credibilty ( possibly even endangered his life) as well as Maggie thatchers reputation as an Iron Lady is a reasonable point to make . It would also have brought the spotlight onto Michael Oatleys activities when there was an agreement of anonymity . However to guess at these motives is similar to mere guessing at ORawes motives .

Does the political aftermath of the hungerstrikes tally with ORawes account of the offer being rejected by Adams ? Does that make any sense ?

by Danny Morrison - Daily Ireland Mon May 22, 2006 13:37

Having quickly run out of argument, having found his account rebuffed by former hunger strikers and blanket men, Richard O’Rawe has resorted to personal, untrue and hurtful attacks. His claim that in 1981 the army council of the IRA turned down a deal from ‘Mountain Climber’ (a British representative) which could have saved six hunger strikers lives in order to gain a sympathy vote for Owen Carron in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election has been demolished.

Few believe his plea that he wrote the book for the families of the hunger strikers (but forgot to tell them). Instead of conceding that his memory might be false, or that being only partly privy to the talks in 1981 led him to misinterpret events, he persists with his myths because his book and its sales are his primary concern.

The fact that during all the propaganda wars successive British governments have never in the intervening 24 years claimed the IRA squandered a deal in 1981 speaks for itself. It would certainly have been in British interests to level such a charge – after all, the allegation is of such a magnitude that were it true it had the potential for stopping the struggle in its tracks.

In this paper last Saturday Richard wrote: “Danny [Morrison] has accused me of being oblivious to the feelings of the families. Let me say that’s rich.

“This man went into a meeting with the families on July 28th with the Mountain Climber offer in his back pocket and yet he didn’t think the families should be made aware of the offer. Why did he do that?”

On July 10 th at Joe McDonnell’s funeral I collapsed in Milltown Cemetery. I was taken into hospital in Dublin with hepatitis, which is an infectious disease, and kept in an isolation ward at Cherry Orchard hospital in Ballyfermott. That’s where I was on July 28 th. In hospital I was humbled to receive a message from the hunger strikers asking about my condition. A month after Joe McDonnell’s death I returned to the North to speak at the funeral of IRA hunger striker Tom McElwee in Bellaghy. My point is that Richard’s memory isn’t as sharp as he claims.

Interestingly, in his ‘Daily Ireland’ right of reply Richard also had the opportunity to rebut criticism of him the day before from Laurence McKeown but chose not to. Laurence was one of those on hunger strike at the time in 1981 when Richard alleges that the IRA refused ‘a deal’ to end the fast. Richard seems incapable of grasping the distinction between an offer and a confirmed deal. Yes, offers were made and discussed and clarified but when we tried to tie the British government down on a mechanism for ensuring they could not renege (as they had at the end of the first hunger strike) they procrastinated. The hunger strikers – as Laurence McKeown made clear the other day - “wanted definite confirmation, not vague promises of ‘regime change’.”

Richard was a blanket man and a PRO for the prisoners in 1981. He was not a negotiator and was never in the prison hospital with the hunger strikers, though he elevates his importance in his book. He was a good PRO and upon his release from prison he worked for a year in the Republican Press Centre in Belfast at the time when I was Sinn Fein’s Director of Publicity. So, we saw each other at briefings every day for a year until he decided to go into business for himself.

Since then there have been a dozen occasions when we’ve discussed politics late into the night. During and after the hunger strike, and in all the time I have known and spoken to him, Richard never made this allegation.

He says that in 1991 he privately criticised the role of the IRA Army Council in the hunger strike but was told that he could be shot and so he kept quiet. He explains that because of the new atmosphere following the ceasefire and that because he believes there will be no return to armed struggle he now feels free to say these things. Even if for the sake of argument we accept that Richard felt threatened in 1991 that doesn’t explain why in the interests of accuracy he would not now have consulted Brendan ‘Bik’ McFarlane, his former OC, whom throughout the book he has recruited to his position, other hunger strikers who survived, Gerry Adams or myself. Bik, like Laurence McKeown, repudiates Richard’s allegation.

Richard deceived many people into believing that he was writing a book about growing up in West Belfast. When the book was published last week any merit it had for former comrades, as one blanket man’s grim experience of jail, was destroyed by his implicit insult to the intelligence of the hunger strikers and his scurrilous attack on the IRA leadership and Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams.

As a result of his attacks Richard has been feted by the ‘Sunday Times’ and lauded by revisionists, anti-republican journalists and the usual suspects. Had his book been called ‘Blanketmen – Thatcher kills hunger strikers’ I think we can guess at how little media coverage he could have expected.

Richard’s book has helped no one but the enemies of the struggle. Not the hunger strikers’ families, not the blanket men, not the republican cause, not his friends and comrades, and, certainly, not himself. What Richard O’Rawe has written is repugnant but it has exposed him as a minor figure against the inviolable memory of the hunger strikers, their sacrifices and their greatness.

by Barry Mon May 22, 2006 13:49

ORawes claims havent been demolished . The IRA would not have been stopped in their tracks either . Adams , Morrison , Hartley and others most definitely would have been . As would their emerging strategy have been stopped in its tracks by any such revelation . As Morrison has raised the point its a fair question ? Would it make sense for the British to destroy them and their strategy ?

