 The Wholesome Photo of the Month Thu May 09, 2024 11:01 | Anti-Empire
In 3 War Years Russia Will Have Spent $3... Thu May 09, 2024 02:17 | Anti-Empire
UK Sending Missiles to Be Fired Into Rus... Tue May 07, 2024 14:17 | Marko Marjanović
US Gives Weapons to Taiwan for Free, The... Fri May 03, 2024 03:55 | Anti-Empire
Russia Has 17 Percent More Defense Jobs ... Tue Apr 30, 2024 11:56 | Marko Marjanović Anti-Empire >>
A bird's eye view of the vineyard
Alternative Copy of thesaker.is site is available Thu May 25, 2023 14:38 | Ice-Saker-V6bKu3nz
Alternative site: https://thesaker.si/saker-a... Site was created using the downloads provided Regards Herb
The Saker blog is now frozen Tue Feb 28, 2023 23:55 | The Saker
Dear friends As I have previously announced, we are now “freezing” the blog. We are also making archives of the blog available for free download in various formats (see below).
What do you make of the Russia and China Partnership? Tue Feb 28, 2023 16:26 | The Saker
by Mr. Allen for the Saker blog Over the last few years, we hear leaders from both Russia and China pronouncing that they have formed a relationship where there are
Moveable Feast Cafe 2023/02/27 ? Open Thread Mon Feb 27, 2023 19:00 | cafe-uploader
2023/02/27 19:00:02Welcome to the ‘Moveable Feast Cafe’. The ‘Moveable Feast’ is an open thread where readers can post wide ranging observations, articles, rants, off topic and have animate discussions of
The stage is set for Hybrid World War III Mon Feb 27, 2023 15:50 | The Saker
Pepe Escobar for the Saker blog A powerful feeling rhythms your skin and drums up your soul as you?re immersed in a long walk under persistent snow flurries, pinpointed by The Saker >>
Judges Told to Avoid Saying ?Asylum Seekers? and ?Immigrants? Fri Jul 26, 2024 17:00 | Toby Young
A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book instructs judges to avoid terms such as 'asylum seekers', 'immigrant' and 'gays', which it says can be 'dehumanising'.
The post Judges Told to Avoid Saying ?Asylum Seekers? and ?Immigrants? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
The Intersectional Feminist Rewriting the National Curriculum Fri Jul 26, 2024 15:00 | Toby Young
Labour has appointed Becky Francis, an intersectional feminist, to rewrite the national curriculum, which it will then force all schools to teach. Prepare for even more woke claptrap to be shoehorned into the classroom.
The post The Intersectional Feminist Rewriting the National Curriculum appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Government Has Just Declared War on Free Speech Fri Jul 26, 2024 13:03 | Toby Young
The Government has just announced it intends to block the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, effectively declaring war on free speech. It's time to join the Free Speech Union and fight back.
The post Government Has Just Declared War on Free Speech appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
I Wrote an Article for Forbes Defending J.D. Vance From Accusations of ?Climate Denialism?. Forty Ei... Fri Jul 26, 2024 11:00 | Tilak Doshi
On July 18th, Dr Tilak Doshi wrote an article for Forbes defending J.D. Vance from accusations of 'climate denialism'. 48 hours later, Forbes un-published the article. Read the article on the Daily Sceptic.
The post I Wrote an Article for Forbes Defending J.D. Vance From Accusations of ?Climate Denialism?. Forty Eight Hours Later, Forbes Un-Published the Article and Sacked Me as a Contributor appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Come and See Nick Dixon and me Recording the Weekly Sceptic at the Hippodrome on Monday Fri Jul 26, 2024 09:00 | Toby Young
Tickets are still available to a live recording of the Weekly Sceptic, Britain's only podcast to break into the top five of Apple's podcast chart. It?s at Lola's, the downstairs bar of the Hippodrome on Monday July 29th.
The post Come and See Nick Dixon and me Recording the Weekly Sceptic at the Hippodrome on Monday appeared first on The Daily Sceptic. Lockdown Skeptics >>
Voltaire, international edition
Netanyahu soon to appear before the US Congress? It will be decisive for the suc... Thu Jul 04, 2024 04:44 | en
Voltaire, International Newsletter N°93 Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:49 | en
Will Israel succeed in attacking Lebanon and pushing the United States to nuke I... Fri Jun 28, 2024 14:40 | en
Will Netanyahu launch tactical nuclear bombs (sic) against Hezbollah, with US su... Thu Jun 27, 2024 12:09 | en
Will Israel provoke a cataclysm?, by Thierry Meyssan Tue Jun 25, 2024 06:59 | en Voltaire Network >>
|
There Was No British 'Deal' during the 1981 Hunger Strikes
 national |
rights, freedoms and repression |
other press
 Wednesday June 07, 2006 14:49 by Danny Morrison - Daily Ireland, 7 June 2006
Danny Morrison refutes Richard O'Rawe
In a forthcoming BBC documentary Richard O’Rawe once again will be claiming that the republican leadership rejected a deal from the British government shortly before the death of Joe McDonnell on July 8th 1981. Richard is a former blanket man and PRO in the H-Blocks. Whilst in jail Richard never raised his claims with the leadership in prison or the leadership outside. After Richard’s release he worked with me in the Republican Press Centre for a year and never mentioned the allegations he now makes.
He neither approached Brendan ‘Bik’ McFarlane, O/C of the prisoners, nor me to ask us our recollections of this period when he was preparing for his book. Last year Richard alleged that in late July 1981 I sat at a meeting with hunger strikers’ families with a deal from the British government in my back pocket and didn’t tell them. When I pointed out that I had been in hospital in Dublin during that period Richard realised his memory was false and discreetly dropped the claim. He claims he wrote the book out of concern for the relatives, yet he never told them. Instead, he published extracts from the book in the ‘Sunday Times’.
 MOrrison article in today's Daily Ireland On July 4th 1981, four days before Joe McDonnell’s death, Richard, as PRO, issued a statement aimed at breaking the deadlock. It said that the British could settle the hunger strike without compromising their position by extending prison reforms to the entire prison population. At this time the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace was engaged in a mediation exercise. Behind the scenes the British government re-opened a ‘back-channel’ to the republican leadership.
The 1981 hunger strike came out of the 1980 hunger strike. The British sent a document to the prisoners which they claimed could be the basis for a settlement. However, the prisoners had already ended the strike before they received the document. The British reneged on their assurances almost immediately. That was why the second hunger strikers were to demand verification of any deal to end their hunger strike.
In July 1981 the British government had various public and private positions. Privately it outlined two different offers, one to the ICJP and another to the republican leadership. I was one of those who described to the hunger strikers, including Joe McDonnell, on July 5th what the British were saying to us. The prisoners told me they wanted the offer clarified and verified in person through a senior British representative. We passed this on to the British. However, the British would not verify to the hunger strikers their various ‘offers’. Six times they were asked by the ICJP to explain their position to the prisoners and six times they refused before Joe McDonnell died.
