I’m fresh (??) off the Nolan Show on BBC Radio Ulster/Raidio Uladh. I’d say I was on for twenty minutes roughly; but it’s amazing what you can learn in a short time. I learned five things.
1. Quite a few politicians and commentators who express compassion for the lonely death of Jean McConville are shedding crocodile tears. I say this because when I raised the killing of Joan Connolly a year earlier – a British paratrooper blew half of her face away – it was ignored. How could anyone feeling genuine sympathy for Jean McConville not have sympathy for Joan Connolly too? Jean McConville left ten motherless children behind her, Joan Connolly left eight. Why have we not heard more about the death of Joan Connolly and her children, especially since she was killed by a man whose salary we paid?
2. Listening to my verbal opponent Ruth Dudley Edwards, it became clearer than ever that she didn’t have Jean McConville and her family in mind. She had in mind the use of Jean McConville and her family as a political weapon for use against the hated Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin.
3. People here are obsessed with language. Was the Troubles a period of war or a period of conflict? Was the death of Jean McConville murder or can we call it something else? This obsession with semantics has nothing to do with compassion for victims or even interest in language and everything to do with ‘It-was-all-youse-uns-fault’.
4. People pretend not to hear what is inconvenient. When I said that republicans were politically motivated in the violence they carried out and that ten men had died on hunger strike in support of that notion, it was as if I’d said “I’d like a cup of tea”. In fact if I had said “I’d like a cup of tea” it almost certainly would have received more attention.
5. I used to believe that what-aboutery was a diversionary tactic; now I’m less sure. In Ruth Dudley Edwards’s eyes, to raise the death of Joan Connolly as a parallel to the death of Jean McConville was to engage, she said, in what-aboutery. My view was that raising of Joan Connolly’s death and its instant dismissal by those on the programme showed how selective is the moral wrath that cries “Horror!” in the face of a mother’s death but cannot bear for that death to be set in a wider context.
If I wasn’t so dense I’d have learnt these lessons long ago. In conservative/establishment politics, lies are truth and distortion is a straight line. If you doubt that, think of the emerging Kincora-Westminster sexual abuse scandal and the line/lies we’ve been fed about it for years.
Jude, the semantics in language on this topic (and some others) come primarily from you.
You’ll search for any word except ‘war-crime’ or ‘murder’ to describe this case. Most other people don’t have an axe to grind, they just accept that it was murder. That doesn’t need to be counterbalanced against/hinged upon the murder of Ms Connolly or anyone else – it’s just so obviously a murder. Being unable to describe it as such reveals that it is you who has the hang-up. What hunger strikers have to do with this isn’t immediately obvious.
The discussion was not about the wider context. Much like discussions about Bloody Sunday and other atrocities (or crimes), the ‘wider context’ does not have to be set out for one to call something for what it was. I’m no fan of Ruth’s politics, but at least she could stand over her point – even if it was for her own ends. You either answered different questions or produced a new tangent in order to semantically avoid the term ‘murder’ or ‘war-crime’ in a ‘North of Ireland’ sort of way. That must be tiresome after a certain point.
Thank you for your thoughts, Michael. Let me deal with them in order.
1. You’ll search for any word except ‘war-crime’ or ‘murder’ to describe this case. That’s true, although if you’d been listening, I said that I’d agree to call it murder, but how would that advantage the McConvilles or their dead mother. A war crime can only come from a war and as I said when pressed, I’d probably call it a conflict rather than a war – certainly not an all-out war. So we have the situation where people who deny (and rightly, I think) that this was a war calling the killing of Mrs McConville a war-crime. A bit illogical.
2. Axes and their grinding. Everyone has a view on these matters: dismissing that view on the grounds that they’re axe-grinding is absurd. Although the motivation is obvious: my point of view is balanced and thoughtful, yours is axe-grinding and so worthless. Right.
3. Mrs McConville’s killing was a murder. I can see why people like yourself call it a murder, and in the end the poor woman’s fate was the same. But it was a politically-motivated killing – i.e., it related to the conflict here – and it’s not usual to refer to those who die in conflict as having been murdered.That would make Harry Truman the murderer of 250,000 Japanese people. Although as I say whatever you call it the end result is the same -so why are we obsessed with the label the death gets? Surely not for political reasons?