Now Morrison himself admits ORawe has placed himself in a major personal predicament by making his claims , yet he ascribes simply a financial motive , book sales . Is this credible ? Does this make sense ?

by rebuttal to Morrison Mon May 22, 2006 14:00

Letters Daily Ireland

Once again, I find myself having to respond to another attack from Danny Morrison (Daily Ireland, March 9).
I was wrong when I said that Danny was at the meeting in the Sinn Féin centre in Belfast on July 28.
I wasn’t there and I assumed when I should have demonstrated. Tá brón orm, Danny.
We now know that it was other republicans who omitted to tell the relatives about the Mountain Climber initiative.
As I say, the basic fact remains — the 1981 IRA external leadership had been in contact with the Mountain Climber on July 4 and again on July 19, and the families were not told about these contacts on July 28 or of the offer that he had made on both occasions.
In fact, had David Beresford not accidentally found out about the Mountain Climber when he was researching his book Ten Men Dead in 1985, I have no doubt whatsoever that neither the relatives nor the Irish people would have heard of his intervention from the republican movement.
Ask yourself why a leading republican asked me to remove all comms that had any mention of the Mountain Climber in case Beresford found out about him.
I am well aware that the republican movement is harnessing all its power to discredit me and minimise my role in the hunger strike.
Lorny McKeown was the latest in a formidable list that has launched vicious personal attacks against me in Daily Ireland [March 4].
Danny asked why I didn’t reply to Lorny’s attack. I didn’t because I didn’t know about it until Danny drew it to my attention in Daily Ireland.
I immediately went to Teach Basil to purchase that day’s newspaper.
I was aware that Lorny had made a remark because Danny had alluded to it in another attack on me in The Irish Times on March 5 but I did not attribute it to a newspaper article.
Now, whereas Danny at least presents a case against me which people can examine, Lorny’s concern was with downgrading my role in the hunger strike and gutting me personally.
Lorny can stand in the muck if he wants to. I’m not going to join him.
Danny says that I have quickly “run out of argument”. Okay, let’s look at the argument. On Monday, February 28, Bik was asked by a UTV reporter, “Who took the decision to reject that [Mountain Climber’s] offer?”
“There was no offer of that description.”
“At all?”
“Whatsoever. No offer existed.”
Bik repeated this in a full-page spread in a newspaper.
In Padraig O’Malley’s book, Biting at the Grave, the author gives an account of the exchanges between Gerry Adams and the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace that took place at a house in Andersonstown on July 6, 1981.
O’Malley says that ICJP members Father Oliver Crilly and Hugh Logue were sent for by Adams.
According to O’Malley’s sources, Adams told them that “the prisoners actually had on offer a better deal than the one the ICJP thought they were putting together”.
Again, according to O’Malley, Father Crilly remembers Adams telling him that there was “contact from someone in England working on behalf of the British government and that he [Adams] spelled out ‘what this gentleman was offering them [the prisoners]’”.
Hugh Logue is on record as saying that Adams, “had in minute detail all the concessions we [in the ICJP] were being offered”.
So, Gerry Adams seems to be confirming that there was an offer.
Danny, writing in his Daily Ireland column this week, said, “The [Mountain Climber] offer was, of course, less than the prisoners were demanding”.
So Danny contradicts Bik and concedes there was an offer.
David Beresford in his book Ten Men Dead gives an account of the exchanges between the external leadership and the Mountain Climber.
Beresford heard of the Mountain Climber from senior republicans, so his account cannot be disputed. Beresford then goes on to outline a series of concessions that the republican leadership told him was on offer.
Despite all this, Bik is still insisting that there was no offer “whatsoever”.
His entire position has been undermined, not only by me but by his allies and the evidence.
No amount of clever footwork or spin by Danny or anyone else will detract from the fact that Bik’s version of events has been holed below the waterline.
Bik says that, when he returned to our wing after meeting Danny in the camp hospital on July 5, 1981, he sent me down a comm which said that contact had been made with the Mountain Climber but, according to Bik, “There was no concrete proposals whatsoever in relation to a deal”.
After almost two weeks of having to endure a vicious and unprecedented campaign to vilify me, we finally arrive at the point where I’m sitting in my cell reading Bik’s comm about the Mountain Climber.
I have said all along that Bik sent me down the offer from the Mountain Climber and that, after considering it for a couple of hours, I called him up to the window and told him in Irish that I believed there was enough there.
He agreed with me.
But Bik says there was no offer “whatsoever”.
Adams, Danny Morrison, Beresford, O’Malley, Father Crilly, Hugh Logue and I say differently.
No doubt Danny will be racking his brain in order to counter what I’m saying to rescue Bik.
I don’t relish his task.

Richard O’Rawe

by No shit Sherlock Mon May 22, 2006 14:19

After admitting to one error of fact with regard to Danny Morrison, a significant one, perhaps Ricard O'Rawe will now admit to others. His opinion is just that, an opinion, and not a very convincing one.

Morrison says that O'Rawe did not check his memory of events with former comrades and this lead O‘Rawe to inevitable errors of fact. O’Rawe is fixated by his own personal memory of events and rejects every other version as a lie.

O'Rawe is surprised at the vigorous reaction to his accusation that it was not Margaret Thatcher and British imperialism that was responsible for the deaths of the majority of the hunger strikers, but the movement of which he was a part. He makes the most serious of allegations, but acts all ‘hurt’ when his view is criticised. Obviously a very precious individual.

by Questioner Tue May 23, 2006 10:04

According to O'Rawe more hunger strikers had to die in order for Owen Carron (Bobby Sands’ election agent) to be elected in the second Fermanagh Sth Tyrone by election. Really? If that was the case, why did the Brits not intervene through their political and media friends to expose this ruse by the dastardly provos? The expression through the ballot box of support for republican prisoners was the last thing Thatcher wanted.