In his comms [communications] from July, August and September1981 which were released as press statements, Richard makes it clear there was no deal. On July 23rd, two weeks after Joe McDonnell’s death, he accuses the British of deliberate ambiguity and demands clarity, yet in his book he claims that on July 6th the republican leadership rejected ‘a deal’.
Richard’s comms – which are contemporaneous accounts of the time - contradict the allegations he is making a quarter of a century later.
On July 7th, the day before Joe’s death, Richard wrote: “We are very depressed at the fact that our comrade Joe McDonnell is virtually on the brink of death – especially when the solution to the issue is there for the taking. The urgency of the situation dictates that the British act on our statement of July 4th now. Finally, we advise our supporters to be cautious and vigilant and to disregard the volume of rumours that seems to be in circulation. We ask everyone to analyse and understand our July 4th statement and to be on guard for any dilution of the situation contained in that statement.”
On July 8th , the day of Joe McDonnell’s death, he wrote: “The British government’s hypocrisy and their refusal to act in a responsible manner are completely to blame for the death of Joe McDonnell…The only definite response forthcoming from the British government [to the prisoners July 4th statement] is the death of Joe McDonnell… This morning [Secretary of State] Mr Atkins has issued us with yet another ambiguous and self-gratifying statement…That statement, even given its most optimistic reading, is far removed from our July 4th statement. At face value it amounts to nothing.”
On July 23rd, nine days before Kevin Lynch died, Richard wrote: “The [ICJP’s] proposals were vague but even at that we did not believe they contained a just settlement. After Joe McDonnell’s death on July 8th the British government issued their present policy statement which in substance and even given an optimistic reading was a dilution of the diluted package attained initially by the I.C.J.P…
“It is vital also that everyone realises that the I.C.J.P. have been victims of British perfidity [sic] and that the ambiguity which accompanies all British statements is deliberate…
“The death of our comrade Joe McDonnell on July 8th plus the Humphrey Atkins’ statement of the same day, and the evolution of bitter claim and counter-claim between the British and the I.C.J.P. left one thing clear – that intermediaries, and this is no slight on the I.C.J.P., are dangerous and that only direct talks between the British and ourselves based on our 4th July statement can guarantee clarity and sincerity and thus save lives.”
In relation to a very late intervention by the Red Cross at the invitation of the British, in the same statement Richard wrote: “They [the British] hoped to brinkmanship us in a mediating situation hoping that we would accept a cosmetic settlement…”
He accused the British government of having “no intention of genuinely ending the hunger strike…
“At present the British are looking for what amounts to an absolute surrender. They are offering us nothing that amounts to an honourable solution and they have created red herrings, that is, their refusal to allow Brendan McFarlane to represent the hunger strikers, to cover their inflexibility…
“Lastly we hope that it is clear that we cannot end the hunger strike unless justice is done and that ultimately lies in the hands of the Brits.”
On August 8th, the day Tom McElwee died, Richard attacked Humphrey Atkins: “For a man to claim he has stated his position clearly in relation to ‘what will happen when the protest ends’, despite the fact that no one really knows what is on offer, shows the insensitivity/ insanity of his position and policy.
“We suggest that he won’t outline his policy because No1 he hopes to about turn – at sometime, and No2, he knows he is offering so little that even moderate opinion would be insulted…
“Very much prominent in their [the British] thinking is the belief that sooner or later we are going to pack up and give in. They have a rude awakening awaiting them.”
Three weeks after the death of Micky Devine, the last hunger striker to die, Richard accuses Fr Faul of being divisive. On September 11th, 1981, he wrote:
“Several weeks ago, Fr Faul publicly stated that he believed that our statements were not authentic in that someone, not a prisoner, was responsible for their composition. When confronted by myself as P.R.O. in the company of Brendan McFarlane Fr Faul retracted his allegation…
“In the same statement Fr Faul referred to what he described as ‘the elusive chain of command’. In the same confrontation with Brendan McFarlane and myself he acknowledged that there was no ‘elusive chain of command’ and that we prisoners were in complete command of the hunger strike and protest…
“Fr Faul should know by now not to underestimate either our resolve or durability for we have the volunteers for hunger strike and the determination to continue the hunger strike indefinitely.”
Richard ‘s own words show clearly there was no deal. All surviving hunger strikers from that period are of the same view. In his book Richard alleges that the republican leadership ordered the hunger strikers not to accept a deal, yet, as his own words of the time attest, “there was no ‘elusive chain of command’ … we prisoners were in complete command of the hunger strike and protest…”
I hope this closes this sorry episode and I would like to apologise to the families of the hunger strikers for the suffering and distress that this has perpetuated. But I feel that the false claims have to be answered and settled.
It was the British government who withdrew political status, introduced criminalisation and was responsible for creating the conditions for a hunger strike.
Timeline – Joe McDonnell’s Death
29 June
Four hunger strikers have already died - Bobby Sands on day 66, Francis Hughes on day 59, Raymond McCreesh and Patsy O’Hara on day 61 of their hunger strike.
Joe McDonnell is on day 52 without food. Secretary of State, Humphrey Atkins reaffirms that political status will not be granted and that implementing changes in the areas of work, clothing and association present ‘great difficulty’ and would only encourage the prisoners to believe that they could achieve status through “the so-called ‘five demands’”.
3 July
Irish Commission for Justice and Peace [ICJP] has eight-hour meeting with Michael Alison, prisons minister.
4 July
ICJP again meets Alison who gives its representatives permission to meet the eight hunger strikers in prison hospital. They are shocked at the condition of Joe McDonnell. Prisoners later issue statement saying British government could settle the hunger strike without any departure from ‘principle’ by extending prison reforms to the entire prison population. ICJP tells prisoners’ families that they are ‘hopeful’ but that prisoners deeply distrust the authorities.
British government representative (codenamed ‘Mountain Climber’) secretly contacts republican leadership by ‘back channel’. Insists on strict confidentiality.
5 July
After exchanges, Mountain Climber’s offer (concessions in relation to aspects of the five demands) goes further than ICJP’s understanding of government position. Sinn Fein’s Danny Morrison secretly visits hunger strikers. Separately, he meets prison OC Brendan McFarlane, explains what Mountain Climber is offering should hunger strike be terminated. McFarlane meets hunger strikers. Morrison is allowed to phone out from the doctor’s surgery. Tells Adams that prisoners will not take anything on trust, and prisoners want offers confirmed and seek to improve them. While waiting for McFarlane to return Morrison is ordered out of the prison by a governor [John Pepper]. ICJP visits hunger strikers and offers themselves as mediators. Hunger strikers say they want NIO rep to talk directly to them. Request by hunger strikers to meet McFarlane with ICJP is refused by NIO. Mountain Climber is told that prisoners want any offer verified.
6 July
Gerry Adams confides in ICJP about secret contact and the difference in the offers. Commission is stunned by disclosure. It confronts Alison and demands that a guarantor goes into the jail and confirm what is on offer. Alison checks with his superiors and states that a guarantor will go in at 9am the following morning, Tuesday, 7 July. Hunger strikers are told to expect an official from the NIO.
