Earlier this morning, I was on the Nolan show on radio. The topic was the commemoration of the eight IRA men killed at Loughgall. It seems Michelle O’Neill is scheduled to be the main speaker at the event, and my dear friend Nelson McCausland was clearly upset by the news.
If I were a total idiot, I’d be surprised by the DUP man’s radio indignation. Let’s look at the way things link together here.
Michelle O’Neill is a republican. I’d be very surprised if someone hadn’t passed the word to Nelson, or that he’d gone and found out for himself, that Mrs O’Neill is a republican. So no surprise there.
The IRA killed at Loughgall were republicans. I’d suspect Nelson has known this fact for quite along time now. So no surprise there either.
Republicans tend to honour those republicans who were killed in the conflict. That’s a custom going back a long way, and one I’m sure dear Nelson has been told about. So no surprise there either.
Michelle O’Neill is going to address republicans in a commemoration ceremony to honour the IRA men killed at Loughgall. That should come as no surprise to Nelson, but it appears it does. Why is that?
Four words: it’s the election, stupid. Nelson is intent on giving the boys in the backwoods what they like best: a nice simple picture of the past. The IRA were a half- or wholly-crazed group of thugs, murderous in nature and action, who went around killing decent people, who were defended by the equally or more decent RUC, UDR and British armed forces.
With that notion of the past nicely packaged and delivered, it’s but a hop and a skip to portraying all Sinn Féin politicians as being half- or wholly-crazed thugs, who to get their breath have gone into politics for a while. If enough unionist voters can be convinced of that, they’re more likely to cast their vote for the unionist party that brooks no nonsense/takes no shit from republicans.
Now that’s the kind of party that a true-blue unionist voter would perhaps be energized enough to go down to the polling station for.
So while my dear chum Nelson didn’t mention the election, or certainly didn’t emphasise it, that’s what’s crucial to his voice hitting the airwaves this morning. Here’s what the past looks like, here’s the way these republicans carry this treachery and blood-thirstiness in their DNA, Michelle O’Neill is a thundering disgrace, and that’s why you must defend Ulster by voting for THE strong unionist party.
Four words sum it up: it’s the election, stupid.
I heard you Jude and you summed it up well… perhaps poor Nelson can only see out of one eye|.
Btw I also heard Mark Durkan say that no SDLP members will be attending the commemoration….says it all really.
It’s deeply offensive of Committee member Nelson to continuously call these Irish republicans ‘terrorists’ but alas that is his business and one just bites the lip and moves on. Unfortunately Nelson can’t bite the lip and move on unless it is on his terms.
Disappointing, but not surprising, that Michelle O’Neill is making no effort to move forward and clearly unionist outreach is dead.
I suppose that like unionism SF has their backwoodsmen too.
I would be disappointed too were leading unionists to attend commemorations for loyalist paramilitaries.
Republicans were part of the violence that you continually bring up Gio. Why would you expect them to wash their hands of it? If they did you would be crying out about Republicans trying to rewrite history. No one expects people to forget about their dead or the sacrifices they made. These IRA men must have been off to hit an easy target as they always did according to you. Criticise republicans for not acknowledging the past, criticize republicans for acknowledging the past, complain the IRA hit mostly easy targets, complain the IRA hit military targets. What do you really stand for?
Does Unionist outreach involve hiding what you are ? Are you asking people to be dishonest as the basis for moving forward ?
Gio, same old…same old , the needle is scratching a bit now…perhaps it’s time to say what you really mean !
Ah yes good old Gio playing the oul fly man yet again. Would you be disappointed it unionist politicians attended commemorations for British soldier/RUC terrorists Gio? Surely as an ‘Irish republican'(have I got that right?) and a person who objects to british rule/terror in Ireland you would be disappointed that some would care to commemorate such things?
Frankly I am more surprised that any Sinn Féin member, let alone one of their main members, are attending.
I got word of this last night and intend being present, Jim Lynagh, Padraig McKearney were absolute hero’s of mine and I knew a few of the other hero’s but, is this attendance and address simply another instance of Gerry carrying Brendan Hughes’ coffin, Brendan being, originally, from not far from the cabbage lough.
Forgive my cynicism but, then again, perhaps don’t.
Cál was a Celtic chieftain and had a Lough named after him near where the the RUC barracks was attacked. Hence Loch gCál.
