The Kingsmill massacre, when ten Protestant workmen were shot dead by an IRA gang, is one of the most chilling events in the history of the Troubles. Yesterday the sole survivor, Alan Black, told the court the horrific story of that night and his conviction that he was going to die. He spoke movingly to the TV cameras as well, with tears in his eyes recounting how his 18-year-old workmate had danced with delight at the prospect of being taught to drive. Two hours later he was dead. It’s at times like that one appreciates the power of the media to bring home to us the terrible things we do to each other.
That said, there are aspects of the reporting of the Kingsmill massacre that I find troubling. I’m not talking about those bits which yesterday were told in court but deemed by the media to be too ghastly to repeat on television. I’m talking about events related to the Kingsmill massacre and claims about it which are rarely aired.
The evening before Kingsmill occurred, at about six o’clock, three Reavey brothers aged 24, 22 and 17 were in their home watching television. A gang of masked men entered the house and shot dead the two oldest boys. The youngest, Anthony, tried to hide under a bed but was shot several times and left for dead. A month later he too died.
Fifteen miles and twenty minutes from the Reavey shootings, a masked gang burst into the home of the O’Dowd family, who were having a family celebration. Joseph O’Dowd (61) was killed, along with his 24-year-old and 19-year-old nephews. All three were members of the SDLP.
Both attacks were perpetrated by the Glenanne gang, responsible for dozens of killings in that area. It was made up of members of the UVF, the UDR, the RUC and British soldiers.
The fact that these brutal killings happened the previous day doesn’t lessen one whit the devilish nature of the killings at Kingsmill. But they are related, and for the two families affected, they inflicted the same kind of horror as that inflicted at Kingsmill.
The other point rarely mentioned in the reporting of Kingsmill is that the sole survivor, Alan Black, has claimed that at least one state agent was involved in the Kingsmill killings. You can find this fact reported if you dig back into reports of the time. Oddly, I cannot find any elaboration of or response to that claim.
None of this takes away from the evil of Kingsmill. You could say that the Reavey/O’Dowd family killings provide a frame for the bloody picture of Kingsmill, but it would be more accurate to say they sit as companion pictures. The pictures differ only in that Kingsmill involved a greater number of deaths, and the Reavey/O’Dowd killings involved people who were paid to protect those families and others. Although, if what Alan Black has said is true, the second distinction may be inaccurate.
Why do the media rarely mention the Reavey/O’Dowds slaughter? I don’t know. But I would hate to think it is because the Kingsmill massacre presents a near-perfect picture of a deeply sectarian IRA.
I had previously heard the claim of a ‘state agent’ being involved in the Kingsmill murders.
It is also reported that the leader of the murder gang was heard (presumably by Alan Black) giving the instruction: ‘finish them off’.
But what always made me curious was that this ‘Provo’ apparently spoke with an English accent.
I cannot conceive many Provo leaders being natural Brits – so who actually was this person?
Kitsons handbook on counterinsurgency was very much to the fore at this period. Maybe the BBC will do a documentary about that wee novel? Maybe then folk will get an better understanding of all those so called ‘random’ killings? Maybe folk will realise a lot of them were not at all random.
Bit of info about the Reavy family massacre here, towards the end of this post
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/ian-kyle-paisley-highlights-of-his-life-4/
GRMA for this column, Jude. This is one of those stark examples of how the government puts victims in a hierarchy. The O Dowd and Reavey murders do not fit in the govt narrative of IRA bad, we good. Kingsmill swas wrong, there can be no justification, but neither can there be any justification for the murders of the Reaveys and ODowds. Until both the south and northern govts accept this, there is no end in sight. I am an optimist by nature but events lately have tempered that optimism( Justive minister selection etc)
Jude, its important to remember that the IRA, to my knowledge, still denies committing Kingsmills. From what I’ve read and heard it was a local IRA unit that acted without authority and committed Kingsmills in reply to the UVF/UDR/RUC murders of Catholics, of which the O’Dowd/Reavey murders were just one batch. Donnelly’s bar was bombed without warning killing a number of Catholics and of course the Glenanne Gang was also involved in the no warning bombs in Dublin/Monaghan which killed over 30 civilians, one a 9 month pregnant woman with twins, not to mention other kids.
Was state agents involved in Kingsmills? Alan Black certainly believes so. Black said he heard a man with an English accent leading the gang that night, he believes this man could’ve been Captain Nairac, who was killed by the IRA. Nairac has been suspected of leading both Loyalist and Republicans agents, hes been accused of being involved in the Miami Showband Massacre and some Loyalists have theorised that he deliberately set the bomb to go off early that killed Loyalists and UDR members Harris Boyle and Wesley Somervile. Boyle’s local UDR regiment openly put a memorial in a UVF magazine called “Combat” in his memory after he died…..
Was the British State involved in Kingsmills? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were. Indeed as SpotlightNI last year exposed, much of the documents relating to Kingsmills have mysteriously vanished or have been burnt in fires JUST before they were meant to be released…..
We all know the British Government was involved in the murders of hundreds of innocent people during the troubles. What shocks me is if this happened in any other country it would cause a political and social earthquake. But yet when more evidence comes out almost by the week of British state collusion the media and our politicians behave as if this is normal…..its incredible…..
Terrible stuff indeed , Jude.These murderous incidents were part of the weft and weave of “normal” everyday life back then, there was some horror happening nearly every day and it just churned on as if self-sustained. It’s the kind of thing that the dissidents seem to hanker returning to. …a life full of violent paranoia that had been running for years .
There is a kind of misconception about the violence anyway.For a small largely Christian country/community there seemed to be no problem with murder on any side ;murder and killing ..and maybe even eating the altar rails or going to church ,singing and marching in Christian/Biblical groups while hating your neighbour as hard as you could .On and on it went with all that lovely hypocrisy.