Exposure of a refusal to accept a genuine proposal to concede the prisoners' demands in practice (after the death of four hunger strikers) would have been devastating for republicans in the by-election. But the brits and their friends were mute, said nothing, did nothing.

How convoluted does it have to get for the O’Rawe apologists to explain this away?

by Barry Tue May 23, 2006 12:08

The last thing the Brits wanted was the Adams faction taken out of the equation , as they would have been if ORawes claims are true . As is borne out by their saving his life only a year later in 82 and intercepting John Greggs team . Had the Brits exposed what had happened the electoral door would have been firmly slammed in Sinn Feins face for good by the nationalist population . Which would have left one option only , and that option would not have been a "peace process" and the total surrender of a revolutionary movement and its transformation into a reformist constitutional nationalist movement . Their overall strategy for defeating militant republicanism - Ulsterisation , normalisation , criminalisation would have lain in tatters . Without Adams and his "think tank" Sinn Fein could never have been delivered in such a complete fashion .

The GFA not only criminalises republican prisoners it legitimises British rule and the undemocratic politics which underpin it . Its is the "securocrats" total victory tied up in a bow .

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 12:41

The Associated Press March 22, 1985

Two Jailed for Attempt to Kill Sinn Fein President

Two men were sentenced Friday to 18-year prison terms for shooting Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein, the legal political arm of the outlawed Irish Republican Army.

Justice John MacDermott passed the sentences on Gerard Welsh, 34, and John Gregg, 27, in Belfast Crown Court. They had pleaded guilty.

MacDermott said it was only by "good fortune" that Adams was not killed by the bullets that hit him in the shoulder and neck as he was being driven through downtown Belfast in March 1984.

Three other people in the car with Adams were wounded when Welsh and Gregg opened fire from a passing car, the prosecution said.

Both men also were given concurrent 14-year terms for the other woundings, and Welsh received a seven-year concurrent sentence for membership in an outlawed Protestant paramilitary group, the Ulster Freedom Fighters.

The IRA is fighting to end British rule in Northern Ireland and to unite the predominantly Protestant province with the mostly Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland.

The IRA is outlawed in Ireland and Britain, but not Sinn Fein.

The Times (London) March 20 1988

Ulster - Battle weary but still full of hatred

DAVID CONNETT, ANDREW HOGG and MAX PRANGNELL

………

Despite republican claims that there was a second gunman, The Sunday Times has established that only one was involved and that he [Michael Stone] had gone to the cemetery with the express intention of killing Gerry Adams, president of Sinn Fein and MP for West Belfast, Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein's leader in Londonderry and Danny Morrison, Sinn Fein's head of publicity.

At the last moment his nerve failed and he launched an indiscriminate assault from a position less than 50 yards from the plot reserved for IRA terrorists.

How he intended to escape is not clear. A white van seen driving off down the M1 was later identified as a police vehicle on hand to prevent mortorists slowing to watch the funeral. He also appeared to be in no particular hurry to leave the scene.

Eventually he was brought down by a man wielding a wheel brace as he confronted some of his pursuers, while holding a grenade, saying: 'Come on you bastards. You have three seconds left and this will go off.'

The beating he received was severe enough to mean that police were unable to question him for nearly two days. When he was eventually rescued by the army and RUC the gunmen had just one question: 'How many of the f ..ing bastards did I kill?'

Comment

Looks like the brits did not do a very good job Barry.

I suppose, on the same basis, that the brits who let the UDA shoot Bernadette McAliskey and her husband in January 1981, before arresting them, were there to “save” her as well – according to your logic.

When unionist killer Michael Stone went to Milltown Cemetery to shoot Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Danny Morrison in 1988, but lost his nerve and attacked the nearest mourner instead, was he acting to this brit agenda, before he was rescued by the brits on the motorway?

When the brit agent Nelson was arranging with the full knowledge of his handlers, the killing of Alex Maskey, a supporter of the Peace Process, what 'brit agena' was Nelson following Barry?

Pull the other one Barry, it has bells on it.

by Phil Tue May 23, 2006 13:02

Why won't both sides in this argument agree to a public debate? Arguments and counter-arguments in the press and on the internet won't bring this sorry episode to a conclusion. Think of the Families of the dead in all this. Serious accusations have been made which need answers.

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 13:17

This is a public debate.

Richard O'Rawe has put his position.

Bik McFarlane, Laurence KcKeown, Raymond McCartney, Danny Morrison, and Jim Gibney have put theirs.

Enough information to form an opinion, I would say.

It seems to me that those calling for a 'different' debate do not like the way this one is going. The Richard O’Rawe conspiracy theory increasingly lacks credibility.

by Barry Tue May 23, 2006 13:31

Bik McFarlane has categorically denied there was any such offer from the Brits , Gibney and Morrisson have said there was but it was just an offer , not a deal . So theres a major inconsistency in their accounts . Laurence McKeown it should be remembered would not have been aware of any of it .

Perhaps the best person to ask would be Michael Oatley now hes a private citizen ? Its interesting too that ORawe claims he was ordered to remove all references to Oatleys existence when Peter Beresford was writing his account which he failed to do and which resulted in Beresford exposing his existence . Oately is central to this entire debate but he seems to be quite reticent in confirming or denying ORawes account .

by Phil Tue May 23, 2006 13:42

A, but Bic and the others are Adam's men are they not? Why not hire a hall somewhere in Belfast and thrash it all out in the open. I for one don't believe that it's as straight forward as O'Rawe versus The Adam's camp, there were others in the know at the time in the blocks, why are they silent?