Me thinks Sunday May 7th is the main commemoration for the loughgall martyrs, I.e no politicking at this one.
And him so intelligent too……or so we are led to believe.
We hear more from Nelson now than we ever did before: how very disappointing.
A caller to Nolan said he would be very surprised and disappointed if Arlene the Arrogant or Sir Knight Swann attended a commemoration for loyalist killers. How does he think we view the RUC,UDR and the British Army only as loyalist killers? Just because the November circus is sponsored by the British state does not make it any more attractive to nationalists.
That’s a point that was never addressed, fiosrach.If there are two separate narratives here to be addressed, a large number of Nationalists would view the RUC, UDR,various British Army regiments and the whole lucky-bag varities of UDA,UVF, UFF, PAF, Orange Order, Ulster Resistance,UDW, Vanguard and any others that i might have left out, as all dipping from the same pot and pretty much interchangeable in many cases in the past….much as many of them might term every nationalist as a potential “rebel”. That’s why so many unionists have been involved in militaristic organisations and still cleave to Britain’s imperial past every November.There are less militaristic ways of honouring the war -dead of the WW1 after all. Then there’s all that collusion to be dealt with. Yes, i’d say that many nationalists would see much of that unionism as a seamless gathering of a sort of tribe well-steeped in some past corruptions.It’s one thing to remember your own dead, of course, no matter their individual deeds anyway. none of us are our brothers’ keepers. You don’t necessarily have to agree with them.
Well said Harry.
Yeomen covers the most of them,Harry.
Yea Gio,unionist politicians usually talked to loyalists before the were killed and then ceremonisly dumped them. Remember William McCrea on stage with Billy Wright. I remember during the Drumcree protests David Trimble talked about “the cutting edge of the UVF.
Tony
Yes I do remember.
There is of course a difference between talking to paramilitaries in an effort to resolve confrontations and commemorating them in a way that makes clear how much one admires them.
I would not expect to see unionist leaders doing that and I am not happy to see Michelle O’Neill doing it.
I suppose it will continue for now anyway but I would like to live in a country where such violent men are forgotten not celebrated.
Sorry if that is somehow offensive to anyone here.
Tony there is no equivalence between fallen Irish Republicans and unionist terrorists. Don’t fall into the trap that the likes of Gio regularly entice folk to do. Gio is quite content to see British army terrorism commemorated sin é, enough said.
Bruno, how do you feel about the annual eulogising of those people who trampled the Irish people into the ground. Disappointed? I mean it is seventy odd years since WW2.
fiosrach
Yes I have actually said before I am not a fan of such commemorations
I am surprised no one mentioned (a) that the volunteers Could have been arrested before they reached Loughgall (b) Could have been offered the opportunity to surrender which I am sure sure at least some would have taken. (In fact I would be sure some did try to surrende)It is clear that the RUC and British intended a ‘spectacular’ and were intent on killing all the volunteers. (c) that it is rumoured that one of the Loughgall victims was a British agent whom his paymasters gladly sacrificed in their bloodlust. (d) That two non-combatants were shot, one fatally, by the RUC/BA. So who were the real terrorists? PS I repeat a question I put before: Has Nolan given Nelson a contract to make up for the loss of his MLA salary since his humiliation at the polls?
That’s it Brian. There is “the Law”…and then there is how “the Law” is carried out.If the SAS/BA did not want to represent “the Law” and simply shot people without any notion of arrest and trial then we were all supposedly paying for them so these men in uniform had to be “outlaws”…Isn’t that about the size of it.?
That right there is the hypocrisy of it all …these soldiers were being paid by the taxpayers to go out and break “the Law” they were supposed to be upholding, so why would anyone not consider them terrorists and why should they be euogised ?
paddy
Was it not your view that bad things happen in war?
Why should Martin McGuinness be eulogised despite the bad things he did but these soldiers not be?
I should add that that is not my own view (though it is one I have seen offered here frequently) and if there was any way of arresting these men rather than killing them then it ought to have been done.
It is my view , gio, that bad things do happen in wars. That is correct.