7 July
Republican monitors await response from Mountain Climber.
11.40am: Bishop O’Mahoney [ICJP] telephones Alison asking where the guarantor is. Alison suggests he and the ICJP have another meeting. O’Mahoney tells him he is shocked, dismayed and amazed that the government should be continuing with its game of brinkmanship. He says: “I beg you to get someone into prison and get things started.”
12.18pm: ICJP decides to hold 1pm press conference outlining what had been agreed by the government and explain how the British had failed to honour it.
12.55pm: NIO phones ICJP and says that an official would meet the hunger strikers that afternoon.
1pm: ICJP calls off its press conference.
4pm: NIO tells ICJP that an official will be going in but that the document was still being drafted.
5.55pm: ICJP phones Alison and expresses concern that no official has gone in.
7.15pm: ICJP phones Alison and again expresses concern.
8.50pm: NIO tells ICJP that the official will be going in shortly.
10pm: Alison tells ICJP that no one would be going in that night but would at 7.30 the next morning and claims that the delay would be to the benefit of the prisoners. Republican monitors still waiting confirmation from Mountain Climber that an NIO representative will meet the hunger strikers. The call does not come.
8 July
4.50am Joe McDonnell dies on the 61st day of his hunger strike.
9am: An NIO official visits each hunger striker in his cell and reads out a statement which says that nothing has changed since Humphrey Atkins’ policy statement of 29 June, thus suggesting that there was no new document being drafted as claimed by the NIO at 4pm on 7 July.
ICJP holds press conference and condemns British government and NIO for failing to honour undertaking and for “clawing back” concessions.
10 July
ICJP leaves Belfast.
One of the 'comms' smuggled out of H Block by prisoners
|
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (64 of 64)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64See http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76378
Pretty funny (not) response from O'Rawe, someone who claims to want to 'debate' this issue
Let's debate...... in court
I HAVE been following with interest the continuing debate between Richard O’Rawe and those in the republican movement who dispute his allegations.
The latest and most persistent critic is Danny Morrison, who was quoted in an article in The Irish News on Wednesday under the headline ‘Morrison: secret notes refute O’Rawe’s hunger strike claims’.
If I am reading this right, the ‘secret notes’, which the headline suggests Morrison has uncovered, are actually statements that O’Rawe released to the press in his role as PRO of the republican prisoners, back in 1981.
Some secrets. It would appear that the statements have a tough tone to them.
That’s hardly surprising. Surely any weakness in the prisoners’ public position at the time would have been exactly what the Brits were looking for.
What I cannot understand is why Morrison is presenting these press statements, which he says are ‘secret’, as some sort of fait accompli.
These statements prove nothing other than that O’Rawe was doing his job as PRO.
But the luxurious way in which Danny Morrison spins them does say something.
It tells us that Danny is a fear glic (Gaelic for ‘a fly man’), who is not beyond insulting our intelligence.
VERITAS, Belfast 12
Libel charges denied
Daily Ireland plans to defend against any libel charges by former IRA prisoner O’Rawe
By Eamonn Houston
Daily Ireland has pledged to “vigorously defend” any libel action taken by former Long Kesh IRA prisoner Richard O’Rawe over comments made in this paper by former Sinn Féin publicity director Danny Morrison.
Mr O’Rawe - a former H-Block prisoners’ PRO - claims in his recent book, Blanketmen, that leaders of the republican movement allowed hunger strikers to die to advance the electoral fortunes of Sinn Féin.
Danny Morrison branded the claim “a disgrace”, blasted Mr O’Rawe as “a fool” and last week disclosed communications smuggled from the jail in 1981 and written by Richard O’Rawe which made no mention of the “deal” which forms the core of his new book.
Daily Ireland publisher Máirtín Ó Muilleoir said: “We have defended Mr O’Rawe’s right to free speech and afforded him space to answer his critics, a right he has taken up in the past. That offer to him still stands. However, he cannot hope to deny others the right to free speech over his explosive claims of treachery by the republican leadership in 1981 by threatening to sue Daily Ireland. This paper will not be gagged and will defend equally the right of Richard O’Rawe and his critics to have their say.”
Daily Ireland columnist, Danny Morrison said: “Why is Richard chasing RTÉ and threatening Daily Ireland for damages when it is I who is accusing him of making false claims about what happened in 1981? If it is a simple case of him clearing his name why doesn’t he sue me?
“He accused myself and others of allowing six hunger strikers to die and then complains when we defend ourselves. I produced comms (secret written communications from Long Kesh) from him that he cannot deny are his and which were written in July, August and September 1981. In relation to who made decisions he wrote that the prisoners were “in complete command of the hunger strike and protest…”
“In 2006 he claims that we spurned ‘a deal’ but in 1981 he makes no mention of a deal and writes: ‘At present the British are looking for what amounts to an absolute surrender. They are offering us nothing that amounts to an honourable solution’.”
“I think his own words speak for themselves,” Mr Morrison said.
Daily Ireland contacted Mr O’Rawe’s home last night, but received no reply.
Editor Máirtín Ó Muilleoir & Danny Morrison
It looks like Daily Ireland will not be intimidated by O'Rawe's lawyers
O'Rawe decides to bring in the lawyers to silence the criticism
If you are confident of your position you will relish the chance to take him on in open court, where the truth will be laid out for all to see.
Whether one agrees with Richard O Rawe or Danny Morrison on this issue, I make but a brief point.
Firstly I personally know that there are quite a few 'undecided' about whose 'argument is the most persuasive in relation to this.
Some other activists are saying that while Danny Morrison provides solid points - VERITAS point though of
'These statements prove nothing other than that O’Rawe was doing his job as PRO' -
- some activists believe that they can nod in agreement with some of this statement, given their own understanding of working within a tight Democratic Centralist organisation.
For oneself though, I think back and wonder as to what the hunger strikers would have thought if they could see 25 years on, and see a situation where in part the legacy of their stance would see that legacy in part being battled out by the very Court that sentenced them and attempted to criminalise them.
Indeed Irish Republicanism seeking such British justice, to secure, in part, the legacy of the Hunger Strikes - indeed?
Whatever the case, open debate and discussion on this matter is of course essential more especially if persons believe that what is being said is wrong.
Obviously Richard O Rawe believes he sees wrong doing here - but do we really need the Brit Courts to settle such – given what this specific issue is actually about and what was fought for and against ?
Whatever the case many will be looking on with interest.
O'Rawe should be ashamed of himself - threatening to sue because he cannot deal with the criticism. It is an attack on freedom of expression and debate. What is the beef anyway? What does he object to - being ignored.
I believe Mr ORawe is suing over the alleged personalised comments directed at him in the Daily Ireland . It should be remembered that the owners and editors of the paper and the ATown news are extremely litigious in nature and have silenced a number of their critics by theatened law suits .