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 13:42

Adams nearly died
by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 11:41

For some unaccountable reason, Barry you failed to address the question I asked about how the brits arrange for people to be 'saved' by having them shot first.

It is a fast flowing debate and you can't be expected to keep up with everything. Perhaps you would address the point now.

by Barry Tue May 23, 2006 13:44

http://www.mathaba.net/data/sis/mi6-ira.htm

Again it begs the question , do ORawes claims make political sense as regards the outcome of the Hungerstrikes and the dynamics of Sinn Feins move into electoralism and ultimately reformism ?

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 13:56

Having answered you own point with regard to Oatley to your own satisfaction, could you now adress mine?

One point though on your latest observation.
Is it on this thread or another one Barry that you point out that Ruari O Bradaigh and Daithi O Connail were the ones to promote and lead the electoral charge into Fermanagh Sth Tyrone, and that Gerry Adams was the reluctant one. Sooooo ........ maybe O Bradaigh and O Connaill were secretly agents of convenience for the brits all along. Makes you think all the way back to the botched Brookborough raid in the 1950s. And wasn't O Bradaigh elected as a TD all the way back then. Hmmm.... it really does make you think.

(Don't forget about the point above about the brits ' we shot him in order to save him' strategy)

by larry Tue May 23, 2006 14:53

Harry, you can drive the debate up all manner of cul de sacs but it still does not change the fundamental facts.

Thatcher would not expose the secret diplomacy because
a) it was secret and
b) in this particular instance having failed to secure a deal, it would do her more damage to be seen to be negotiating with the IRA than it would to show the IRA's refusal of her offer.

If Thatcher came out and said she had been negotiating with the IRA at that time and had offered a deal that conceded their demands she would have been decimated, not the IRA. So you have to be joking when you ask with a straightface why didn't the Brits expose the deal and the refusal of it.

In addition, the Brits would have been told the prisoners refused the deal, so what good would it have done for them to have made it public, it wouldn't have made much difference to the nationalist electorate that the prisoners didn't accept an offer. The Brits were always saying that it was the prisoners intransigence that was the problem anyway.

The bigger problem now is that the likes of Gibney, Morrison, Adams et al have told that many lies over the years that even if they are not lying now, no one believes them -- and it is their own fault.

There is a letter in the Irish News today from someone who used to work for Richard O'Rawe who says that as far back as 1988, O'Rawe had mentioned the needless death of six of the hunger strikers, which shows up yet another lie from the Adams/Gibney/Morrison camp, that Richard never said anything to anyone about this. The more they lie the less they are believed.

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 15:31

Larry, the letter is anonymous and says that O'Rawe expressed the view he holds. So what.

On the alleged brit offer: Thatcher did not have to stand up and expose herself - absurd suggestion – you know better than that (I hope).

The impression that the prisoners turned down the offer would have been no impediment to the brits exposing the prisoners as people determined to die, for no reason. It would have been a gift to brit propagandists.

But, and here is the curious thing, the brits allegedly put an offer to the provos that essentially met the five demands. The provos that the brits had in their pocket decided to turn it down in order that Bobby Sands' election agent, Owen Carron, be elected in the 2nd Fermanagh Sth Tyrone by-election, an outcome the brits wanted to prevent. But, the brits really did want to promote the ‘electoralism’ of the provos all along.

So, that’s all right then.

Which part of that incredible farrago of nonsense would you like to rephrase or ‘revise’?

How does the 1984 Brighton bombing, aimed at Thatcher and which nearly got her, fit into this incredible scenario? Did Michael Oatley plan that as well?

(I'm not forgetting you Barry - hope you are not forgetting to explain your 'shoot him first, save him second' theory)

by Phil Tue May 23, 2006 15:35

Adams seems content to leave the arguments about the events of 1981 to his underlings while he continues to sell out to Unionist Bigots in Stormont. Isn't it embarrassing to see the organisation which Bobby and the other Hunger strikers were proud to call themselves part of, reduced to grovelling and being slapped in the face by a clearly triumphant Paisley and his nodding dogs [by the way Adam's lot seem to have copied this nodding dogs in the background stunt as we continuously see by their appearances on TV]. Whatever happened 25 years ago the fact is that the present day leadership is now betraying those who died in the Blocks and on the street.

by Sean Tue May 23, 2006 15:39

What ever happened to Owen Carron???

by Barry Tue May 23, 2006 15:42

" If there is one big lesson coming out of the peace process over the last ten years, it is words like 'certainty' and 'clarity' are not part of the creative lexicon that conflict resolution requires if it is to be successful. Can anyone point to a period over the last ten years when such words were used and they helped the peace process here? Words like 'clarity' and 'certainty' are part of the fundamentalist's political dictionary. They derive from an arrogant mentality, which assumes legitimacy and moral superiority. Demanding such words causes crisis and paralysis. They clog the peace process engine up with gunge. They box people into a corner. Pursuit of such words or their equivalent encourages intransigence by those seeking their use and by those burdened to produce them. Give me the language of ambiguity. It has served the people of this country well over the last ten years. It has oiled the engine of the peace process. Long may it continue to do so. "

Jim Gibney

Where do you go from there . Getting the truth out of these people is impossible when lies and evasions are a necessity of their political lexicon .

And Harry is deliberately trying to set his own parameters here . No-one has said the Brits set up Adams in order to save him , merely that they saved him . And the more substantial point is I dont believe anyone has claimed the singular issue of getting Owen Carron elected was the reason why the Brits offer was turned down behind the rest of the movements and the hungerstrikers families backs. An entire strategy seems to be the only reasonable explanation that makes sense . And it does make sense .