This set of murders stand out as a mass- slaying, wedged between many others as you say, Jude, only because they seem blatently sectarian, but the anaomaly is the mention of one of the killers speaking with an English accent. Usually the IRA , if it is feeling particularly non -Christian at thta moment in time , will take on a nom de plume as those “republicans” do when they tackle petty crime in their fiefdoms. . They’ll come up with some name for the optics and we outside of it all really have no idea who did what to whom anyway.As you say the infamous Glennane Gang were at work around this time too and anyone vaguely nationalist was fair game for them. I suppose so long as they weren’t protestant or unionist , anyone could have been fair game…So too the”IRA” might have weeded out the odd lone Catholic/Nationalist before murdering all the remaining Protestant/unionists .It’s the oddest kind of “Christianity” imaginable.
With the Kingsmill murders…..?
Now that English voice heard coming from one of the gunmen … that wasn’t mentioned in any of the bits I saw broadcast, but has been mentioned previously ,could easily be an IRA sympathiser with an English accent ,who happened to live or came from England and was heard speaking …. or it has been said that it might have been the British spy Nairac. Unfortunately Nairac is no longer with us so we can’t ask him. We can conjecture forever whether or not it was a dirty -tricks gang of British agents out to blacken the IRA’s name , or we can also accept that like the loyalists, the IRA contained some psychopathic members who got their kicks from killing “brits” . Either way it has become part of the industry of conspiracy theorists.Reading some of the words written by some of our readers, I have no real doubt that sectarianism runs through both sides of the equation here. you might say sectarianism is lapped up with mother’s milk, so it should be no real shock if it was said that both the IRA and the UVF at bottom were really deeply sectarian.A sectarian hatred that had little to do with political ideals…That’s why i’m hoping there’ll be an end to physical -force violence. Is it hatred beyond any sense of Christianity or is it politics? I think a lot of it is simply about hatred
Some say they know exactly who did all these murders and can put names and faces to them all , but it all remains fantasy until there is proof made available .
Agree with all you say, PK – except maybe that I didn’t lap my mother’s milk…
Bottle-fed , then Jude….?…a Glaxo Baby , eh?
paddy
I’m guessing wet nurse.
‘the industry of conspiracy theorists.’
Unfortunately some nationalists still don’t believe the British state were involved in terrorist activity in spite of the stark evidence, they don’t want to see. Catholics killed for simply being Catholic still doesn’t register with some of these pitiful folk. I spoke to a mate recently who was successfully cocooned away from the troubles stuff. He told me when he and his social circle heard of another random killing they still thought there was ‘probably a reason why they got shot’. Alas when he ventured out of his wee village and lived and worked in Belfast he was soon to learn that he indeed was a target simply because he was a taig. 3 of his workmates were shot by unionist militia in 2 seperate occasions.
‘both the IRA and the UVF at bottom were really deeply sectarian.’
When the IRA were mounting attacks on British army helicopters,barracks and armoured vehicles someone should’ve told them that there were handier ways of killing Protestants?
It’s just pure laziness to equate the IRA to unionist militia. In fact those who do are likely to be of the same mentality as those of my friend and his circle I.e ‘they didn’t get shot for nothing’. Perfectly conditioned to accept whatever narrative the state declares.
If anybody seriously thinks greedy Betty Windsor or Camoron or any other suit truly cares for any one of us then they really are in the conspiracy theory industry. They definitely are not the ‘good guys’.
The Kingsmill people were shot because they were unionists – not because they were protestants. Not that it makes much difference to them. The IRA have never admitted responsibility. A gun belonging to them was used. What about the gang leader who spoke with an English accent? It has happened before that arms were extracted from IRA dumps, used and replaced. The IRA may not have been involved and may have been unaware that their arms were used. Unbelievable?
fiosrach
Before they were shot they were asked their religion, not their position on the constitutional issue. Pathetic that you should even try to make such a point in the first place.
As to the English accent it is possible state agents were involved but without any concrete evidence lets just leave it at the IRA’s door for now.
Gio,
As we debated before, and both raised valid points in my opinion, most Protestants are Unionists and most Catholics are Nationalists, that’s simply the truth here. Is that sectarian? Of course but its also the sad truth, we don’t call this state the “Sectarian statelet” for nothing.
If these men were Protestant Nationalists do you think they would’ve been murdered? I don’t. I don’t think I could use the same logic with Loyalist paramilitaries since Loyalists/Unionists were definitely spurned on by religion as much as politics. The reasons why is debatable but I think the likes of the Orange Order and Paisley played a part.
Its a bit difficult getting concrete evidence Gio when British documents relating to the case are going “missing” or have been destroyed in mysterious fires lol There’s tons of concrete evidence of the British state being involved in events similar to Kingsmills, so I agree with Alan Black that the guy leading the gang was Captain Nairac.
Ryan (and Antonio)
Alan Black said he heard an English accent. For some that seems to be sufficient proof. It is not enough to me.
We should agree to differ on that.
Ryan does your theory on prod/unionist and catholic/nationalist mean the loyalist groups were really targetting nationalists rather than making sectarian attacks as is so often claimed? Or does that logic only apply to one side?
“Ryan does your theory on prod/unionist and catholic/nationalist mean the loyalist groups were really targetting nationalists rather than making sectarian attacks as is so often claimed? Or does that logic only apply to one side?”
It was and is one sided gio.
Republicanism is steeped with protestants who fought for Irish freedom. I grew up in a staunchly republican community and there were protestants living there, not many but they were never troubled as they were also nationalist/republicans.
Yes, the majority today are Catholics, but that was not always the case. I was brought up a Catholic but I have no respect for the Catholic church, especially in Ireland.