4. If you don’t know what hunger-strikers have to do with it, you haven’t been paying attention. Thatcher was – like you – insistent that these men were criminals. They rejected the tag, seeing their actions as being qualitatively different and politically motivated. Ten of them died on hunger-strike, so convinced were they of the importance of the difference between the two.
5. “The discussion was not about the wider context” – yes I know that. It should have been. It always should be. Otherwise you’re liable to distort the picture.
6. Ruth’s sole aim – as with most of her Sindo columns – was to do her utmost to damage Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin. This, despite the fact that Adams was arrested and questioned for four days and then set free for lack of evidence (in the mouth of an election). What ever became of the British notion that one is innocent until proven guilty?
7.Tired? Yes, Michael, I do get tired. Particularly of your emails which, by the way, I automatically delete so you could maybe save yourself energy in future. I’m happy to have you come on here and state your views, providing that they’re non-defamatory. I can’t promise I’ll respond in this detail to them all, though. Others may.
PS If you’d like to do a guest blog where you can develop your thinking, Michael, I’ll be happy to provide a platform, providing it’s (i) literate; and (ii) non-defamatory. Interested?
What a tiresome reply. ‘I am happy for you to describe it as a murder’ is not the same as answering ‘yes, it was a murder’ to the question, ‘Was Jean McConville murdered?’.
If it’s a murder, it’s a murder. Don’t slight others for something that you are doing yourself, which is performing some anally retentive dance on a linguistic pin-head to avoid saying ‘Jean McConville’s death was a murder’. (…and yes, I noticed how you sort-of nearly said it above. Clever, but not that clever.)
Yes, those Japanese people were murdered, Joan Connolly was murdered, any innocent civilian killed intentionally killed whether in war or peace was murdered. Do you get it? Why does one murder have to be compared to a range of others, other than to divert the focus of the conversation from the topic itself?
As for ‘crime’, well – murder is a crime. ‘War-crime’? It would certainly test that definition in court, I’d like to see a legal opinion on that. In either case, would the result not be that the killing of Jean McConville was either a ‘murder’ (criminal) or ‘murder’ (war-crime)? Unless war only produces ‘horrors’, ‘terrible situations’, or ‘despicable acts’ to draw on a few of your ‘adjectives of avoidance’ which I’m sure you can also read in the transcripts at Nuremburg.
Wider context – I am sure I have heard the same whinge made about ‘the wider context’ in reference to more recent killings in Ferguson, Missouri and across the South USA. No need for ‘wider context’ when the subject is an innocent civilian killed by an armed organisation – whether paramilitary or state. You were invited on Nolan presumably to discuss one case, not a wider conflict or other cases. But then for every David Vance we need a Judge Judy to balance the sectarianism out. That, fundamentally, is your role on such shows after all.
RDE can defend herself, as can Sinn Fein – who said anything about Sinn Fein anyway? Are we not just talking about whether something was a murder?
On your offer, and since you seem to think my literacy is in some doubt, I think I’ll decline. A counter-offer: could you just stop writing? It would give you time to develop your thinking, you know, and possibly to read one of my emails. And possibly discover the meaning of ‘defamatory’ so that you can deploy that word correctly next time.
Michael – I read your piece above to half-way and then I’m afraid I found the cat’s boil required greasing. Your conviction that all civilian deaths in war are murder would put Churchill, Blair, Bush, Obama,…do you know, just about every political leader in the Western world in the murderer class….Oops. I’ve just skipped to the end of your rather long linguistic musing – and I note you haven’t taken up my offer of a place to really lay out your political stall. Oh dear. What a pity.
Are you being intentionally thick? I didn’t say that all civilian deaths resulting from conflict were murders. I said all innocent civilians intentionally killed whether in war or peace were murder victims.
If you must go for the downright sneery approach, at least address the words on the page instead of making them up.
And yeah, a lot of those people did commit war-crimes, or things which, were the Nuremburg Principles applied, be described as such. Were you not on talking about Churchill as a war criminal over Dresden some time ago?
Be consistent in your snootishness, and if you’re only going to half-read something perhaps don’t bother commenting on it.
Michael – if you continue to be abusive I’ll simply stop putting up your postings. Keep that in mind.
If all innocent civilians intentionally killed are murder victims, then as I think I said Churchill, Roosevelt, Nixon, Obama and lots of others were guilty of murder. Which I would have thought qualified as a war crime – no? So why are you focusing on labelling GA a war-criminal when the British and the unionists deny that there was a war? Come to that, I’m not sure our conflict was a war.