Rather than try and drag the debate away from the substantial points perhaps Harry could explain why McFarlane point blank denied the existence of any British offer when this was clearly not true ?

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 16:40

Phil’s fools (Tue May 23, 2006 14:35)

This Adams guy, you really have to hand it to him. He “grovels” before his brit masters in 1981 and turns down their generous offer. He “grovels” before his unionist masters in 2006, and they turn down his generous offer.

Fiendishly clever, fiendishly clever…… He does exactly what they do not want him to do. Wheels within wheels, angles and squares, halls of mirrors. It will take a great mind to work this out. Where’s Barry?

Barry (at last!) Tue May 23, 2006 14:42

Barry avoids the thorny problem that Gerry Adams was nearly shot to death before he alleges the brits tried to ‘save’ him by writing:

”No-one has said the Brits set up Adams in order to save him , merely that they saved him. “

Neat but wrong Barry – wrong in what you left out of the story and wrong in what you left in.

His wounded driver managed to drive the wounded Gerry Adams and the rest of the wounded passengers to the Royal Victoria Hospital. The Brits saved no one Barry. Now, if you had turned to the other example, the shooting of Bernadette and Michael McAliskey in 1981, you could have argued there (unconvincingly) that the brits ‘saved’ her – and not mentioned the shooting at all (but that would be equally unconvincing). The parachute regiment watched as the UDA carried out the assassination, and then arrested the perpetrators. A second regiment came along and one of them saved Bernadette and Michael’s life. What does your very clever mind say about that Barry? How does that fit into your theory of the world?

I did not drag this very stupid debate down any cul de sac. It is all the work of conspiracy theorists who make it up as they go along. They live in a little world where their opponents are all ‘liars’ – so absolving them from paying any attention to counter arguments or facts. As I said earlier, neat.

by Sean Tue May 23, 2006 16:58

Wasn't De Valera saved from the firing squad in 1916 and look what he went on to do.

by Barry Tue May 23, 2006 17:08

Prior to the attempt on his life it has since transpired the FRU " jarked" the bullets , replacing the loyalist hit teams rounds with non lethal ones with a tiny charge that were much less powerful . Bankrobbers frequently do the same with shotgun cartriges to ensure there are no fatalities . As you point out the wounded driver was able to drive to the RVH , no-one in the car died despite it being sprayed at close range by a number of automatic weapons . Even the would be assassins managed to shoot each other by mistake at point blank range and still survived . The "off duty" UDR man who was just passing as the team struck and rammed their car also just happened to have gone to secondary school with one the shooters , John Gregg and would have recognised him a mile off . If you believe the theory that a plain clothes soldier was just passing at that very moment and intercepted the hit team on his own inititiative its no wonder you believe all the rest .

Now any explanation as to why Bik MCFarlane denied point blank there had been any such offer from the Brits when its been proven from a number of sources including Morrison that there had been ? Or would that require " clarity" which as we all know isnt helpful .

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 18:14

Barry, one more fantastic theory after another. Where did the latest one come from? What about this for coincidence – see story below? Care to fit it into your worldview. I am sure you can - try and work into your theory the wearing of bulletproof vests.

(By the way Gerry A wasn't very grateful, was he - the IRA blew up the Grand Hotel in Brighton some months later in October 1984 in an attempt to kill members of the British Conservative government. If Gerry Adams were as all-powerful as you say he is, surely he would have tried to head that one off at the pass. Go on, tell us that bomb was "Jarked” as well. Or is there some other fiendishly clever explanation? I'll bet there is.)

The Times November 21 1989

Soldier maimed by IRA bomb 'glad to be alive'

Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent

The military policeman who lost both legs in an IRA attack in Colchester, Essex, said yesterday he was in good spirits and glad to be alive.

Staff Sergeant Andrew Mudd, aged 33, whose wife Margaret was also injured when their car was blown up on Saturday, is seriously ill in Colchester General Hospital but his condition has stabilized.

Through a hospital spokesman Sergeant Mudd said: 'Tell the world I am in good spirits.

'I am sad my wife was injured but I am just grateful that she is alive and I am so glad that I am alive too.' As the couple talked to each other in the hospital's intensive care unit police launched an appeal for two people seen walking along roads near the scene of the explosion at 1am on Saturday, about nine hours before the blast.

Detectives have previously launched an appeal for two men seen near the scene shortly after the bomb went off. The first was wearing blue jeans, aged about 30, 5ft 7in tall with long fair hair and blue eyes. The second man was aged about 40, about 5ft 8in tall, of stocky build with short dark hair.

The Army said yesterday that Sergeant Mudd had helped in the capture of 'loyalist' gunmen who attempted to assassinate Mr Gerry Adams MP, the president of Sinn Fein, in 1984. Sergeant Mudd, then a corporal in the Royal Military Police, gave chase and rammed the car carrying the three attackers, who were then arrested.

Mr Danny Morrison, in charge of publicity for Sinn Fein, disputed the Army's version of events. 'I believe that the authorities knew that there was going to be an attack on Gerry, allowed it to go ahead, and then tried to ingratiate themselves by arresting his assailants.'

The Army responded by quoting from a local newspaper report on March 16, 1984, in which the police described Sinn Fein's allegations of Army and police collusion in the attack as 'absolute rubbish'. 'That is what was said in 1984. Our response is exactly the same today.'