Protestants on the other hand, were brought up to hate Catholics. Paisley brought religion into it to create a holy war to harden divisions and make the unionist community more resolute. No pope here, the pope is the anti Christ, Rome rule etc…
As for loyalists, in the early 70s, they were operating under direct instructions from the state forces. It was they who instructed them to kill innocent Catholics to turn the community against the IRA. The state forces later changed tact when it wasn’t working and pursued instead a more covert modus operandi and propaganda campaign but the methods taught to loyalists continued.
The IRA would have targeted British sympathisers and being a catholic would not have saved you any more than being a protestant would have condemned you.
Being a catholic in a loyalist area however was sufficient to condemn many though when targeting people in a nationalist community, I don’t think their religion really mattered.
There were Catholics within loyalist paramilitaries though who were not targeted by loyalists so it was possible for Catholics to be accepted also.
In my opinion, the Unionist political leadership is more sectarian and bigoted than the working class loyalists.
It is this act which will prolong the reconciliation process unfortunately.
But what do you think gio?
There are those of the hard of hearing like Gio, who valiantly try to paint an ‘all the combatants were sectarian and the British were simply trying to maintain law and order’ narrative. They must get their info from the NIO.
The IRA wanted to remove the British presence from the occupied six counties. For them to achieve this they knew they had to rely on the population in which they lived. They could not operate if the population were hostile to them. That meant they had to strive and conduct themselves appropriately within their community. They had to ensure their volunteers didn’t bring the movement into disrepute. Alas as with any organisation there will be folk that will do just that. Any body with any sort of I.q can work that out. To bring revolution you need the people around you to buy into it.
The British and unionist militia on the other hand knew this too. So they simply had to undermine the IRA. Thus, by using all the tools at their disposal, media,schools,police etc, they endeavoured to draw the IRA into sectarianism by simply targeting the wider community from which the IRA came. Bringing terror to the wider community would force that community to flush out the IRA and thus disrupt and weaken its capabilities. Simple but effective.
The British and unionist militia were not seeking a revolution they were simply seeking to destroy the IRA and its objectives so therefore their methods didn’t rely on community support. Therefore they could conduct themselves in any way they liked especially so the militia. They didn’t need the community to lend itself to them they just needed to community to be suitably frightened to not lend itself to the IRA. Fear is what they demanded to achieve their objective.
The IRA endeavoured to target military targets be they in helicopters,land rovers, barracks etc as well as institutions that upheld British rule, in an attempt to frustrate and exhaust the British govt into finally withdrawing. After all the British needed all these things to maintain the status quo. I am sure there were far handier ways to be sectarian if that was their agenda? The British and unionist militia meanwhile kept their eye on the ball by simply targeting anyone who came from the community that the IRA dwelled, after all they knew that’s what the IRA needed to maintain itself. So it’s plain to see that the combatants in the last war had very different methods to achieve their objectives. They are not all the same no matter how British state apologists like Gio would continue to portray.
Very true wt
There is evidence of a state agent being involved. It comes from the sole survivor of the massacre who believe s a state agent was involved. So it’s not the IRA saying this but one of the victims
“The Kingsmill people were shot because they were unionists – not because they were protestants.”
That is simply not true fiosrach, they were asked if they were protestants for a reason, I can only guess to shock and for this to be seen as the most totally sectarian hate crime to date.
If someone asks someone their religion and then kills them, I think it only fair to consider that they were killed simply for their faith.
There is no sugar coating what happened here. This was sectarianism at its most heinous.
The real perpetrators of all of this mayhem at the time, are best revealed by evaluating the testimonies of Colin Wallace and John Weir who documented the use of pseudo-gangs on both sides through Special Branch and Military Intelligence agencies, at the behest of their ‘Masters’ in Whitehall. The Glenanne Gang, which ironically included Robert Frazer, the father of that great crusader of justice,- Willie Frazer, -was made up of UDR, RUC, SB and British Military Intelligence personnel. They were tasked with murdering innocent catholics in order to provoke an IRA backlash, at a time when the IRA were on ceasefire,- to effectively quash any prospect of political progress.
What the media don’t tell us, is that immediately after the Kingsmill murders, these same RUC, UDR SB and BMI gangsters got together, to discuss going into a catholic school and slaughtering 30 primary school children.
Now even for the controllers in London, this was a bridge too far, and so it was shelved in preference to a continuation of the squalid local war of attrition, that was deemed effective enough to keep the prospect of political equality dead in the water.
And so we see in micro -format, a series of ‘linked events’ as you correctly pointed out Jude, that exemplify on the macro – level, the use of ‘sectarian death squads’ to facilitate a predetermined political strategy.
So the the recent reporting in the media of these events – (terrible as they were)- has been nothing short of disgraceful, in terms of the ‘lack of context’ -given the information we now have available.
The problem is, that as we all become more ‘Northernised’ and politically genuflective to ‘Stormont’ and ‘our wee country’ -we have forgotten how all of these seemingly unconnected episodes, incrementally ‘corralled’ us into this ‘cul-de-sac’ -and how those that we trusted to free us from our ‘political shackles’- have become part of the establishment of ‘crooks’ that got us here.
tr
What is the evidence against Robert Frazer as you are stating his involvement as a fact?
Well said Jude
Grma, Greg..
Similarly people mention the Reavey and O’Dowd murders fail to mention the Republican bombing of Central bar in Gilford which killed three Protestants who were, Richard Beatty, William Scott and Sylvia McCullough, on New years Eve 1975. Prior to that, seven Catholics were killed by loyalist terrorists. Prior to that two Protestants killed by INLA terrorists. Prior to that IRA terrorists killed two Catholics. Prior to that UVF terrorists killed two Protestants. Prior to that UDA terrorists killed an English civilian. Prior to that IRA terrorists killed one English civilian and three RUC officers. Prior to that the IRA had killed four British Army soldiers, two civilians and one RUC officer. Prior to that the UVF killed one Protestant.