If you choose to send further postings, I’ll thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head.
Look at the meandering, intentionally conflating paragraph you have just written. If that isn’t an attempt to mystify and confuse what is a rather simple issue, I don’t know what is.
Go on, Jude. Put us out of our misery. Just say it. Jean McConville was murdered. Is it that hard, or do you really need to draw upon a catalogue of other crimes and weave another sentence of ‘terrible, despicable, horrific’ events to be compared to all manner of genocide, mass-murder, atomic bombings just to avoid the word?
And what has Gerry Adams to do with any of this, or the Brits, or the Unionists…?
A civilian was intentionally abducted, killed and disappeared by a paramilitary organisation. No wider context or comparison necessary. What’s wrong with you that you can’t bring yourself to describe that as a murder?
I’ll resist the temptation to open with a similar comment on your prose. You clearly weren’t listening to the broadcast: I said OK, I’ll call it murder – does that make a difference? Does that bring Jean McConville back or help her family? The obsession with getting people to use particular words – sounds very like the ‘Say it’s permanent’ mantra we had when the IRA called their truce. I’d put it to you that you care less about Jean McConville and more about bashing the Shinners. You call Jean McConville a ‘civilian’. I’ve read reports that insist that she was passing information to the authorities. Could that be the case? And if it were, would she still be a civilian? I still see her death as ghastly, but clearly you’re in love with the word murder. So here – it was murder. Feel better now? Promise to stop wasting my time? Good.
Michael
Very well put. Jude is clearly indulging in whataboutery and of course when anyone does so they invariably refer to it as context. But as you say,it is not necessary to bring in Joan Connolly, Bloody Sunday, Hiroshima and whatever other atrocity one can think of every time Jean McConville is mentioned.
There is an election coming up and Gerry Adams could be in government after that election. Of course the public and the media are entitled to know about his history.
Whether our conflict was a war or not is a matter of opinion,but it was certainly not a just war on the part of the PIRA as they time and again displayed a complete lack of morality in their futile campaign.
Perhaps they might have exiled Jean McConville as they seemed so willing to do for sex offenders. Just a thought.
Ah gio – I’m beginning to know you’re reaction before you give it. I gave context for the good reason that that was what GA was being criticised for – pointing out that this kind of thing happens in all wars. You feel that’s not a logical thing to do, apparently. Yes, there is an election coming up and yes, Ruth and the other Sindo columnists will be throwing everything including the kitchen sink and the cat at GA. It doesn’t seem to have struck them that he was arrested, questioned on the topic by the police for four days uninterrupted, and then released because no case was found against him. As I’ve mentioned before, doesn’t British justice find its base in innocent-until-proven-guilty? But sure there’s no need of that if we can get GA, eh?
Jude
Indeed I know your reactions too. I guess we are all a bit predictable.
It is true that Gerry was arrested and released, true that he says he was never in the RA, true that he says he had nothing to do with the brutal death of Jean McConville.
And yet many people just don’t believe him.
In other words he has no credibility.
Gio – you were doing well until that last statement. Odd, if it’s true, that he leads the biggest political party in Ireland.
Jude
I would hazard a guess that even those who vote for him do not believe him.
He says he was not on the IRA. If I ask you do you believe him, the best you can do is reply,”I don’t know”.
No credibility.
So you know he was in the IRA? What are your sources?
Is it the case that many people do not believe Adams’ when he says he had no involvement in Jean McConville’s murder, or is it the case that they do not WANT to believe that Adams’ had no involvement in that murder???
Put another way
Many journalists, politicians, and others have a vested in interest in damaging Sinn Fein and so they latch onto the idea that Adams’ ordered the murder of McConville and go over the same story again and again and again, despite the fact that there is no evidence of Adams being involved.
Also many people hate Adams and so this clouds their judgement to such an extent that they will believe any accusation against him no matter how little the evidence?
Jude
There is plenty of evidence as you know.
But your reluctance to say you believe him, rather proves my point.
Really, gio? Name some – and source, of course…The PSNI will surely be interested. And countless columnists north and south…
Gio, it’s not merely a case of people not believing Gerry about whether he was a member or not, they simply don’t care. That is the only fact in this instance – one you are going to have to get used to.