Mr Adams was hit in the neck, shoulders and arm during the attack which happened as he left Belfast Magistrates' court after a brief appearance. His would-be assassins Gerry Walsh, a member of the out-lawed Ulster Freedom Fighters, Colin Gray and John Gregg, both members of the Ulster Defence Association, were sent to prison for a combined total of 48 years.

by Gary Tue May 23, 2006 18:41

Barry
"Even the would be assassins managed to shoot each other by mistake at point blank range and still survived."

Barry's statement indicates that he is not an honest debater. One of the would-be assassins shot the other in either the hand or foot. They did not shoot "each other". The point of entry was not a vital organ, and was unlikely to prove fatal, irrespective of the caliber of the weapon or how "jarked" it was or was not. It illustrates the wild character of both the shooting (from one moving vehicle to another) and Barry's style of argument.

by larry Tue May 23, 2006 20:04

Larry, the letter is anonymous and says that O'Rawe expressed the view he holds. So what.
Today's letter may have been anonymous but the letter from the Dark the other day was not. Both letters show the lie that Gibney/Morrison etc are trying to push. That's what.

On the alleged brit offer: Thatcher did not have to stand up and expose herself - absurd suggestion – you know better than that (I hope).
The British government which Thatcher led, she stated quite clearly she would make no concessions to the IRA and if her government was making concessions, she was going to be exposed anyway. Trying to dance around that doesn't wash. Anyway, why didn't Sinn Fein expose it at the time to show that her government was making concessions to the IRA, instead of waiting until 1987, when David Beresford exposed it (by mistake) when he got a comm he wasn't supposed to get? How long would they have continued to stay silent if he hadn't got that comm?

In addition, the offer is not an alleged offer, it is confirmed by Danny Morrison, Adams told Hugh Logue about it, he told the ICJP that they had a better offer, and the Irish government was amazed when they were told that Adams was negotiating directly with the British. Bik also wrote out to Adams asking him to tell him what the Brits offered the next time the Mountain Climber came up. So let's dispense with this 'alleged' nonsense. There was an offer from the Brits and it is a matter of public record, confirmed by members of the Sinn Fein leadership at the time.

The impression that the prisoners turned down the offer would have been no impediment to the brits exposing the prisoners as people determined to die, for no reason. It would have been a gift to brit propagandists.

If you were around during the Hunger Strike at all you would know that's all the Brits ever did, said that the prisoners were determined to die and that they were using their bodies, their final card, their violence against themselves. Where the point lay is that the Brits would not admit that they were making these offers to the prisoners they were demonising. Therefore your position that the prisoners rejection should have been made public by the Brits as part of their propaganda against the prisoners means that they would have to make public their offer which at the time they swore they would never make such an offer. So why would they say the same things they were saying anyway but also shoot themselves in the foot doing so? Your claim makes no sense.

The rejection of the offer from the Brits would not have been used by the Brits because they were pretending they were making no offers.

There was an offer from the Brits, via the Mountain Climber. It basically met the 5 demands or enough to not warrant any further deaths. It was a better offer than ICJP got. Morrison has confirmed this. The prisoners accepted it. The Adams led hunger strike committee did not accept the offer and held out for more. The prisoners thought that the A/C made that decison and carried on with the hunger strike. The Adams led hunger strike committee made an end run. Six more hunger strikers died. For what? For what was offered before?

But, and here is the curious thing, the brits allegedly put an offer to the provos that essentially met the five demands. The provos that the brits had in their pocket decided to turn it down in order that Bobby Sands' election agent, Owen Carron, be elected in the 2nd Fermanagh Sth Tyrone by-election, an outcome the brits wanted to prevent. But, the brits really did want to promote the ‘electoralism’ of the provos all along.
So, that’s all right then.
Which part of that incredible farrago of nonsense would you like to rephrase or ‘revise’?

That's a figment of your imagination - irrelevant distraction from what is under contention.

by larry Tue May 23, 2006 20:19

Harry, your examples of the IRA going after Thatcher and Mudd as proof that the Adams circle didn't reject the prisoner's acceptance of the Hunger Strike deal is rather twisted, and is more a product of your feverish imagination and a deranged attempt to protect the leadership from scrutiny at all costs. Throw enough muck and maybe it will obscure people's vision, not the best tactic in the long run. Maybe Freddie Scappaticci wasn't working for the Brits, eh? That's what your leadership told us 3 years ago so.

If you can keep to the subject at hand and not take us to Brighton and Colchester and god knows where else, Stormont with Paisley, maybe we will get somewhere relevant?

Either that or share what you are smoking?

by Phil Tue May 23, 2006 20:27

While Barry and Garry carry on with their nonsensical argument about the shooting of Gerry Adams, we are getting away from the real point, what happened during the 1981 Hunger Strikes and who is telling the truth. We will probably never know for sure, but the fact is that while the tactic of standing Hunger Strikers in Elections was an excellent idea, it has subsequently proven to be the downfall of Republicanism. It failed to save the the life of Bobby but it was also the beginning of the rot that would set in to destroy his dreamed of Republic where Justice would prevail over greed. The lure of political power has proven just too much for the Hierarchy of Sinn Fein and they are now making fools of themselves in an effort to be accepted into the halls of power by those who have trampled on the rights of Catholics and Republicans since the formation of this dire wee state.

by Willy Nilly Tue May 23, 2006 21:12

There we were away back in the dark old days in the Blocks, the 1970s,educating and preparing ourselves for the political affray that lay before us on the road to a Socialist Republic [remember That?]. While others were great teachers, Bobby was the Headmaster of the school of forward thinking that was the Blanket. We had nothing else to do but think and we thought long and hard about the way forward and we talked and discussed it out the doors long into the nights. Should any of us have even considered that we would be where we are today, we would have been gone, Squeaky-booting down the wing to conformity, Warm food, real cigarettes and a shower.
But NOOO! That would never happen. Sure it happened before and we have learnt from those mistakes, haven't we?
2006 and Stormont ; "I propose Ian Paisley as First Minster." Is followed by ridicule and the sound of Smash Martian-like laughter in the back ground.