On and on it goes and although some people claim there should be no hierarchy of victims, there undoubtedly is with some names being pushed to public prominence. While others, like those who were murdered on New Years Eve 1975, fall by the wayside.
KC – Mike Nesbitt, leader of the UUP, is on record as not knowing who Joan Connolly was…
Of course KC you fail to mention that many of those loyalists involved in those killings were also members of the so called security forces,
KC,
I know it is probably difficult for you, given that you have been immersed in the clever British Imperial technique of wordcrafting your thoughts, – but try to refrain from the overuse of the term ‘terrorist’ to describe ‘unintelligent fools’ who murder. The word ‘terrorist’ is perhaps best applied in its truest sense, to describe the parasites to whom you pay your taxes, to prosecute their criminal wars in your name, at the behest of their owners.
They’re at the top of the true ‘heirarchy’, and you can find their names every day in the pink pages of their ‘protocols’ newsheet, – The Financial Times of London.
“you have been immersed in the clever British Imperial technique of wordcrafting your thoughts”
No, KC is not clever, he is just all unionist. He will have a hissy fit in a moment wait and see
The term ‘terrorist’ means to use terror to impose political ideals.
Individual killings within the context of a conflict do not necessarily meet this criteria.
How many were for revenge for friends, family or comrades killed by their enemy. How many were out of desperation to remove a tyrant army and an oppressive regime?
The actions of unionism to start the conflict, the attempted pogrom of the catholic community, the attacks on the civil rights marches, police murdering civilians in their own homes and hospitalising their children, army shooting civilians in the back, shooting CS gas into peoples homes, .driving armoured cars over citizens on their own streets.
These acts do fall quite clearly under the definition of ‘Terrorism’
Unionism today would still use fear as a tactic to impose their political ideals.
But you are also right, many nations including the UK and the US embrace terrorism to impose political ideals in other nations.
Britain was always the greatest terrorist in Ireland.
“On and on it goes and although some people claim there should be no hierarchy of victims, there undoubtedly is with some names being pushed to public prominence. While others, like those who were murdered on New Years Eve 1975, fall by the wayside.”
That is what happens in conflict KC.
What did unionism expect when they started the trouble in the first place?
There is nothing we an do about all of the people who wrongly lost their lives. There is something we can do about the cover up of the truth, the deliberate denial of evidence to protect the British state and its cohorts who have got off with murdering Irish citizens completely,
Members of the MRF wont deny killing out of uniform, they do deny breaking the law as that is what their state asked them to do and is why evidence is destroyed, redacted or buried..
There should of course be no hierarchy of victims but more importantly, there should be no hierarchy of combatants who get off scott free.
The very few British soldiers who were tried and convicted got promoted when they returned to their job.
Do you regret that unionism started the conflict to begin with KC?
Do you think the leaders of unionism should apologise for the trouble they caused and all of the lost souls that you mention?
What do you think unionism could do to prove to nationalists that they will never again start another conflict in Ireland?
What you say is right. The Glenanne gang were never really investigated.The IRA has never claimed the tragedy of Kingsmill. A true inquest may reveal the Glenanne gang were perhaps the real assassins. Nothing can ever justify Kingsmill or Reavey/O`Dowd killings and the suffering of all the families involved
“What you say is right. The Glenanne gang were never really investigated.The IRA has never claimed the tragedy of Kingsmill. A true inquest may reveal the Glenanne gang were perhaps the real assassins. Nothing can ever justify Kingsmill or Reavey/O`Dowd killings and the suffering of all the families involved”
The Kingsmill massacre was appalling and one of the most disgusting attacks of the conflict.
I believe it was the IRA involved though the facts are very sketchy.
There are various rumours but most believe the IRA were infiltrated in south armagh by at least one british agent, one of whom was in a commanding position and present at a meeting over the response to the Reavey and O’Dowd murders. The IRA were on ceasefire and the request was rejected by the army council.
The local commander however overruled this direct order and the assault went ahead.
It was certainly one of the most sectarian and hate filled attacks of the whole conflict, at least by the IRA anyway.
Where it gets messy is down to anomalies.
One of the men spoke with an English accent, possibly not expecting anyone to survive to tell.
The attack happened about 2 minutes from a police station which was manned, yet the police took over 30 minutes to get to the scene.
Were they warned something was happening involving state agents and to keep away for a period?
Some, including those within the state believed Nairac or one of his associates to be the IRA chief who led the attack and was the one responsible for the Reavey and O’Dowd murders.
There were those in the british forces who did not want the ceasefire to succeed and wanted only to defeat the IRA.
Nairac was one of those, who was requesting the SAS be brought into the conflict. Some believe all three attacks were designed for this purpose.
If so, it succeeded, as shortly after the SAS were brought into the conflict.
If this is what happened, it was an embarrassment for the IRA more so for being infiltrated to such a level by an Englishman in the stronghold of south armagh.
It was not even the IRA who killed Nairac but the community who could see what they could not.
Not spotting infiltrators was one of the IRAs greatest weaknesses.
Alan Black deserves to know the truth – whatever it may be. Perhaps this will be the case to lift the lid on what really happened in a very dirty conflict.
Alan Black told a little bit of truth in his evidence yesterday.
The relative of another victim was apparently told by a soldier that the army had been instructed not to be in that area the night of the Kingsmills murders.
So its possible that the RUC had received the same instructions.
But what has surprised me is that this is, or could be, an explosive bit of information, but as yet none of the media have picked up on it!
Probably they are still taking their lead from their political masters.
“The relative of another victim was apparently told by a soldier that the army had been instructed not to be in that area the night of the Kingsmills murders.