Jude
He says he was not a member, do you believe him?
Antonio and Ceannaire,
I accept that many who vote for him do not care either way.
My point is about his credibilty.
So when he says he was never in the IRA do either of you believe him?
Let me be very Irish and answer your question with another one: have you ever told a lie, gio?
No
Antonio
Thanks for a straight answer.
Take note Jude.
do you accept that there is no evidence that Adams’ was involved in mcConville’s murder?
do you accept that many ‘journalists’ don’t care at all about the victims of the Troubles, including McConville family, and pursue this over and over and over again because they hate Sinn Fein ?
Antonio
As you answered my question, I will try and answer yours.
Regarding Jean McConville I would say there is not enough evidence for any kind of conviction.
However, if we are dubious about Adams claims about not being in the Belfast IRA at the time then it follows that we can be dubious about his lack of knowledge about her death. Perhaps we will never know, as he may never tell us.
On your question about journalists I am sure there are many who care only about the story. Whether they hate SF especially I don’t know. I did ask Jude to come with some hard data on his oft repeated claim about the media, but he is too busy single-handedly combatting the anti Sinn Fein propaganda.
There may well be studies on the incidence of negative stories in the media for each party, and I’m quite prepared to believe SF may well come out worst in those. I don’t know.
well gio – I think it was neill I made a generous offer to – come up with say two positive stories from media north and south, excluding Andytown News, An Phoblacht and the VO. I think we all know that the media in Ireland do not like the Shinners one bit. That’s their entitlement, but we shouldn’t kid ourselves that they’re evenly disposed towards them.
but Giordanobruno
it is not a mere case of there not being enough evidence to convict. The facts are there is no evidence at all for a conviction. None. zero. zilch. There is not even enough for a charge in relation the murder as proven by the fact that police questioned Adams for four days and concluded there were no grounds for a charge.
However due to a relentless onslaught of media stories about a possible Adams’ involvement in McConvilles’s murder we have clever and reasonable people like yourself saying things like
” Regarding Jean McConville I would say there is not enough evidence for any kind of conviction.”
thereby implying that there is a little bit of evidence when in fact there is none.
Jude
That’s three times you refused to say you believe him! Is that a cock crow I hear?
Not sure what you’re on about, gio, but I do know I’m not St Peter and you definitely aren’t Jesus…
Very tired, wearisome old dirge Micheal. The compare and contrast incisiveness of exploring why one conflict related death is being so explored forensically, while so many other blatant examples of State sponsored death reaped liberally among the Nationalist people in the north of Ireland ate being ignored, is a valid and cogent point.
I would go further than Jude in the “Whataboutery” red herring. Comparing and Contrasting the myopic focus on one conflict related death with such unwearied withering industry by a partisan Media, exposes exactly a pyramid of discrimination with regards to the bereaved from all the disparate quarters, and directly exposes a galling Agenda behind the scenes to sabotage Adams and SFs rise north and south of the DMZ.
Failure to see, or acknowledge this elephant in the room, is either “double think” self deception, or disingenuousness. Of course Micheal, you could always continue in your indoctrinated ignorance to engage this partisan throng of selective revulsion. To my shame I had not even heard of Joan Connolly RIP.
When the inexorably withering crusade from the media reaches ever increasing crescendos, and we are told to,-
“Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain”,
Most people of thought smell a large rodent.
If you fail to, or refuse to acknowledge this mass manipulation, perhaps you could go back with Thatcher’s broomstick and ask the Wizard for what the Scarecrow lacked, or ‘thought’ he did.
War and Peace
One thing is clear, the imperial masters are worried. What we frequently refer to as the Crusades were in fact military campaigns into the Middle East starting with the sanction of Urban II in 1095 and military action remains an option for some Vatican representatives in 2015. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives have been squandered in the Middle East over the control, production and supply of oil. Famine, refugee camps and the abuse of children remain facts of life in 2015. Massacres have been condoned in India, Africa and Ireland yet name Mr Adams, Ms Sturgeon or Mr Tsipras and shock waves reverberate in the corridors of power.