The Daily Ireland is a newspaper heavily funded by the British establishment .Its chief editor Robin Livingstone once proudly boasted in the ATown News " now we are the establishment !!" as if it was a victory . It and its editors persue an uncritical line towards those who aspire to be part of the British establishment in Ireland , those who administer British rule from a British parliament in Ireland and who accept the validity of the British state and the British courts ( Gerry Adams recently called on a number of men from Ballymurphy to surrender themselves to British courts and jails) . They have historically and traditionally persued a hostile , critical line towards republicans who dont agree with that analysis . Any Sinn Fein criticism of ORawe on the grounds of British courts is hypocritical in the extreme . Like anyne else Richard ORawe should have the legal right to defend himself from what he believes to be slanderous attacks on his character by British funded and pro Stormont media , just as a number of Sinn Fein figures and the editorial staff and management of the ATown News/Daily Ireland have done many times in the past. MAny times . Are they permitted the right to use these courts for alleged slander but those whom they right about should be denied it ?
Ultimately whether ORawe is right or wrong to use the courts to defend his character the fact it is a British court he must go to is ultimately the responsibility of the Sinn Fein leadership who told Irish people to accept British dominion and jurisdiction in Ireland and recognise the alleged validity of British institutions . A bigger betrayal by far of 10 hungerstrikers than any libel action by Richard ORawe .
It's bullies who call people names and then mock their victims when they stand up to them. If Danny Morrison can't stand the heat, he shouldn't be such a big mouth bully. Morrison and his ilk have bullied people for far too long. It is about time someone stood up to them and hit them where it hurts.
O'Rawe's views (that he hid from most of his former comrades and from the hunger strikers’ families) were publicised heavily initially by The Sunday Times (they paid him presumably) and by the usual gaggle of pro-British newspapers. It is a perfect sound bite for the Brits - "we were not responsible for the deaths, it was the republican leadership that did it". And so-called republicans are spreading it. Well done lads.
Some interesting points Barry-
Indeed I had not known that Robin Livingstone had stated that, in such a manner.
Also
Barry Quotes
‘Any Sinn Fein criticism of O Rawe on the grounds of British courts is hypocritical in the extreme’
Totally agree
Barry further quotes –
‘Are they {SF} permitted the right to use these courts for alleged slander but those whom they right about should be denied it?
-No, and of course they should not be denied it, but, -I believe - that it would be better if Richard O Rawe could have found a differing mechanism where he did not have to travel the Shinner route, {on this specific issue}
As I stated
‘For oneself though, I think back and wonder as to what the hunger strikers would have thought if they could see 25 years on, and see a situation where ‘in part the legacy of their stance would see that legacy in part being battled out by the very Court that sentenced them and attempted to criminalise them’.
But if Richard O Rawe believes that he has no other alternative and no other route left open to take such on – then, and of course, he is entitled to go that route.
Id much prefer to see him go another route myself and its not one I would take to be honest . But at the same time Im aware that ORawe is basically a lone citizen , he has no organisation or network behind him to defend him . Nor does he even advocate any political direction . If people like Morrison , the ATown News and Daily Ireland can basically write what they like about him hell be destroyed in no time and he is entitled to the protection of his good name . It seems to me that certain news media are extremely hostile towards him and in close collaboration with those who now seek to destroy his reputation , as theyve sought to do with many others whove crossed over from the orthodoxy of the Sinn Fein comintern and West Belfasts self prolaimed establishment .
It may well be Orawe has played into their hands by this move , maybe not . Time will tell I suppose.
"ORawe is basically a lone citizen , he has no organisation or network behind him to defend him..."
That is because few support him, apart from the Sunday Times, Sunday Independent and their hangers on. There is nothing stopping you joining the fan club Barry. In fact you seem to be part of it already. O'Rawe does like the lonely victim approach though - he compared himself to a Jew Nazi Germany because he has little support in West Belfast - and possibly now even less. He contributes to the reactionary stereotype of community life in republican areas, accuses others (apart from the Brits) of being responsible for the unnecessary deaths of hunger strikers, and expects what, gentile commentary and respectful silence? Are you serious? He had space in both the Irish News and Daily Ireland, and The Blanket. He still has it if he wants - yet he threatens to sue (don't know what the offending remarks were, does anyone - is it all just more petulance?).
Interesting to note ORawes treatment by the west Belfast establishment as compared to their prolonged , heartfelt and hysterical defence of Fred Scappittici in his time of need but there you go . Says it all .
Nothing to say on the substance, Barry - just innuendo and drivel? It is more important to you to absolve the Brits of political responsibility for the deaths of the hunger strikers, if it means getting a dig in at your political opponents. Principled politics or cynical opportunism?
I could be wrong but it seems to me O'Rawe has been consistently clear at laying the overall blame for the deaths of the hunger strikers at the feet of Thatcher, however he is questioning how many needed to die and what role the outside leadership played in contributing to possibly unnecessary deaths. That is hardly blaming everyone but the Brits and frankly if what he is alleging is true he is not the only one who should be questioning it.
Morrison has the backing of the leadership of the Republican Movement, and the full support of all of their propaganda organs, that does not mean however that what he is doing and how he is handling the questions has the full, unqualified support of the whole community of West Belfast and beyond. To claim so is silly.
In fact truth be told the response to O'Rawe's questions have been unsatisfactory and have the opposite effect of what is perhaps intended, in that the responses to him lend credence to what he is saying.
Lastly the paranoia about 'the Brit media' is getting boring, it's almost as boring as seeing 'securocrats' behind every door!
It is hardly innuendo and drivel to bring up the comparison of how that same West Belfast establishment treated Scappaticci to how they are treating O'Rawe, after all their treatment of Scappaticci is a matter of public record! They embraced Scappaticci, shared their solicitor with him, gave him a front page full spread defence of him! It is a fair point by Barry - looked at in that light they do not have a good track record at all and appear very questionable/weak indeed..
Thinking on it now, it is quite hypocritical of that West Belfast establishment to be upset at O'Rawe for pursuing them in the courts given their support for the likes of Scappaticci to do the same when he was unmasked!
They have some cheek when you stop to think on it! It is ok by them for a decades long informer like Scappaticci to sue to clear his name, and to use their own solicitor(!!), but not for a republican like O'Rawe?? !!
I shouldn't be surprised at them but when you stop an think about what they do sometimes it's shocking.
More 'what if' innuendo commentary - there is nothing stopping O'Rawe continuing to tell his story in Daily Ireland or the Irish News (or both). Jim Gibney, Laurence McKeown, Danny Morrison and Bik McFarlane have challenged O'Rawe's version of events. O'Rawe has admitted to one major error - because he did not check his facts in the first place (see Morrison piece above). How credible is the rest of his story?
Get real – O’Rawe is the one threatening Daily Ireland (the first since Michael McDowell). It is a fact that he went to The Sunday Times who happily published and publicised his story, and that O’Rawe did not discuss it beforehand with the hunger striker’s families he claims to care for so much – not once in all the years? His priorities speak for themselves.
Again what is O'Rawe's legal beef? If you don't know the answer, speculation is useless.