We should have Squeaky booted!

by Harry Tue May 23, 2006 23:26

”…….the fact is that while the tactic of standing Hunger Strikers in Elections was an excellent idea, it has subsequently proven to be the downfall of Republicanism. It failed to save the life of Bobby but it was also the beginning of the rot that would set in to destroy his dreamed of Republic where Justice would prevail over greed. The lure of political power has proven just too much for the Hierarchy of Sinn Fein and they are now making fools of themselves in an effort to be accepted into the halls of power by those who have trampled on the rights of Catholics and Republicans since the formation of this dire wee state.

At last the meat of the argument from Phil.

Before jumping up and down in opposition please consider this:

It is not about this interminable rubbish that Richard O’Rawe, who supports the Peace Process up to a point, has dredged up out of uncorroborated opinions and badly researched facts. It is about the political end result of a process that started when Bobby Sands was first proposed for election by….. who?

It is clear that Ruairi O Bradaigh and Daithi O Connail were very much in support of standing, so too was Bernadette McAliskey (who was determined to stand herself if Bobby Sands did not) , and so to were the far left Peoples Democracy, than a significant organisation. Gerry Adams and others were suspicious, because they were at that time still wedded to ideas about armed struggle that are reproduced by the ’die hards’ wandering about on various threads (including this one) on Indymedia today.

After Bobby Sands was elected, even then Sinn Fein did not want to take the plunge into electoral politics. Sinn Fein called for a boycott of the following local government elections in the North. When Peoples Democracy and the IRSP won seats in Belfast and the WP lost their seats (due to previously stay at home nationalist voters no longer being available for sticky personation) Sinn Fein had to change its position. After all, the hated Gerry Fitt lost his council seat to a Peoples Democracy candidate. You would have to be stone blind, deaf and dumb not to take the (people’s) hint.

It was inevitable. When a council by-election came along, rather than see a non-republican H Block supporter take republican votes, and a republican seat there for the asking, Sinn Fein stood Alex Maskey and he won easily. The rest is history, but not the history we have read so far on this thread.

The 'rot' set in.

So who do you blame phil: O Bradaigh, O Connaill, the PDs, Bernadette, the IRSP, all of whom were or are opponents of Sinn Fein’s peace process strategy. Or maybe you blame Bobby Sands himself – after all he allowed his name to go forward. Can you blame the people who wanted to vote for Sinn Fein in droves, but who were not prepared to support an endless armed struggle that the enemies of republicanism could and did isolate politically? Since war is the continuation of politics by other means, what good was a war that could not attain its political objectives? The armed struggle was inevitable in the 1970s. Electoral politics was inevitable in the 1980s. It takes a special kind of stubbornness not to see the advances from one stage to another and the advances that have resulted. There are ‘dangers’, but who said there were guarantees. It is a a political ‘struggle’.

The peace process has rocked the ‘dire wee state’ more than the armed struggle – unionists know this and have said so. It is not a foregone conclusion that it will destroy it. For that to happen those who want to limit the peace process to a minimal amount of concessions to nationalists, congruent with the maintenance of the sectarian basis of the northern state, have to win. To do that they have to prevent at all costs the formation of an Executive in which nationalists as of right rule – in which republicans rule. Unionists have to be allowed to get away with their refusal to share power with Sinn Fein. The majority of nationalist voters know that. That is why they vote for Sinn Fein in increasing numbers. This is a sectarian state and always will be for as long as it exists. It will only cease to be sectarian when it ceases to exist. Forcing unionists to share power with nationalists will liberate sections of the Protestant community from the hold that the sectarian monolith of unionism has over Protestant communities. Once that happens the state is doomed. That is why unionists are far more in opposition to the peace process than you will ever be, Phil.

There is a place in nationalist politics for republicans who are against the peace process, but only viably on the basis that they see the democratic and ‘subversive’ basis of the demand to re-form the Executive. The alternative is the intense navel gazing that is Richard O’Rawe’s eccentric take on the hunger strike - and its celebration by every media outlet that never did a thing in the past for republicans and never will in the future. So it is either support every cock-and-bull conspiracy theory that the minds of those with little else to do with their time dream up, or else get engaged in some politics that shows you oppose the northern state and its sectarian basis. You need to get your hands dirty. If you want to keep them clean, keep them in your pockets and just bitch and moan all day about Gerry Adams.

Don’t say you never got good advice.

by larry Tue May 23, 2006 23:41

Oh, please, spare us the stick lectures! Did Adams and his mates screw the hunger strikers or not, yes or no, answer the bloody question or go blow your stick smoke up someone else's arse, cause no one here is buying it and we all can see what you're doing.

by Jimmy Wed May 24, 2006 09:36

"...the WP lost their seats (due to previously stay at home nationalist voters no longer being available for sticky personation)"
From Harry above.

Sinn Fein's electoral intervention in the North destroyed the Workers Party, whose votes had been derived from massive impersonation of republican voters who stayed at home.