A crime was not a crime was not a crime when the British government partitioned Ireland against the democratic wishes of the majority of Irish citizens. A crime was not a crime was not a crime when innocent Catholics were being murdered in Belfast in the 1960’s. A crime was not a crime was not a crime when children and adults were being maimed and killed by rubber and plastic bullets in the north of Ireland. A crime was not a crime was not a crime when the so called military reaction force slaughtered innocent people in the north of Ireland. A crime was not a crime was not a crime when a member of the military reaction force stated publicly he would engage in similar activities again without reservation.
Billions of dollars remain available for armaments and mercenaries in the Middle East while Tory wannabe politicians are being parachuted into the north of Ireland in order to bolster the union. Their deposits will be lost, however, that will not bother individuals who earn more than the minimum wage and do not have to worry about zero hours contracts.
Well put lolar. Definitions of what may be a crime, suit what those who control the Agendas on a Macro scale, wish to promote.
I think the people who ignore the likes of Mrs Connolly are well aware of their hypocrisy, they don`t care because they know they will get a free ride from a compliant media. I have never heard any political correspondent mention the fate of Mrs Connolly, the sad fact is she was a taig, who lived in a `dodgy` area, she was expendable. Now, had she been killed by the IRA, well then her face would have been plastered all over the local news. Hypocrisy doesn`t even begin to cover it.
Referring to point 3 and the obsession with language. In chapter 7 (The Butcher’s Apron) of my book, ‘Understanding Shadows’ I mentioned that this was a ‘problem’ for the three senior British officers responsible for the internal MoD analysis of the ‘Troubles’ deployment in the North of Irland. The authors appear to be linguistically challenged when it comes to defining what exactly the military was involved in. Operation ‘Banner’ is described as a “peace mission,” but there is also reference to the conflict as a “working class war” between republicans and loyalists, and to an “insurgency campaign” waged by republicans, while tactical military decisions which produced results as described as “war winners” and high-level, all-services discussions as “war gaming” – hardly the language of a peace mission.
That is very interesting, Michael. So you’re saying the British army referred to the conflict as a war? I’m suffering at the moment from l’esprit d’escaliers – the thing you remember you should have said when you’re half way down the stairs. If Jean McConville’s death was a war-crime, what was Joan Connolly’s death? At least we weren’t paying the RA’s wages…
Thanks Jude, very well put indeed. I think all of us need to keep raising Jean Connollys death over and over!
Thank you, Mick. Actually Joan Connolly…
GRMA for this column.
Grma for your grma, paul.
The first casualty of war is the truth. If it was war, then perhaps that war should have carried on until the objective of a complete British withdrawal was achieved. It is a legitimate question – why after all the mayhem, death and suffering is it now jaw jaw? All these little debates are but a distraction. The most important discussion is the one that involves the British Government. In the interim: let’s please show some respect for the dead and their families.
I agree at least partially with you. The more I think about it, the more I see it as a conflict and not a war – certainly not an all-out war, otherwise the British would have bombed West Belfast, Newry, maybe Dundalk and Dublin. But it was a pretty vicious conflict none the less – on all sides. There is an argument – which I’m reasonably convinced makes sense – that unionism would never have moved to powersharing if it hadn’t been preceded by violence. That sounds a terrible thing to say but if you think about it, that’s how change occurs in most countries – through killing (cf Easter 1916). Ireland today looks a lot nearer to unity than it did fifty years ago.
“that unionism would never have moved to powersharing if it hadn’t been preceded by violence. ”
Yes Jude I agree with you, but compelled dragged screaming to the table. They have never been willing participants, feel probably quite correctly that it was forced upon them. What they cannot seem to see or accept is the rottenness of Unionist rule that was cause of the ‘conflict’.
Excellent piece Jude and very well put.
The murder of Mrs Connoly has no political traction in it for the likes of Dudley Edwards and her Unionist friends which her hypocrisy all the more disgusting.
Well ..yes Jude ..Just before I went outside to to paint a couple of benches, I listened to you banging on those closed mental doors. It is so transparent how Mrs McConville’s death was being used as a propaganda tactic.. There was an obsession too , with the idea that somehow if the body disappeared , it was “even more dead” than if it was found lying in the street with pieces of bloodied flesh and bone scattered about. Let’s be clear about all of it .There were many innocent people killed who had no real connection with the conflict……children and the like or just people with no axe to grind either way.