We'll see where the beef is when this gets to court, unless Daily Ireland and RTE settle beforehand to keep it from making it to public record.
Til then au revior my hopped up little friend!
More diversionary innuendo - nothing to stop O'Rawe telling us what his beef is. I suspect it is: "Please stop saying negative things about me, I can't deal with criticism". Seeking the ’protection’ of the courts to counter criticism is pathetic.
is it true or false..that sein fein left the hungerstrikers die.remember not a bomb not a bullet.true or false.remember martin and jerry ..saying they would not give up the fight until ireland was free..now they are even sighning up to this police partnership nonsense..supporting an english police force in the island of ireland.look at donaldson steak knife and many others.who is behind this so called peace process.what has changed?.what about the voulnteers .what have they gained from years of imprisonment and death what was it all for.so that sinn fein could rub shoulders with the americans and drink champagne in the whitehouse.the hunger strikers paid the ultimate price for this.like many others before and after them.so does it seem really out of this world that sein fein left these men die?
Seeking the ’protection’ of the courts to counter criticism is pathetic.
What does that make Mairtin O'Muilleoir, Robin Livingstone, Peter Quinn and Daily Ireland then when they take offense at being compared to a Nazi propaganda rag? Pathetic? Unable to handle criticism? Sensitive wee fellas? Having a liking for the victim approach? Expecting of "gentile commentary and respectful silence"?
You can't ask of Daily Ireland, "Will it be to Irish democracy what the Völkischer Beobachter was to pre-world war two German democracy?" , but you can smear the character of a republican who challenges the history of the hunger strike.
Double standard, anyone, no?
Hmmm, no, maybe not, both moves have in common an attempt to supress dissent, by any means necessary, what's black one day is white the next.
No one has compared O'Rawe to a Nazi, though he has compared himself to a Jew in Nazi Germany, because he has been criticised. Michael McDowell's characterisation, as a Minister of Justice in Government, of Daily Ireland and O'Rawe's characterisation of himself are both fanciful and wrong. Could anyone quote a single thing said about O’Rawe’s position by his main critics (Morrrison, McKeown, McFarlane) that could amount to character assassination. On the other hand, O’Rawe accusing republicans, instead of Margaret Thatcher, of being responsible for the deaths of hunger strikers seems (by any reasonable standard) to qualify.
I have asked before, what exactly is O'Rawe's beef? We know what McDowell said. What exactly is O'Rawe complaining of? Seems like a reasonable question. All that has come back is waffle.
Aha, so I see it is ok for some people to sue for libel but not for others.
The point is not what people were called but that if one feels aggrieved does one have the right to seek redress through the courts. Obviously in your eyes some people do but others don't. That is called a double standard and makes you a hypocrite.
I am not privy to O'Rawe's legal matters so I cannot answer your question about what the content of his libel case is based on. I am sure however once it reaches open court we will all know the substance of his claims.
Some see things that are not there and fail to see what is.
Richard O'Rawe threatens legal action on the basis of........ what? You don't know and attempt to waffle your way out of the question. You know what Morrison (or Laurence McKeown) wrote in Daily Ireland (or you should do if you want to comment here). What was so objectionable? I don't need a legal opinion, just a reasonable one.
Michael McDowell tried to undermine an organ of expression before it started publication (I note that neither you or a previous poster distanced yourselves from the political slander uttered by McDowel, though you, unlike him, have refrained from seeming to actually endorse it).
McDowell wants to shut down an entire paper. O'Rawe wants to shut down a debate. Daily Ireland went after McDowell in order to defend its right to exist and to publish its opinion. O'Rawe on the other hand has no difficulty in having his views published. He just wants others to be prevented from answering back. He would have a political case, if he was met with threats and vulgar abuse from Morrrison. He has not. He has been given the respect of a counter argument. What does he do? He threatens to sue. Pathetic.
1. Richard O'Rawe threatens legal action on the basis of........ what? You don't know and attempt to waffle your way out of the question. You know what Morrison (or Laurence McKeown) wrote in Daily Ireland (or you should do if you want to comment here). What was so objectionable? I don't need a legal opinion, just a reasonable one.
I do not know what is in the case and I am not interested in debating over speculation regarding its content. Sorry, this fish won't bite.
2. McDowell wants to shut down an entire paper. O'Rawe wants to shut down a debate. Daily Ireland went after McDowell in order to defend its right to exist and to publish its opinion. O'Rawe on the other hand has no difficulty in having his views published. He just wants others to be prevented from answering back. He would have a political case, if he was met with threats and vulgar abuse from Morrrison. He has not. He has been given the respect of a counter argument. What does he do? He threatens to sue. Pathetic.
We have a fundamental disagreement in your argument, which is presupposed on the idea that one way of chasing libel is acceptable and another way is not. Either it is, or it isn't. O'Rawe could just as well argue that he is defending his right to express his ideas without being undermined - you say that McDowell attempted to undermine Daily Ireland via his comments. So why is it acceptable for Daily Ireland to protect itself but not O'Rawe? Daily Ireland as a corporation is in a much stronger position to withstand attacks (like those from McDowell), much stronger than a lone individual such as O'Rawe (under attack from writers for that corporation).
As evidenced by the publication in Daily Ireland of Morrison's comments regarding O'Rawe ("a fool" and "a disgrace") following the filing of the suit, no one is being prevented by O'Rawe from answering him back. To call someone a fool and a disgrace, by the by, is hardly a counter argument, is it? If McDowell, by suggesting Daily Ireland was comparable to VB, was attempting to "shut down an entire paper", then how is it that Morrison, with his comments, was not attempting to shut down O'Rawe? It seems to me that by picking and choosing who can sue and who can't, you have things back to front, i.e., that it is O'Rawe in attempting to defend himself who is doing the shutting down, rather than the other way around.
You say O'Rawe has no difficulty being published, nor too does Morrison, Gibney or McKeown. In fact Morrison and Gibney both have regular, weekly columns in daily newspapers - O'Rawe has no such platform. So how is he shutting down debate?
No one has refused O’Rawe the right to publish his views. He has been given a platform by The Sunday Times, The Irish News, Daily Ireland, the Sunday Tribune and The Blanket. And he has had an entire book published in which to expound his theories.
Daily Ireland, even as it rejected O’Rawe’s threats, guaranteed him the right of reply.
Daily Ireland has been fighting an advertising ban north and south. It was viciously attacked, before it had published a word, by a reactionary minister who released police file information about an Irish citizen in order to have the Centre for Public Enquiry shut down. Daily Ireland was supported by the National Union of Journalists in its attempt to defend itself against McDowell.
McDowell called Daily Ireland the equivalent of a Nazi hate sheet and its journalists Nazis I note that you do not distance yourself from these reprehensible smears.
O’Rawe, on the other hand made contentious allegations, which were covered by Daily Ireland and other newspapers. His views were heavily promoted by the Sunday Times (owned by Rupert Murdoch). Others criticised him and he has had no problem in delivering and publishing a counter argument.