There’s a problem with the situation here ,though ,and it is complicated, but the nub of it is that these soldiers , whether we all specifically like it or not, are paid by every single one of us to uphold the law of the land. Now I’m not saying that this is an easy thing to do, but you have to remember that every single bullet, every single gun , every boot and beret are all paid for out of your and my pockets…supposedly to uphold the “law of the land”. They do not work for free.Oh we can have all manner of arguments about the foes they might face and how unfair their job might be and how it mightn’t be a level- playing field…all manner of arguments.The bottom -line is that we pay all of their wages and they all volunteer to take up the trade and pocket the money. Here we had UDR men and B-Men reserves actually double-jobbing for even more dosh. Same goes for the cops . Who do they think pays their wages? We pay these people so we can say when they step over the line. In a situation where there is a pre-meditated killing -floor that is being staked out to clip a handful of men rather than arrest them for a crime, you have to draw a line. We have done away with hanging and execution and there are good reasons for that happening ,so nobody has the right to do it.In certain cases it is well known that men have been ambushed in a crossfire …passerbys have been killed and in some cases there has been the coup- de- grace shot in the head to add the final touch of machismo to the act and make sure that a proper kill has been made. Let’s see now ….none of that is remotely legal here and can’t be, because we do not have a shoot- to -kill policy enshrined -in- law(!). if that were the case and for example there was open-season for the security forces to go on a big-game hunt without sanction , how could you ever have any kind of law?
The security forces have to be seen to be upholding the law ,otherwise there can be no law at all that anyone can respect.At the moment there’s a push on to protect soldiers and RUC men from sanctions and previous criminal activity in the past, which is frankly a crazy thing to do or even think about .If that was the case , you might as well arm everyone and just let us all live in a wild west scenario. Soldiers and policemen can’t pretend to be better than “terrorists” and then go out and do the very same things themselves.They have to arrest people somehow and they have to use the law to do it without favour….That has been their biggest problem. They want to have a good old shoot-up and they want us all to pay for the pleasure too…..I don’t think so, somehow….
paddy
Fair enough, you are applying the ‘forces of law should be held to the highest standard’ argument. I agree with that.
It was not a war in your view then since that would have meant both sides being judged by the same standards i.e. either the rules of war or (as I think you have argued recently) no rules at all.
Again I agree.
Any thoughts on my last question regarding the eulogising of McGuinness?
Just as bad as eulogising these soldiers would you say?
I’m afraid Harry that the SAS were well within their legal rights to kill the IRA men without warning as long as they were armed and were about to carry out a violent act. Which clearly they were. It is called a legal killing.
Google the British army “yellow card” for more information.
I find your argument perverse. A shoot to kill policy is only wrong since the taxpayer pays for it?? Weird one altogether.
I don’t think you can judge both sides equally when they very obviously were not equal numerically or financially….The term “war” can mean many nebulous things anyway…”the War On Drugs” for one example. it was a”war” to some , depending on how they wanted it to be perceived and that changed depending on who you talked to just as someon the British side said openly it was an unwinnable war and some unionists still think that republicans were actually beaten. I’ve often wondered were all those weapons actually really destroyed at all, for example. If they weren’t this thing could easily kick off again a generation down the line..Conflict is a better description for it.You’ve got also to understand ho bloody unfair nationalists perceived it to be . They were the ones being hammered first on the streets and when they decided to hammer back many felt they’d been forced into that position…and in their view had decided rid themselves of the core problem as they perceived it, they were branded as gangsters and “terrorists” when all along they had felt to be the ones at the sticky -wicket ,oppressed by a much heavier bully.
That’s how MMcG started off and it is how many other teenagers started too. Friends being killed and so on His supporters see him as having resisted and having fought back.His methods eventually changed …that is all. For being the man who seems to have brought the violence to a close after that treadmill was finally halted , he should be thanked. No one else wanted it to end . Many loyalists were happy enough killing random Nationalists (rebels to a man!) and seemed to glory in death.the British were unsure too. They’d gotten used to it and the unionist community had based a lifestyle on it…even a wage-packet.
paddy
Was it a war in your view?
What do you mean when you say we cannot judge each side equally?
You ask of the security forces ‘why should they be eulogised?’ yet you don’t seem to ask the same regarding McGuinness.
“Was it a war in your view?”
The IRA certainly considered it a war Gio. They wore blankets, starved themselves and spread shit up the walls in order to be considered POW’s.
Then you have people on here who take exception to armed men on the way to kill other armed men being killed. You know like what happens in war.
They can’t run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.
“Was it a war in your view?
What do you mean when you say we cannot judge each side equally?