So its possible that the RUC had received the same instructions.
But what has surprised me is that this is, or could be, an explosive bit of information, but as yet none of the media have picked up on it!”
That would be the bits too shocking for them to broadbcast and for us to hear then.
Sherdy
I sincerely hope Alan Black does get the truth in the end. But what you are saying is a long way from explosive evidence.
Apparently someone was told something by someone else a long time ago, therefore possibly you think something else might have happened.
Evidence needs to be a bit more concrete than that.
Sterling work
It was strange indeed on a day that a Justice Minister was appointed, no reference was made to the fact that Ian Paisley Snr used parliamentary privilege at Westminster to implicate an innocent man in the events at Kingsmill. There was no reference to the fact that the HET found that the deceased members of the Reavey family were innocent victims with no link to any paramilitary organisation. There was no reference to the fact that the HET apologised on behalf of the British Government for the hostile and unprofessional role of the security forces in the days and weeks after the murders.
At a time when citizens were being massacred, many politicians and commentators poured scorn on any suggestion of British collusion in Ireland. The flawed de Silva Report provides evidence of “missing security force weapons.” There is also ample evidence that members of the British Army, the RUC and the UDR had a presence in the vicinity of many incidents in which innocent citizens lost their lives or were seriously injured.
“5 June 1976…Michael McGrath…arrived at the Rock Bar…Three men in masks got out of the car…hitting him in the stomach and hip…as he had laid injured in the road he had noticed that the boots on one of the men running past him looked remarkably like those of a police officer…all of those who carried out the attack on the Rock Bar were serving RUC officers…The 9mm Sterling used was apparently home-made, or at least doctored, and had also been used during the murder of the three Reavey brothers at Whitecross…” Cadwallader (2013:184 – 187)
Why do the media rarely mention the fact that 33 people were killed when car-bombs exploded in Monaghan and at three different locations in Dublin on 17 May 1974? National insecurity perhaps?
One must first try to get this much straight, Esteemed Blogmeister: the Republicans, they’re the ones with the simplistic take on things ?
Thought so.
And the likes of – to take an example, at random – say, RTE, they’re the ones whose nuancy boys and nuancy girls have a more layered take on things?
Once again, ditto.
Or, is it, in fact, so?
Consider the News at One RTE radio reporter’s take on the Kingsmill inquiry yesterday as well as two other not entirely unrelated items.
Yawna Lawlor (for it was she!) was in full Prophetess of Doom mode (nobody does it better). So much so, that she somehow allowed her professionalism to be obscured by her penchant for the Prophetessorship. This was emphasized by her failure (abject) to make even a passing reference to the Reavey / O’Dowd massacres. Never mind, the G-Gang.
In short, she was a deal less than nuancy.
Such a mench, after all, might have served to put historical events in context and could even ricochet off the agreed narrative. Thereby, knocking things out of kilter.
Consider now the following show, involving the Cultural Attache of the SDLP in Dublin. That would be the ‘Talk to Joe Show’. This show is so phenomenally popular that it is reckoned, not least by the modest presenter himself, that he is a doddle at a salary just shy of a six figure sum beginning with 4.
This edition focused on the latest spate of whackerooneys in the drug underworld of Dublin. Uncle Joe almost tripped himself up (verbally, of course) in his eagerness to get in one of his Top Ten Quotes of All Time:
-We only have to be lucky once: youse have to be lucky all the time.
Eh?
While Uncle Joe didn’t actually mention the acronym in q. there was no need to, of course. Much too Ballyfermot sophisticated for that.
For the record that was the acronym which Conor Cruise O’Brien, with his Howth Head gaucheness, never tired of reminding folk, stood for : ‘I. Ran. Away’. (And uttered by the bonvivant cum bonviveur renowned for his bonhomie with all the panache of a Wildean epigram as this world wide witticism fully warranted).
Curiously, if Uncle Joe was looking for a shovel-ready cliché from the past there was one lurking under his very nose: the latest big chill took place but yards from the location of the G-gang’s first two bombs in Dublin on May 17, 1974.
The third item was featured as recently as today on the (gulp) same RTE News at One Radio Show. And, remarkably, involved another G-word:
-Grangegorman.
This was the venue for the (gasp) Joint British-Irish Commemoration of the British Soldiers who gallantly gave their khaki-clad lives in the cause of, erm, British Freedom during the Easter 1916 comedy of terrors. Or maybe it was for an even wider cause, such as H for Humanity, that sort of thingy.
This was surely a First in the History of Commemorations, or if not, a near first (this is inserted as a pedant -protective device). And as such – in fairness, going f. – one would imagine that the onus would have been on the TD who attended rather than the TD who opted not to attend, to explain why.
Somehow, didn’t turn out that way.
Instead we had the nuancy spectacle of the neutral chairperson (Richard ‘Growly’ Crowley of RTE) facilitating the all-inclusive, all-forgiving, all-attending, politically mature Dara O’Brien of FF in the latter’s castigating of the ‘narrow-minded’ non-attending Aengus O Snodaigh of SF.
The technical term, one understands, is , erm, Harrisment.
Larf? Till one barfed.
The key, perhaps, lies in the G-word.
For generations of Dubs there was but one word for mental institution, lunatic asylum, padded cell, rubber room, funny farm, cuckoo’s nest:
-Grangegorman.
Scarcely can there have been a venue been more aptly chosen since Voyeurs Anonymous picked Keyhole, Colorado for their AGM.
To do supreme justice to this latest giant step on the road to maturing normality between our two, erm, nations one must look to – and with apologies to Joe B. – the world of (gulp) county music.
And to the pen of the wondrous Shel Silverstein (who also gifted us The Unicorn, A Boy named Sue, Sylvia’s Mother, The Ballad of Lucy Jordan, Put another Log on the Fire, etc etc etc, including, lest one forget, Don’t give a Dose to the one you love Most).