If O’Rawe is objecting to being called a “fool” and a “disgrace”, and if he feels “shut down” because Danny Morrison used those terms then, unfortunately, in my view, he is a fool.
His so-called case also seems foolish in my view. But then, he is entitled to his view - and no one is stopping him from expressing it.
Everyone has a platform for expression and everyone has the right to defend themselves using the courts if they feel aggrieved. It took you some time but I am pleased you finally got there.
All the best.
“Defend themselves” against what in the courts? Being called a fool? If you think there is a law against being insulted, you are sadly mistaken. O’Rawe gives every impression of running from a debate that no one has stopped him from participating in.
I don't know where you get the impression that I agree with you. If you think I do, you are not a fool, merely a class of dimwit.
Abuse is a non-argument.
"I may be dim but I know one thing, abuse is a non-argument."
In fact, that is two things you know.
Abuse is also not a basis for going off in a huff and taking out a libel writ.
It is when you are called a Nazi rag, apparently.
Below is the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) statement on McDowell's attack on Daily Ireland.
Séamus Dooley Irish Secretary NUJ
NUJ MEDIA RELEASE NUJ anger at McDowell attack on new paper
The National Union of Journalists has strongly criticised the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform for his ill considered and dangerous comments linking a new national newspaper to terrorism. Mr McDowell, in a statement issued on Thursday night, also sought to link Daily Ireland, which will be published next month, to Nazism.
NUJ Irish Secretary Séamus Dooley said he was dismayed at the attack on the newspaper by Mr McDowell.
In a statement Mr Dooley said: "The Minister for Justice is aware of the danger of using loose language. To link the newspaper to terrorism may put the lives of employees at risk before the newspaper is even published. The impression may well be given that journalists working for this newspaper are " fair game" because of the political agenda attributed to them by Mr McDowell."
Mr McDowell, in his statement, stated: "Small wonder that the Provisionals are now backing a new daily newspaper heavily featured in last week's An Phoblacht. Will it be to Irish democracy what the Volkischer Beobachter was to pre-WWII German democracy?"
"The NUJ welcomes the appearance of a new national newspaper because we believe in media diversity. In a democratic society there is no room for the Section 31 mentality, which seems to underpin Mr McDowell's thinking.
Mr McDowell bases his assessment of the newspaper on comments in An Phoblacht, Republican News.
This is the same compelling logic which saw Mary McAleese decried by some critics as a "tribal time bomb" when her candidacy for the Presidency was endorsed by members of Sinn Féin.
It is not unreasonable to expect a more sober assessment by the Minster for Justice. Legitimate criticism is a feature of public discourse but since this newspaper has not yet hit the streets Mr Mc Dowell's broadside does not form part of any such dialogue.
We expect all journalists to uphold the NUJ Code of Professional Conduct and a significant member of recruits to the new newspaper are already members of the NUJ."
Mr Dooley added: "Journalists in Northern Ireland work under enormous pressure and our members have received threats from both sides of the divide. As a union we have sought to maintain the safety of journalists and to protect the highest ethical standards. We have also fought to promote equal opportunities for journalists and to combat discrimination on the basis of religious affiliation or political beliefs. In this context the comments of Mr McDowell, who is Minister for Justice and Equality, are profoundly shocking.
Mr McDowell should apologise to the management and staff for his intemperate remarks, and withdraw them in full."
There is a difference in degree between a government, with all the power that it commands, attempting to smear a newspaper and all who work for it on the one hand, and a participant in a debate (who has had his view published without a problem in that newspaper and in other publications), refusing to continue that debate on the basis of some unspecified insult uttered by another participant. The only thing that his supporters have offered by way of explanation for this action is that O’Rawe has been called a “fool” and a “disgrace”.
Most people not blinded by partisanship will be able to see the distinction. Daily Ireland was not permitted to proceed with its case because it was argued that McDowell was acting on behalf of the government in smearing Daily Ireland.
I note, yet again, that O’Rawe’s supporter[s] still refuse[s] to distance him/her/themselves from the smears of one of the most reactionary Ministers for Justice that the southern state has ever produced. In case they are worried, far from diminishing their argument, such a distancing would enable their argument to gain more respect than it has now.
Now, you see, you have started out on the backfoot by being insulting previously and now you are attributing views to people they have not taken, and that are irrelevant to the point under discussion. The point about Daily Ireland is not whether one supports McDowell's opinion of Daily Ireland or not, but that Daily Ireland, in feeling aggrieved, had the right to take McDowell to court in objection, and like Daily Ireland, O'Rawe has the right to do the same.
Whether one thinks O'Rawe is a fool or Daily Ireland is a Nazi rag is beside the point those opinions are illustrating, and a sidetrack to the substance of what is under discussion here: is what is good for the goose good for the gander or are you employing a double standard?
I submit you are employing double standards and that doing so makes you a hypocrite.
There is no arguing with a pedant.
To the inconsistent, consistency can be mistaken for pedantry. I can see where you are coming from with your abuse.
If you care to look, you will see that this debate is about whether here was a deal in 1981.
Because he does not like the way the debate is going, the originator of the dispute, O’Rawe, decided to leave the field, imagining that he was taking his ball with him. Just to be sure, he started issuing legal threats (which in my view have little or no substance) in an attempt to shut down discussion. Daily Ireland, on the other hand, in order to defend its right to add to public discussion and diversity of opinion – something sorely needed - took legal action against a reactionary Minister for Justice.
If you can’t see the difference, that is your problem.
And what I see is your spin, nothing more.
Because he does not like the way the debate is going = SPIN
O’Rawe, decided to leave the field, imagining that he was taking his ball with him = SPIN
(which in my view have little or no substance) = SPIN
in an attempt to shut down discussion = SPIN
in order to defend its right to add to public discussion and diversity of opinion = SPIN
something sorely needed = SPIN
a reactionary Minister for Justice = SPIN
Out of 91 words, 38 aren't spin. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?
The thread was started on Morrison's attempt at refuting O'Rawe's position, then the first post diverted it to the debate over the legal issue. What it has all boiled down to, some 37 posts later, is that you think Daily Ireland is good and that O'Rawe is bad, anything other than that, least of all the issue of the rejected offer, we are none the wiser.
As you are incapable of responding to argument, but keep repeating the same idiotic mantra, you are a troll. Good night.
No, sir, you can't acknowledge the inherent double standard in your chosen position so you resort to abuse and attempts at diverting the debate. Trying to get a straight answer out of you is not trolling, although it is as useless as using oil on your hands to pin down an evasive eel, for all the results you get.
Someone who keeps asking the same question that has been answered a number of times and who makes the same point endlessly is a troll.
(It is possibly a way to camouflage the fact that O'Rawe's bandwagon has lost its wheels and that the horses are tired trampling over the same ground repetitiously.)
Go away troll.