{Yes…we’ll have to find another word for “civic wars” that everyone can agree on. Most of us living through it knew that it wasn’t quite “normality”compared with life elsewhere…what with the barricades , road searches, shop searches, security cameras everywhere we went . There was the use of CS gas too .Wasn’t that a wartime treat for us all?…..but I’m sure that even during the blitz of wartime London, there was a lot of “normal life” too}……Life goes on in wars and conflicts , too.
There were others who saw it completely as a continuing “war” that had been fought out for generations in one way or another…stretching back through family histories ….republican/ british/ loyalist…or whatever….Many unionists thought they were in a war situation as did many republicans.
Whatever we’ll call it ., many families lost loved ones , sometimes accidentally , sometimes deliberately and sometimes in psychopathic/ religious / political blood -frenzies or simply thuggery . All the deaths were important to their kith and kin on either side or neither, so it ‘s apparent that to pick just one as a lone example of the worst is to insult all the others who mourn just as hard . It’s very obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that this poor woman ‘s death is being used as whip to take stripes out of Gerry Adams and somehow rewind the clock back to pre-Agreement mindset and time when things seemed so much simpler..
I think that’s a pretty good sum-up Paddy. Nail. Hit. Head.
While you were engaged in the wireless debate this morning, Esteemed Blogmeister, with the Queen of the Whataboutery Waltz, RDE the same dance steps were been trotted out on -of all programmes ! – RTE’s Morning Ireland.
Hard to believe, one knows, but this can be a funny (peculiar) olde worlde betimes. One imagines that during your time as an undergraduate in UCD when RDE was somewhat out of the question, you never in your wildest nightmares guessed that you would be, one day, sharing questions, answers, pauses, looks, raised eyebrows sharp intakes of breath -the body language of lovers of a good barney -with her on the wireless well into the following century.
Not to mention that most trendy of t-words: tropes.
The Sherwood Foresters were the About-turn Regiment at the heart of the Whataboutery Waltz on Morning Ireland. Seems like these ordinary Robin Longstrides, Littlejohns (not to be confused with a later re-incarnation), Will Scarlets and Alan-a-Dales were on their merry way to Mons but had to do a rather sharp about turn and instead of Mons got Mount Street for their not inconsiderable troubles. Little did they know they were headed for a confrontation with the Hoods. And – worse ! – the topic for discush in next year’s TUT-sponsored Merrymen Summer School.
To the mile a minute stains of the William Kiss and Tell Overture in the background (admitedly difficult to do the Whataboutery Waltz to) the suggestion that their selfless sacrifices ought to merit a commemorative plaque was heard with a referential hush by the junior axe man on duty. No Woodman on hand this time to whack all around him, left, r. and centre.
But then, this was the sacred forest of Sherwood around the perimeter of which a preservation of its memory order has been erected by the relevant reverential Department in Dublin.
While there is no certainty that Maid Marian Finucane will take up their cause in her programmes , nonetheless one would not entirely rule it out. Possibly with her regular guest, Friar Took, to tease out the immorality of their deaths. Said Friar being so called because ever since he took the vow of silence (or was rather compelled to take same) hasn’t been off the airwaves since.
it is said that the Goddess of Public Funded Broadcasting loves a Triar of a Friar. Or, ‘and so on and so forth’ as she wittily puts it herself.
And of course the King of the Whataboutery Wattz on RTE has been tripping the light fantastic in his own distinctive heavyset way. And on a daily basis too in that sort of ‘Je Suis Cathal !’ way of his.
Although the turn-about is usually in the opposite direction, Broadcaster turned Historian Joe Duffy (for it is he !) is currently compiling a list of the children whose lives were cruelly cut short during the rebellion against the lawful authority of the land of Easter 1916. Joe is talking to whomsoever will talk to Joe on this matter.
This is being done with the purest and the most disinterested motives, in the search for historical truth.
Those slow-learning begrudgers and other kankarawns who will always be with us, alas agus mo lean, snidely suggest that this historical project is being carried out as part of the AVOCA Project; Perkie, – need it be pointed out? – is not numbered amongst them.
AVOCA of course, is the acronym for A Victim of Child Abuse and the project named thus is relentlessly engaged in welding the concept in the public mind exclusively with Republicans. Now, of course, that the Romanists have served their purpose.
Under the direction of the Dworkin Class the project participants gather every week for their Meeting of the Daughters whine-in at the foot of the statue of Uncle Tom Moore in College Green.