The following was a song he wrote for Waylon Jennings:
The World’s Gone Crazy Cotillion
The world’s gone crazy cotillion
The ladies are dancing alone
Coz the sidemen all want to be frontmen
And the frontmen all want to go home.
The villains have turned into heroes
The heroes have turned into heels
The dealers all want to be lovers
And the lovers all want to do deals………
here’s a wee video about who was implicated in the Dublin-Monaghan bombings and how that played out
https://eurofree3.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/hidden-hand-the-dublin-monaghan-bombings/
lolar
“the media rarely mention the fact that 33 people were killed when car-bombs exploded in Monaghan and at three different locations in Dublin on 17 May 1974”
Any evidence for that?
“the media rarely mention the fact that 33 people were killed when car-bombs exploded in Monaghan and at three different locations in Dublin on 17 May 1974”
Any evidence for that?
Not only the media gio, the Irish state don’t want to touch that subject.
Harold Wilson offered the people who carried out the attacks to the then Fine Gael government who simply didn’t want to know and still don’t.
Those involved did nothing to try and hide their identities, they were completely comfortable and confident when arrested.
And why shouldn’t they have been, they were acting under the direct instruction and training of the british state.
Harold Wilson was genuinely outraged, and naively thought as prime minister he was in charge of the UK.
He spoke out against what was happening, he even penned a 15 year unification plan, but unfortunately he had stepped on the toes of the british army and had to go.
He resigned after operation clockwork orange successfully ousted him and restored a tory government more in tune with the british armys thinking on matters Irish.
There is lots evidence for all of this gio.
But for some reason no one wants to know and as lolar says, it is a taboo subject not to mention career destroying. No one in Irish or British media will touch it and even the Irish state don’t care enough about the Irish citizens who lost their lives and their families to pursue the matter.
If Sinn Fein got into power, I wonder would they fear to rock the boat on matters such as this?
Yes,
Deaglán de Bréadún writing in The Irish Times, 23 may 2016:
“…A monument now stands at at the bottom of Talbot Street where one of the car bombs exploded. There were about 200 people at the ceremony, including relatives of the victims…Alan McBride lost his wife Sharon and father-in-law Desmond Frizzell in the horrific Shankill Road…
Although I saw no newspaper coverage of it in the south, his speech was electrifying…
As he put it:”
“It does not really matter whether it was four weeks ago or 42 years ago: the questions of truth and justice were as relevant then as they are today.”
“…It was a heartfelt plea for truth and justice for the relatives of all who have died…On my way back up Talbot Street after the ceremony, I recalled that here, also, republican Seán Treacy died in a shoot-out during after the war of Independence. Nearly 100 years on and we still haven’t finally resolved the situation.”
The full text of Mr de Bréadún’s article is available on line.
lolar (and jessica)
I have had no trouble finding plenty of media comments mentioning the Dublin/Monaghan bombing.
I suppose we see what we want to see.
“I have had no trouble finding plenty of media comments mentioning the Dublin/Monaghan bombing.
I suppose we see what we want to see.”
Gio, there are none so blind as those who do not wish to see, and none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear.
Viewers were unable to see any coverage of the 42nd anniversary of the Dublin/Monaghan bombs. Mr Flanagan also spoke at the event. Geraldine O’Reilly and Patrick Stanley were killed by a car bomb in Belturbet on 28 December 1972. Geraldine’s brother was seriously injured in the same incident. All relatives “want to see” files. Spurious reasons associated with national security are used to prevent disclosure about controversial incidents in the past. Many would like to “see” a definition of national security. There are some who cannot see having been killed or injured by lead, plastic or rubber bullets.
All that may be so, but it does not prove that the media rarely mention the incidents as you claimed..
Google it and see for yourself.
The sheer volume of senseless, brutal killings makes it practically impossible to give each event the time it deserves. Some do have a bigger profile such as Kingsmill, Bloody Sunday, Warrenpoint, The shankill butchers but I don’t think it’s part of any kind of media cover up.
The whole you’s were worse than ours or oh but yous started it first, is nothing more than trying to justify murder.
There is blood on both sides hands, nobody is without sin and all we are left with today are scars.
“There is blood on both sides hands, nobody is without sin and all we are left with today are scars.”
Scott, you seem perfectly reasonable and your heart may well be in the right place.
But there is a lot more blood on the British states hands than I think you realise, and this has ever been acknowledged but that will never be allowed to be swept under the carpet, not ever. There current abuse of national security to hide any remaining evidence and keep it away from survivors seeking truth and justice is deplorable yet no one seems to give a damn.
This is not about who was worse than the other, I and I am sure many nationalists would be more than willing to forgive and pursue total reconciliation between our two islands. But I assure you, until unionism acknowledges its role in starting this bloody conflict and enflaming it, I will not consider any unionist anything other than a sectarian bigot and apologist for British state murder.
We now see good republicans being pilloried for doing the right thing, just because of British and unionist intransigence and failure to live up to the same standards in support for a peace and reconciliation process.
What has changed since the 1960s unionism, you are no different, just a sliding scale of bigotry and refusal to share this land as equals.
Shame on any Irish person who facilitates this great British cover up.
That’s the second time you’ve called me a bigot Jessica without even knowing me. Lucky I’m thick skinned.
I know you believe your version of history and I’m not saying that your completely wrong but many people view the conflict very differently from you. Your probably partly right and partly wrong, They’re probably partly right and partly wrong.
But if we stay on this merry go round of who to blame or who did worse, then we will simply go round and round in circles.