Excerpted from The Blanket:
Few appear to have bought in to the Morrison initiative to 'close this sorry episode.' O'Rawe - who for legal reasons has been advised to refrain from commenting at this juncture - is depicted by Morrison as having been the personal author of the 'discovered' documents despite Morrison's own admission that 'they were released as press statements.' As press statements they were not secret nor do they provide a window on the mind of any individual, neither Richard O'Rawe who was tasked with penning them, nor Brendan McFarlane who would presumably have vetted them prior to release. They reflected a general line not a particular opinion.
That propaganda is not meant to resemble the truth should be clear enough from the PR role Morrison played at the end of the 1980 hunger strike. RTE recently broadcast footage of him shot on December 19, the day after that strike ended. He can be viewed expounding on how he 'was in with Bobby Sands, the O/C of the political prisoners, and he was extremely buoyant this morning, and very, very happy about the outcome.' How likely is this? If true, Bobby went through a rapid mood swing. When he entered the H6 cell occupied by myself and Laurence McKeown on the evening of the 18th, he conveyed nothing of his buoyancy. He was wrongly directed there by the screws who in their rush to get home, failed initially to guide him to the cell of the block O/C, Pat McGeown. Bobby told us three things; the boys were off the strike; things were in a bad way; Cardinal O'Fiaich was being asked to intervene.
He left us to proceed to Pat McGeown's cell just across the narrow corridor. Immediately after the rosary was said, Pat announced the same thing out the door to the rest of the wing. That night Bobby sat down in his own cell and according to Jim Gibney wrote to the leadership on the outside informing it of his intentions to begin a new hunger strike on the 1st of January.
In his biography on Bobby Sands, Denis O'Hearn quotes from a comm by Bobby to Gerry Adams on 18 December 1980: 'for what it's worth, comrade, we seen the move coming but the boys just blew it. We were beat by a few lousy hours which were critical.' O'Hearn also described Bobby as 'livid' which, given the circumstances, seems a more appropriate characterisation of his mood than the buoyancy ascribed to him by Morrison.
Can we really be expected to believe that Bobby was 'buoyant and very, very happy' after a major defeat to which his response was to chart a course of action that he knew would make his own death inevitable? Nevertheless, in the wake of a defeat, PR kicked in and a 'victory' parade was organised in Belfast aimed at massaging the public mood. The same thing O'Rawe was doing with his own PR statements.
Which serves to rubbish Morrison's assertion that O'Rawe's press statements are 'contemporaneous accounts of the time.' They are in fact contemporaneous propaganda constructs of the time that no more provide an accurate account of the era than Morrison's PR which attributed buoyancy and great happiness to a man facing certain death. Morrison and O'Rawe can plead guilty to the same charge: that of using PR with intent to mask and spin. Instead, what we have is the pot calling the kettle black.
Morrison states that 'in July 1981 the British government had various public and private positions.' Just like every other party to the dispute. Are readers expected to believe that republicans were any different? Had O'Rawe as PRO put out a statement saying some republican leader rather than the Brits was the obstacle to a solution the paper it was written on would have ended up with the comms referring to the Mountain Climber - far beyond any public scrutiny. It is those comms that Danny Morrison really needs to produce in order to end the discussion generated by O'Rawe's book. But to do that might end the discussion on terms anathema to Morrison and co. This is most likely why they are not in Dublin and the very unrevealing statements of O'Rawe are.
'The Mark of Cain', Anthony McIntyre, The Blanket, rest of the article here:
http://lark.phoblacht.net/AM1406065g.html
“O'Rawe…. for legal reasons has been advised to refrain from commenting at this juncture.”
“As the interest in O'Rawe's claims continues to grow, so too does the bias and vitriol directed against him. It is an attempt to force him off the field.”
The too comments, from the long winded ego ridden tract linked above, are contradictory of each other. O’Rawe has taken himself off the field. What “vitriol”? Please point to it.
No news as to what was written in Daily Ireland that O’Rawe felt “forced him off the field…. for legal reasons”.
This is not serious.
Someone who keeps asking the same question that has been answered a number of times and who makes the same point endlessly is a troll.
Physician, heal thyself:
Exhibit 1. The too comments, from the long winded ego ridden tract linked above, are contradictory of each other. O’Rawe has taken himself off the field. What “vitriol”? Please point to it.
No news as to what was written in Daily Ireland that O’Rawe felt “forced him off the field…. for legal reasons”.
2. You know what Morrison (or Laurence McKeown) wrote in Daily Ireland (or you should do if you want to comment here). What was so objectionable? I don't need a legal opinion, just a reasonable one.
3. I have asked before, what exactly is O'Rawe's beef? We know what McDowell said. What exactly is O'Rawe complaining of? Seems like a reasonable question. All that has come back is waffle.
4. Again what is O'Rawe's legal beef? If you don't know the answer, speculation is useless.
5. He still has it if he wants - yet he threatens to sue (don't know what the offending remarks were, does anyone - is it all just more petulance?).
6. What is the beef anyway? What does he object to - being ignored.
1. I believe Mr ORawe is suing over the alleged personalised comments directed at him in the Daily Ireland .
2. We'll see where the beef is when this gets to court, unless Daily Ireland and RTE settle beforehand to keep it from making it to public record.
3. I am not privy to O'Rawe's legal matters so I cannot answer your question about what the content of his libel case is based on. I am sure however once it reaches open court we will all know the substance of his claims.
4. I do not know what is in the case and I am not interested in debating over speculation regarding its content. Sorry, this fish won't bite.
Keep putting the same bait on the hook and the fish will know it by its smell.
”Mr ORawe is suing over the alleged personalised comments directed at him in the Daily Ireland.”
At last matters move along (By the way, the same question gets asked, and explained, until an answer eventually appears). His reluctant supporter, with the movable moniker, who possibly is closer to events than s/he lets on, give us the skinny.
Richard O’Rawe is seeking money (presumably) damages on the basis of “personalised” comments. In other words, it has nothing to do with the substance of the debate. In libel, the truth is often no defence when the accuser accuses someone of damaging his ‘reputation’. Libel law usage, though occasionally justified, is often a means of curbing freedom of expression and stifling debate.
Readers can make up their own minds.
The quote you chose to single out was one of the first answers you got, given to you by long-time Indymedia wag Barry, of the 32, on the 13th of June!!. It was the first answer to your repeated question and only now, some 40 comments and 7 days later, you deign to address it? LOL. You could have saved us all the heartache if you'd responded to Barry all this while ago, instead of monotonously repeating the same question over and over in a desperate bid to fish for information. Why don't you ring Daily Ireland and ask them what the suit against them is based upon? Or won't they tell you? So you have to transparently fish for it on Indymedia? Sad.
Richard O’Rawe is seeking money (presumably) damages on the basis of “personalised” comments. In other words, it has nothing to do with the substance of the debate.
You just figured this out, did you? I am impressed. We've been going back and forth on this for sometime now, none of our comments have had anything to do with the substance at hand: did the outside leadership reject the deal accepted by the prisoners, and it only dawned on you today that we've been debating whether O'Rawe has the right, like Daily Ireland, to sue for libel because his character had been attacked? You are a smart one, nothing gets by you, does it?