You ask of the security forces ‘why should they be eulogised?’ yet you don’t seem to ask the same regarding McGuinness.”
Gio, you simply cannot judge the British government and compare them with what was essentially a loose conglomeration of teenagers and young men who didn’t want to be kicked around , hassled on the streets or shot at any more. .Do you believe they would have behaved like they did if they’d landed up in Lancashire or Yorkshire and behaved as they did here in Belfast, Armagh, Tyrone or Derry? No …they believed they were in a “foreign” country ….Ireland…and the local youths were simply paddies.Youths suchas MMcG who actually had the gall to face them in his own town. In the same way the local nationalists,like him , saw them as “Brits” with the weight of 800 years of stamping their feet to get what they wanted , behind them.
They only ones who would conceivably be comfortable with that were an assortment of unionists….because their own families were also embedded in similar pro- british groupings down through several generations.
MMcG simply wasn’t an ordinary man in the final anysis. He wasn’t simply like some squaddie who’d escaped a sink-estate in Leeds or somewhere else and got a meal-ticket from the Ministry. He was very different and that was proven in public as his life panned out.He did things and achieved things that the majority of people never achieved backed by status, money or an extended education. You might say he did it by strength of will .I suppose that is what will make him remembered when many are long gone.
paddy
I am just trying to get it clear.
It seems to me you are saying the state forces should be held to the very highest standard but the paramilitaries could be as brutal as they liked and still receive eulogies at the end.
If it was a war then there can be no complaints as you said yourself the idea of rules in a war is ludicrous.
So in your view was it a war or not?
As for McGuinness well he may not have been an ordinary man as you say.
He certainly did not lead an ordinary life.
That should not exempt him from the rules of society and it should not prevent us looking at his life truthfully including the bad stuff, something very few here seem willing to do.
No gio .It was not an ordinary war. It never can be now that we know just how complicated it was in the shadows.Westminster rules this place while half of the population (and steadily growing ) does not really want them to. What we had here was really a response to street -protest that got out of hand.Westminster plugged the plug on the local corrupt government and then the British brought their very latest paraphanalia of war on to the very streets and filled the sky with helicoptors. On a daily basis you could stumble over boys from Coventry hiding in the hedgerows , patrolling the lanes and streets , armed to the teeth and stopping the locals lads for questioning.
When I said that the idea of “rules in a war was ludicrous,” I meant in general terms that the very idea that war itself was some kind of chess-match which could be played in a gentlemanly way was an illusion .
As for MMcG, I’m as curious about the man as anyone and i’m sure he’s not a saint by any means but neither is anyone else. I think inthe end , he did more to attempt to stabilisesociety here in the last twenty years.There are plenty have been eulogised who were far from saints. They all have their supporters and their fan clubs.I can think of someone like Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher who were quite clearly responsible for many deaths in their lifetimes. Hands up any past President of the USA and let’s see your copy-book from as far back as the Indian Wars to the present.If you want to go back as far as the kings and queens of England , where would you put the likes of Henry V111 and his many murderous acts? What we have here is the result of many many years of conflict. It might not be a war but we can surely come up with another name for it.
“The IRA certainly considered it a war Gio. They wore blankets, starved themselves and spread shit up the walls in order to be considered POW’s.
Then you have people on here who take exception to armed men on the way to kill other armed men being killed. You know like what happens in war.
They can’t run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.”
Now and again Scott ‘I just want us all to get along and sure we should all vote alliance’ Rutherford lets his mask slip. I sincerely hope people reading this blog regularly will take note from Scott’s tone and understand what he really means.
Btw Scott British terrorist soldiers have no right and never will have a right to come to Ireland and murder,execute or whatever Irish people whether they are armed or not. The sooner you understand that then we can all move on together.
Scott, many have argued that there was no “shoot to kill policy” here and yet you appear to be saying that there was .All you had to do was produce a yellow card as if it was a football match and then it was all okay. I was under the impression that the SAS knew that this action was going to happen well in advance and prepared themselves with everything they needed to kill all those involved. They ramped up their fire-power in readiness. That looks like a well pre-meditated action to me . What if, on a personal level, you planned to murder someone whom you thought might also be in possession of a gun , whom you thought was bad un and responsible for some previous criminal behaviour…and you went ahead…
I was fortunate to be abroad when this happened so could not be caught up in it and, I’d agree, the brit’s did want their spectacular, although later many came to the conclusion the removal of certain hawks from within that part of Ireland was a price certain Republicans thought worth paying.