I am all for truth and reconciliation but I just believe it’s to difficult to implement fairly. The British government and the provisional IRA will never tell the whole story about what happened. It’s a tragedy that these people will never see justice but how can it be implemented properly. There were hundreds of killings and bombings are we suppose to have an inquest into every single one of them? If we have an inquest into one and not the others how is that fair?
You tell me Jessica how do we find out the truth without leaving some people out? I can’t work a proper way of doing it.
“That’s the second time you’ve called me a bigot Jessica without even knowing me. Lucky I’m thick skinned.”
Scott, if you feel your views accurately reflect those portrayed by unionism, then so be it.
“I know you believe your version of history and I’m not saying that your completely wrong but many people view the conflict very differently from you.”
I don’t have a version of history, I have my own opinions on what happened based on what I have experienced first hand, or learned from listening to others.
Conflict is always wrong, people who believe otherwise are arseholes.
I am aware there are those who would happily condemn one side over another and talk of just wars and unjust. That is just a bullshit excuse to justify military interference to suit the mightier nations agenda.
“But if we stay on this merry go round of who to blame or who did worse, then we will simply go round and round in circles.”
It is not about who was worse Scott, that is the language of deflection and obstruction.
The road we are on is to reconciliation, the people on both of these islands will demand it.
What Sinn Fein are doing, is not only reaching out to unionism, but reaching out beyond these shores to a bigger world.
In the short term, unionism will feel empowered getting away with their sectarian remarks and put downs, appearing to be king of the hill, refusing to give an inch to nationalism, no taig need apply for the post of justice minister and so on.
But in the background, even now the pressure is growing, John ODowd was not wrong when he said Gregory was a fool that has been sent off to retire in westminster.
Eventually, scrutiny will be applied to british involvement in Ireland. We are not on a merry go round, there is clear direction and this is coming down the road I assure you. Unionism will have no choice but to face up to its past and whoever holds the reigns will be responsible to respond.
I promise you, I and many others will not tolerate an unrepentant unionism in our country.
Unionisms day is over, if it is to have any chance of surviving in a future Ireland, this will have to happen or it will disappear with the aging population into irrelevance and then insignificance.
“The British government and the provisional IRA will never tell the whole story about what happened. ”
If we have an inquest into one and not the others how is that fair?”
I don’t believe the British government would ever tell the truth about their activities, it has taken considerable pressure to be mounted before they admitted what little they have to date.
Inquests are a waste of time and money and are to subvert the truth, not reveal it.
Unless they are international and independent of british censorship, there is no point.
Any evidence that came out of inquests was accidental and slipped through the cracks such as the Kincorra incidents being discovered as part of the jimmy saville inquest in england, where boys who had been flown over for sex parties for the british elite had been overlooked and the link established back to Ireland and MI5. It was quickly pushed over to the irish historic team who would have no teeth to pursue any of the evidence though.
Do you really think that is fair. It is not made up, this shit is happening and no one gives a damn.
Every single one of those kids is now dead bar one, most took their own lives, they couldn’t live with what happened to them while britain denies it ever happened.
Don’t talk to me about what’s fair. A unionist is incapable of comprehending that word.
“You tell me Jessica how do we find out the truth without leaving some people out? I can’t work a proper way of doing it.”
Very easily. Unionism can reconcile with the rest of this island, acknowledge its role in starting the conflict, admit it was wrong and agree to work sincerely as equals with nationalist neighbours for the betterment of all of our people on this island. In return, I know republican representatives would not be shy about doing likewise, acknowledging their role in the conflict and the hurt caused to all of our people. Let the people see genuine two way reconciliation taking place.
Together we could pressure the british state to release only the evidence already found which has been locked away to protect the british states interests.
They have killed civilians on both sides.
It was Nairac who persuaded Robin Jackson to bump off Billy Hanna and assume command of the mid ulster UVF. Billy was a stickler for calling up and confirming the actions he was being instructed to carry out to protect himself legally. This didn’t sit well with what they were doing and cost him his life.
RUC officers were also murdered by this unit to protect state involvement in murder and criminality. Is this really what you want to remain covered up?
At the moment, unionism is making no effort whatsoever and it is quite insulting to have to share power with such blatant bigotry.
I will say this to you, you seem quite reasonable Scott, I do not mean to offend, but unionism is not simply a preference for being part of the UK. There are plenty of west brits throughout Ireland, the current Taoiseach being one of them.
Irish unionism is about British superiority over Irish nationals, about controlling all or part of this country in the name of the crown and putting English needs over that of the Irish people.
Is that really what you are about?
Blood on both sides, yes and the trail of blood leads to various institutions in the south of England.
“Irish unionism is about British superiority over Irish nationals, about controlling all or part of this country in the name of the crown and putting English needs over that of the Irish people.”
It’s not Jessica it’s about a majority of the people in Northern Ireland wishing to remain in the Union. A Union that they and there parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on have been part of for at least 200 years. To unionists joining a republic is less natural than remaining in the union
As for putting English needs over ours, well they do subsidies us to the tune of 10 billion a year so that comment doesn’t stack up.
“It’s not Jessica it’s about a majority of the people in Northern Ireland wishing to remain in the Union. A Union that they and there parents, grandparents, great grandparents and so on have been part of for at least 200 years.”
And you might well even genuinely believe that Scott, but it is simply untrue.
Would you say over those 200 years, there has been equality between those of British heritage and those of Irish heritage?
We had schools only eligible to protestants, unfair distribution of jobs and wealth, land and property given over to those more favourable to the current Engish rulers of the day which passed between Catholics and Protestants.
Unionism was never about the relationship with the other island, it was always about the benefits that came with it, at one point Catholics being the beneficiaries, then protestants once more.
In 1918 when a majority on this island democratically voted to leave the UK and to govern ourselves, why should the minority who benefitted more from their british connections deny that self determination?
They did so for selfish reasons, nowhere more than in Ulster where they had 100% control of all businesses and control of the wealth making Catholics second class citizens.