Let me spell it out for you. Far from 'closing this sad episode', all Morrison has done to refute O'Rawe's claims has been to reduce the debate to petty name calling and (re)produce meaningless comms that were already in the public domain. O'Rawe has pulled Morrison up on the personal abuse and by taking him to court is having him put up or shut up.
In libel, the truth is often no defence when the accuser accuses someone of damaging his ‘reputation’. Libel law usage, though occasionally justified, is often a means of curbing freedom of expression and stifling debate.
As you keep pointing out over and over, however, the debate has not been stifled, and this is evidenced by the fact that even after the suit against RTE/Daily Ireland/Morrison had been filed, Danny Morrison was calling Richard O'Rawe a fool and a disgrace in the pages of Daily Ireland.
Morrison is free to call O'Rawe all the names he wants to, as long as Daily Ireland and other publications are willing to pay the damages for doing so.
Now, with that out of the way, if you would care to debate the issue of the offer accepted by the prisoners and rejected by their outside leadership, please, have a go. It may take you a week or two but I am sure we can get somewhere on it.
And you seem better connected and more authoritative than Barry on the subject. (By the way, this is getting personalised – hope we don’t end up sueing each other.)
”Now, with that out of the way, if you would care to debate the issue of the offer accepted by the prisoners and rejected by their outside leadership, please, have a go. It may take you a week or two but I am sure we can get somewhere on it.”
Happy to do so right now. There was no ‘deal’. It is a figment of Richard O’Rawe’s imagination (the one he is now preserving in a jar in his living room, to be presented later as ‘evidence’).
Just as Scappaticci/Stakeknife was a figment of the imagination, eh?
Whose imagination? Richard's? Surely not. Things are worse than we thought. Maybe he will make as much out of this as Scap reportedly did. Just goes to show, you can't trust anyone these days. Betrayal and mistrust all around you see. Why can’t life be simple and pure, like in the old days?
What good old days? Sure these are the good old days. Look at all our MLAs strutting round in their smart suits. Good jobs all around, just keep your opinions to yourself and nod like those dogs in the back of cars, when Gerry or Martin speak [a bit like the DUP, UUP, SDLP etc, all nodding dogs]. Yep! all you have to do is nod and you have a job for life.
And nothing to do with the subject. But sure, if you feel you must get it off your chest, all right. Happy now?
Not really Non Lawyer, not when so many have died to put Sinn Fein in the position in which they are today, grovelling to be allowed to have a share in power under extreme Unionism. Second in command so to speak.
Second in command? Blackadder's Balderick more than likely, with their cunning plan to achieve Irish Unity by surrendering it in the first place.
You can't surrender what you do not have.
(Again, off subject, but if you want to keep attention away from Mr Precious O'Rawe, then be my guest.)
Maybe by calling Ricky O' Rawe a Brit agent you, non Lawyer, hope to divert attention away from those in SF who have questions to answer but refuse to do so. Yes we didn't have Irish Unity but we won't have either because SF have unconditionally surrendered to Extreme Unionism, who seem to be gaining more and more of a political foothold up here in the North. For example getting their way more and more on contentious routes through Nationalist areas.
Didn't call him any such thing (another fantasy theory). But Richard's not talking, so there is probably little point in continuing this. But if there is something else irrelevant you wish to contribute, then go ahead.
'There was no offer to end hunger strike'– ex-prisoner
08 April 2008
By Staff reporter
A CLAIM that the lives of six IRA Hunger Strikers including Derry men Michael Devine and Dungiven's Kevin Lynch could have been saved by a British deal has finally been dispelled.
A former blanket man from County Derry has hit out at claims in Belfast newspapers in recent weeks claiming that he was witness to a deal six weeks after the death of another Derry hunger striker Patsy O'Hara.
Blanket man Richard O'Rawe has sparked controversy in the past year by claiming in his book that the British government had offered a deal in early July 1981. He claimed the British 'deal' would have met three of the five IRA demands and claimed the offer was shouted to him, in Irish, by fellow prisoner Brendan McFarlane.
McFarlane has consistently denied the claim, saying an offer was made but that this offer did not amount to a deal and fell short of what the prisoners were demanding at the time.
Last week O'Rawe repeated his claim in the 'Irish News', this time quoting a cellmate backing him up.
However, the 'Journal' has learned that the former cellmate was County Derry man Colm Scullion.
And yesterday Mr Scullion told us: "I wrote to the 'Irish News' to complain about the article because it quoted Richard O'Rawe saying that he had been, in some way, vindicated by his cellmate at the time. The letter has not appeared as yet. I believe the article is a reference to me because I was on the blanket and shared a cell with Richard at this time during the hunger strike in July 1981.
"What is being said is untrue. There was no deal. I agree with Richard that there was certainly an offer which Richard was made aware of by Brendan McFarlane who was a few cells away. I didn't hear anything like what Richard is sayin
g. We all desperately hoped that there would be a deal. Unfortunately, the British government refused to stand over or verify what it was offering. It refused to send any of its representatives into meet the hunger strikers and tragically Joe McDonnell died and his death was followed by five more of our comrades."
Mr Scullion insisted there had never been any deal, only an offer which the British failed to follow up or discuss. And he was in no doubt as to who he believed was to blame for the deaths of all ten hunger strikers, including the six who died after the so-called 'offer'.
"Mrs Thatcher and her government were responsible for their deaths," he said.
The alleged incident has been the subject of continued controversy since O'Rawe's claims emerged 25 years after the hunger strikes.
Derry man Brendan Duddy was working through his Foreign Office contacts to broker a deal.
I think everyone realises that there was no deal, and the whole fairytale was put together to give people second thoughts about joining in commemorations of the Hunger Strikes.
The sacrifice and dedication of the Hunger Strikers and the nobility of their actions was plain to see and impossible for the enemies of the republican movement to undermine, so they settled on this nonsensical story to act as an attack on the Sinn Féin leadership.
It was clear that if there had been a deal it would have been mentioned at some point in the 25 years between 1981 and 2006.
It wasn't, because it never existed.
Let's hope that those who were quick to believe this lie will learn to be more considered in their opinions in the future.
because many Republicans no longer believe the word of a man who is the Irish equivalent of Mugabe.
If you think that a man who played such an important part in the blanket protest and the hunger strikes could fabricate a story in order to undermine commemorations to the hunger strikers then you are naive to the point of stupidity.
He actually mentioned it many times but was told to shut up or else.
It seems someone else was too.
No evidence, nonsensical comparison (Mugabe). Over the top, underwhelming
iam still uncertin about this. my understanding about the hungerstrike was that the momentum for it came from the prisions the leadership out side wanted it like a hole in the head, previous hungerstikes in the 70's in ireland had been disasters for moral. and that two organisations were involved in this. why would the INLA have continued the hungerstrike at the behest of the provisional army council. has anyone from the INLA verified this.
As far as I know they are seeking answers on behalf of the INLA Hunger Strikers families.