Bruno, out of curiosity, how do you rate the parties in the north? Do they all appear to you as relics of a world that should have been consigned to the dustbin of history or do you see any future for any of them. If you had the power to set up a party, what would be your basic rules? Would you weasel out of the ‘constitutional question’ like the Greens and the Alliance or would you have a revolutionary outlook on the future of this island? What do you get out of arguing with posters on here? You are hardly going to change any minds? Just curious but glad you take the time.
fiosrach
I do wonder why I bother arguing sometimes as you are right in saying I am not going to change any minds.
For that matter neither will Jude, who is largely preaching to the choir.
I suppose if I read something I disagree with strongly enough then I feel I have to speak up, as, I daresay, do you.
You are right in that I have a low opinion of the parties here in general and none really fits for me.
I like the Greens and sometimes vote for them but they cannot be much more than a lobby group really.
I like a lot of what SF says regarding social policy and so on,but as you know I have a problem with how they are so connected to the recent violence and how they seem unwilling to move beyond it entirely as we see from Michelle’s actions and the everlasting presence of Adams and others from that time.
The same goes for unionism in that they badly need a clearing out, although even a new unionist party would not attract my vote as I am not in favour of the Union nor am I a monarchist.
I have no interest in boring people about my own views but as you asked so nicely I tried to answer.
Much obliged. Basically you are a lost soul looking for a political home. just to reflect on Harry’s tax business. I get a tax return and am informed by HMRC where all my money goes. So many pence out of every pound goes to health, so much to education etc. But some also goes to defence. Now I don’t want to contribute to the UK defence but if I withhold this part, I will be harassed, fined and eventually imprisoned and my chattels sequestered. I really resent paying armed thugs to interfere in my private space, representing a foreign state, in my country. What can I do?
fiosrach
I suggest you withdraw from society entirely giving up not just the bits you resent but all the stuff from which you benefit, until some perfect government emerges.
Or you could make the best of an imperfect world like the rest of us.
Read Thoreau’s book on Walden. Society will not let you withdraw.
fiosrach
Go on. Please try!
Scott appears to believe the RUC/BA had an absolute legal and right to kill those at Loughgall (including perhaps their own agent)without issuing a warning or giving any of them a chance to surrender. I am no legalist nor indeed a moralist but I can only state that the European Court pf Human Rights did not agree on the legalities. From a moral point of view I think most people would subscribe to the view that killing people should be the last resort of law-enforcers, not the first. And most people would agree that killing people who have surrendered (as the IRE often did) is murder. And how do you stand on the shooting of the two non-combatants, killing one of them.
I think everyone agrees that the killing of someone who has surrendered is murder Brian. Well even if you consider the army/RUC’s role in the conflict law enforcement (which the IRA didn’t BTW, war is the way they saw it) the police even to this day isn’t obligated to issue a warning before using deadly force, as long as they have a reasonable suspicion that the individuals in question are armed and are about to use those arms.
Taking it out of the NI context if the police feel they are certain someone is a suicide bomber they are legally allowed to kill the person without warning. You can see why I suppose as it only takes a fraction of a second to flip a switch. This happened most prominently after the London bombings with a innocent Brazilian man being killed tragically.
On the two innocents killed at Loughgall it was at best manslaughter and at worst murder unless of course the SAS had reasonable reasons to believe they were armed. It would take a court case and an examination of evidence to determine that one.
It’s a split second decision so it’s not a choice I envy that the police/army make. However legally once you start carrying weapons you forfeit your right to a warning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBgRICZwVrM
Scott, it might be beneficial to watch this, it may provide explanation, you must realise what was going on, this shows on ly a small detail. In the alternative, ask Colin Duffy.
Even if you are the legitimate army of the country and receive your authority from the second Dáil? If you shoot somebody of course you are going to clear yourself like the ‘bomber’ shot in Béal Feirste 46 years ago murdered by the corner boys of the English cities. Lying through their teeth for 46 years.
Scott,There was no questions of a split second decision. The BA/RUC new in advance of the operation They had more than 4 times the personnel of the IRA and probably 10 times the firepower. They could have had as much as they needed to stop this operation without loss of life.You say it would take a court case to determine whether the killing of the civilians was murder or manslaughter. Yet you are quite prepared to pontificate on the legality of the other killings.Had they intented to kill 3 or 4 of the combatants you could have understood it. But no , they fully intended to kill every volunteer, a mass revenge execution ‘pour encourager les autres”. Without regard to political repercussions.The European Court recognised this.