Ulster unionism had most to lose and was not prepared to allow democracy be enforced on them.
If they were so loyal to the UK, how do you explain the mutiny at the curragh where unionists were prepared to kill UK forces to keep the way of life they had become accustomed to?
“To unionists joining a republic is less natural than remaining in the union”
Living under british rule is less natural to nationalists so that argument is irrelevant, As soon as we have a majority that will be resolved.”
More importantly, you are talking out your hat. Most of GB believe everyone on this island is Irish and nothing to do with the UK. They have no interest in Irish brits denigrating their flag and their heritage. You are paddies along with the rest of this island and eventually you will realise this.
“As for putting English needs over ours, well they do subsidies us to the tune of 10 billion a year so that comment doesn’t stack up.”
Unionists would be prepared to let this country go down the tubes if it meant remaining in the UK
It will never be successful until Britain leave and we look after our own affairs, I don’t want to be living off hand-outs and have no national ambitions, do you?
“As for putting English needs over ours, well they do subsidies us to the tune of 10 billion a year so that comment doesn’t stack up.”
Scott, do you understand fully what that subvention is for?
During the conflict, one of the tactics employed by the IRA to remove the British army was destroy the economy and make it unfeasible for the UK to remain here.
This failed and will always fail as wealthy nations such as the UK and US would throw billions into conflict rather than be faced down. They bloated the public sector here to maintain a functional economy which allowed them to continue their war with the IRA.
The bulk of the subvention is to pay for this over employment in the public sector.
So long as the conflict continued, this money was guaranteed.
As peace beds down, this money is going to dry up.
Tell me what you think James Molyneaux meant when he said “This (the ceasefire) is the worst thing that has ever happened to us.”?
Projects such as the one at the Maze have the potential to bring in billions in tourism revenue and will happen in time and will revive our economy and help build a stronger all island economy. This is inevitable, what we need to decide between us on this island is how we want our country to look.
Unionism thinking England will keep paying out a 10 billion a year subsidy so they can maintain an artificial majority is what doesn’t stack up Scott.
No-one wants to glorify conflict, but places like Poland have built a tourist industry out of concentration camps which suffered greater atrocities than we ever did.
Unionists here believe they are more British than the British, because they are in denial that they are in fact Irish.
The sooner you all get over that hang up the better.
Guess we are never going to find common ground then Jessica.
“Guess we are never going to find common ground then Jessica”
Unionism has no interest in finding common ground Scott. Have you not noticed that yet?
I am past caring about reconciliation with unionism, I don’t believe it is important as the young people will not care about sectarian bigotry much longer so unionism isn’t really an issue for me.
But of you are genuine, perhaps you can at least answer me one thing?
What do you think James Molyneaux meant when he said “This (the ceasefire) is the worst thing that has ever happened to us.”?
“What do you think James Molyneaux meant when he said “This (the ceasefire) is the worst thing that has ever happened to us.”?
I have absolutely no idea what he meant and dont particularly care since he was only politically relevant before I was born.
“What do you think James Molyneaux meant when he said “This (the ceasefire) is the worst thing that has ever happened to us.”?
I have absolutely no idea what he meant and dont particularly care since he was only politically relevant before I was born”
Well Scott, you have professed on this site that you believe your opinion was representative of unionism today and claimed that it is not based on sectarian bigotry.
In which case I am afraid you cannot make such a claim until such time as you do have better understanding of the roots of unionism, from the turn of the century, denial of the democratic wishes of the majority on this island for home rule, the blatant discrimination and misrule in the gerrymandered state they obtained through violence and threat of civil war, the attempted pogroms and an effort to drive out nationalists from the state in their thousands due to a growing catholic population, the raising of political tensions to breaking point and attacks on a peaceful civil rights campaign leading to the start of a bloody conflict when they lost control of the state.
I know you would like to brush these things under the carpet but until unionism faces up to its past, in the eyes of many including myself it will remain wedded to the same sectarian bigotry that it has always shown over the last century.
Something that many of your current leaders do not even try to hide, never mind the mainstream unionist support for the most sectarian organisation within the British isles, the orange order that would rival the KKK.
I doubt your response will convince too many of the sincerity in your self portrayed belief that unionism is not sectarian. The truth is, it is blatantly sectarian and not only that but unionism likes it that way and wants to be allowed to remain sectarian with no one allowed to point it out.
I will tell you what mr Molyneaux meant, that so long as the conflict persisted and the British army remained on the side if unionism, the British state will back the unionist cause. But through peace, the British army would leave and it would only be a matter of time until Westminster once again tries to leave Ireland and end the unionist hegemony in this country.
Why do you think it took so long for the conflict to end when republicans decided in the 1980s to pursue peace and started discussions with the British state to end the conflict at that time?
“I have absolutely no idea what he meant and dont particularly care since he was only politically relevant before I was born.”
When you first posted on this site. you professed as an A level student studying elements of Irish history that you would read up on the facts and make your own mind up objectively
Now, in true unionist fashion however, once the facts start to reveal the true face of unionist bigotry on this island, as with all unionists, you revert to form and no longer care.
Well, I wish you well in your history endeavours Scott because I am afraid that you will find that a lot of it took place before you were born.
Jude sounds like Gregory Campbell on Bloody Sunday when he reminds us of the IRA killings that preceded it. He’s factually correct, but we know he’s doing it as an attempt to draw attention away from the subject in hand.
Rubbish, MT. I think you owe Gregory Campbell an apology…
Wrong. Gregory Campbell is on the record saying Bloody Sunday victims deserved what they got. I have never heard Jude say anyone deserves to be killed. A Derry man was charged later for saying that Gregory Campbell ‘deserved a bullet’. I can’t see the justice in that.