Stick - I don't think so. In any case Dessie O’Hagan would be the first to “bitch and moan all day about Gerry Adams.” Just tackle the issues.

by Phil Wed May 24, 2006 15:04

I must say that so far they've done a great job, 16 years after the GFA they still can't even get into Government despite surrendering weapons and standing down the army. Who'es protecting the Nationalist people from the drug dealers and the other scum who plague our estates while the Sinners are busy making eejits of themselves in Stormont? While they're not doing this they're busy buying up bars, Taxi businesses, taking control of Irish language groups, community groups, etc etc.

by Harry Wed May 24, 2006 17:48

Phil, your misery has not afflicted you for as long as you think. It is eight years, not 16, since the GFA (Good Friday Agreement) was signed.

You ask:
"Who’s protecting the Nationalist people from the drug dealers and the other scum who plague our estates?"

You are - have you got a Concerned Parents against Drugs group going? You can mobilise the community to march on pusher's houses, politically expose the disinterest of the PSNI, do some intelligence work on the role of unionist paramilitaries, can't you? What's stopping you?

You may well regard them as “Sinners”, I know paisley does, but the Shinners are not taking part in the talking shop up at Stormont – check out Brian Feeney in Today’s Irish News.

SF taking over “…. bars, Taxi businesses, taking control of Irish language groups, community groups, etc etc….”? F****d if I know, Phil. You got me there (I know you would never stoop to exaggeration).

by Brian Feeney Wed May 24, 2006 18:17

Here is that article mentioned above - text at link below.

Text at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76265

by Harry Wed May 24, 2006 18:22

Bit of a typo in the headline - spotted it yesterday, am I the only one who actually reads what's written around here?

by Phil Wed May 24, 2006 20:53

So now it's up to the ordinary people on the street to sort out the drug dealers is it? We seem to getting left more and more to sort out our own problems since Sinn Fein got greedy for power and had to keep their noses clean in the hope that they would gain acceptance with the Unionists. "Sorry our hands are tied there." is the common reply when asked to get off their new leather suites and do something.
By the way what ever happened to the 32 County Socialist Republic? It seems to have been dropped since The Leadership started waltzing back and forth to The White House. It wouldn't do to be heard uttering those words around the mass murderer George Bush nor Gerry's American Business pals.

by Willy Nilly Wed May 24, 2006 21:57

What about Gerry's Baldrick like cunning plan? It fairly fooled ole Paisley didn't it?

by Harry Thu May 25, 2006 09:59

Yes Phil, it is up to the 'ordinary' people - just like all through the troubles. Civil Rights Movement, Northern Resistance, Relatives Action Committees, H Block Armagh Committees, Garvaghy, Ormeau, etc, Road residents associations, etc, etc. As soon as they get going, don't worry; they are accused of being Sinn Fein and IRA fronts in any case.

If you don’t mobilise the people you change nothing. So, off you go and do it (or are you an armchair critic?).

by Young one Mon May 29, 2006 12:30

I'm too young to have any idea about what went on during the hunger strikes - was only two or three - but I am concerned about what's happening today in the nationalist working class areas and I do agree with Harry that the Shinners are " busy buying up bars, Taxi businesses, taking control of Irish language groups, community groups, etc etc.". It's now got to the stage when most people who aren't "connected" don't even bother applying for jobs in a lot of community groups as they know they are "boxed off" for Shinners (or their relatives). And what's going on in taxi business I know from talking to former republican prisoners who are now working in the taxis and tell me how disgusted they are with SF because of how they are treated. Having said that, they don't control all the Irish language groups (although they might like to).

by Cliff Richard Mon May 29, 2006 15:53

"Young One" - you do not agree with Harry. You agree with Phil. And you provide no evidence.

by Willy Nilly Mon May 29, 2006 16:17

Cliff, people are not blind and stupid, they can see these things for themselves. It's only those within the Movement who are blind or wish to remain blind to these things. The proof is in the pudding!

by Harry Mon May 29, 2006 16:59

The pudding has been deflated - it was held aloft by hot air, waffle and inflated ego.

by A Former Blanket Man Thu Apr 03, 2008 20:16

I see in todays Irish News that Richard O Rawe's cell mate has come out and backed his version of events during the 1981 Hunger Strikes.
During The Dark's funeral I and a friend watched the antics of Adams chasing the coffin and it got us talking about Richard's book and the Claims in it. Both of us were on the Blanket during that time. I was on the same as Ricky and Bic and my friend was in the wing opposite. The passing of time had blurred certain events during this time but I vaguely remembered something about a deal and I asked my friend about this. His reply was 'surely you remember the buzz at the time that there was a deal which meant that Joe [McDonnell] wouldn't have to die?' I don't know what the motive was to continue with the Hunger Strike which meant that 6 other brave lads died but I am sure that there are other former Blanket Men out there who can at least support Ricky's claims.
I realize that there could be a reluctance to come forward especially in the light of what happened to Ricky since, then you have the Squinter episode to prove that anyone daring to speak out will be dealt with swiftly by the thought police.

by Realist Fri Apr 04, 2008 14:37

Recently a well known Shinner from Armagh was before Newry court charged with GBH and possession of an AK47. He got bail and the whole matter was brushed under the carpet by the media. We must ask the question why? Was it to protect the Shinners and therefore the so called institutions? Also their muted response to the ATN apology is further proof that society in general is willing to tolerate totalitarianism as the price of peace.
Is it not a bit wonder then that people would be reluctant to come forward about events in 1981 which could prove damaging to an organization when they have to live in communities controlled by that organization?

by Harry Fri Apr 04, 2008 18:42

'Dark', 'Ricky', 'Bic', 'Squinter'.

Gimme a break. I see the former blanket [police]man is back.