Brian
They lost their right to a warning or attempt be arrested when they carried weapons. They were an immediate threat to life including the SAS’s.
Its not pontificating it’s just a opinion.
Also Brian do you think that if their operation had went to plan the East Tyrone IRA were planning to offer the RUC men in Loughgall the chance to surrender?
To the best of my knowledge, Loughall barracks was supposed to be unmanned at night, a wee place with very little trouble in it, the barracks, like the one in the Moy, is now shut
In light of this, there was no need for a barracks since there were insufficient nationalists in the locale to harass.
Brian
As I recall the ECHR found that the mens human rights had been violated because no proper investigation into their deaths was carried out. It made no finding on the legality of the killings.
So were they soldiers killed in battle or they were victims of extra-judicial killing ?
Scott as I pointed out before the IRA often executed prisoners who had been captured or surrendered. That was wrong, brutal barbaric.Ithe is no part of my argument to support the Provos campaign. But we are not comparing like with like. As Paddy Kool has pointed out we do not and did pay our taxes to the IRA to protect us and to uphold the law.And as I also pointed out the . I would have no doubt that some at least of the IRA would have attempted to surrender and that the BA/RUC had no intention of accepting any surrender but we’re determinal to execute each and every volunteer. That is not law, it is not even war, it is criminal. Reduced to its essentials your argument is that the ‘security forces’ are above the law. I disagree. I regret my use of the word pontificate. (something I often do myself!)
And the crutch of my argument Brian was that they weren’t above the law but in fact acting within it.
Scott,
The IRA did not complain about their members being tracked and then executed at Loughgall.
It was other Nationalists and Catholics who objected as they were the target of the Thatcher Governments propaganda campaign to portray the British as the upholders of law and order and the IRA as executioners.
It was actually a clear case of the British attempting to ‘run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds’.
The hypocrisy and double standard was clear to all but the stoopiest of the stoops. Possibly even Eddie McGrady.
Is it not the case that various enquiries have shown beyond doubt that the RUC and fellow travellers worked alongside unionist murderers when they executed tens, if not hundreds of Catholics/Nationalists ( not IRA members ).Gangs of unionist paramilitaries were armed and assisted with vital intelligence to kill their fellow Irishmen. We hear of no controversy when said RUC are commemorated by their advocates.
The Glennane gang gets them into the hundreds on their own and most of them were serving full-time or part-time members of the RUC and UDR.
The civilians were moved out of the vicinity of the barracks on the day before and over 200 heavily armed killers were dug in round the barracks. The OK had been given for a complete wipeout. Even though I contributed money towards, I was not consulted. When the killers moved out, the ulsterised forces moved in to secure the scene. The foreign killers then went somewhere else in the Empire to murder again. Are we still waiting on an inquest?
Crux Scott not crutch.
Apologies Angela block in Prague on a stag do. The spelling let me down lol
Crutch is better,Angela
Pre-determining that you are going to kill people regardless delivering coups de grace to wounded and shooting non combatants is a peculiar type of legal constraint Scott. Afraid we will have to differ on this one.
I’m afraid we will have to differ on this one Brian, but thank you for the conversation and the tone you have struck in your replies.
You were genuine and respectful and this blog could do with more of gentlemen like yourself.
Ps Brian I also have enormous respect for the fact you have the guts to put your own name to the words you write. Frankly they carry more weight than anything written by any one hiding behind the mask of a pseudonym.
Likewise Scott, thankle you for your civilised discourse. No doubt we will cross swords again
(metaphorically of course!☺)
Contributors should be aware that political blogs are monitored by the Intelligence services and those offering opinions un-supportive of the State regarding it’s past wars in Ireland will likely have an accumulated file, in preparation for any future conflict, particularly if they make it easy for the spooks by using their real name.
Unionists and ‘Castle Catholics’ however, need have no such concerns.
Paul
Pull yourself together man.
Gio,
Are you denying that is the case or are you trying to cover for it’s practice ?
Jude is quite correct, Nelson ‘s merely keeping his party members and those who vote for them fed on raw meat. Expect Gregory and co. to follow suit between now and the election.