Not the most arresting of statue candy by Christopher Moore (no relation, after that of John Hogan had been rejected) it was described by none other than William Carleton in the following terms:
-‘Well, I need not tell the public that the clique rejected this beautiful emanation of genius,and, and that in its place was substituted,in the vile spirit of one of the vilest jobs that ever disgraced the country, such a stupid abomination as has made the whole kingdom blush with indignation and shame. This statue of Moore is an insult to taste – to the present state of the arts – to the very progress of civilization – to his native city of Dublin and to his country at large’.
Now, this statue of Uncle Tom Moore is often referred to as a favourite place of pilgrimage of the Stoops (or at least while that party had yet to suffer from, erm, Brewers’ Droop) but this may well be founded on a mis-reading of history.
This is what the Daily Express reported at the time of its erection in 1857:
-The committee, finally despairing of being able to raise the Moore Statue fund to the required amount,closed the subscription and were compelled to get it executed in zinc, not in bronze. Strange to say, Moore was ‘executed’ so to speak,more than once, for on the morning that the effigy was being hoisted on the pedestal the rope slipped up on his shoulders, and before it could be stopped had tightened round the neck and literally cut the head off. It was soldered on, and the great heat of the sun caused the solder in time to yield, and that is the reason that the head now droops forward, as you see in, looking down at you. The affair was only known to a few, and likely never will be to many’.
So, that is the reason why the head droops and seems to stoop;nothing at all to do with the Stoops. Another myth exploded, this time with a mere century-plus warning.
Nor is there any truth in the delicious rumour that Joe Duffy is the SD (spin doctor) in the SDLP. Just because he was a good buddy with Alex Attwoody – they were members of the same zinc tank together – during their days as apprentice politicos in the USI.
Sadly, neither quite made it in their chosen profesh.
What about it if he was ?
More whataboutery. The island is sinking under the stuff.
Perkie – you constant delight and source of spiritual nourishment you! I was going to draw your attention to a typo (“To the mile a minute stains of the William Kiss and Tell Overture”) but I think I like ‘stains’ better. Do keep writing, Perkie, oh say you will….
GRMA, EB.
And thank you for pointing out the typo: so many typos, so little tyme, even the wild mountain tyme variety.
(Q: What does a Rolex in the heather result in?
A: A bunch of tyme)
Actually, one is snapping up all unconsidered typos, of which there is no shortage, and warehousing them in the expectation of yet another remake of the Hitchcock classic.
To be called ‘Typo’.
It will be set in that parody of The Bates Motel that Ireland has been turned into by the shower who control the media and by extension the class conscious political class..
Shower is right: the typos are being stockpiled by the props department and are being sharpened to mark time. For use in the, erm, shower scene.
McGuffin Movies Inc maintain ‘we cannot emphasise enough the crucial importance of typos for this remake’.
Ar aghaidh leat, A Mhaistir Blog Onoraigh, agus fagadh na bithiunaigh an bealach !
Grma, Perkie, as ever…
Hi Jude. My first blog. Just to say never has a grieving family been more ill used by the Media and so called Establishment than the McConvilles. Would RDE be considered an establishment figure? If so then it is a club I would much rather avoid. I have not listened to the programme but I can just hear Ruths well rehearsed mantra, I have heard them so many times before. Mrs. McConville died a terrible death, but then so did so many others. My real problem is that I think you are trying to juxta position Mrs McConvilles death with that of Joan Connolly. I believe this to be legitimate for political purposes but is it not trading off one act of inhumanity with another. Like yourself I am truly sickened by the way the Media have treated Mrs McConville and the arrant nonsense spouted by the Free State Media, however I feel bringing specific victims of the conflict into the argument and not all them is wrong . I am sorry for the lack of commas and the use of but I am using a Spanish laptop.
Welcome, Michael. I brought Joan Connolly into the conversation (?) because the parallel is there – another family bereft of its mother through violence. I also pointed out that Britain and American forces had created nearly one million orphans in Iraq since the invasion. That seems to me a fair balance of the particular and the general.
Jean McConville must have been in a desperate place even before the Provos sought her out:-
A Protestant living in West Belfast in the 70s
A single woman
Widowed
Bringing up 10 children
It’s perfectly possible given her extreme circumstances that she was tempted by the British to spy on her neighbours for some ready cash. Brendan Hughes claims this was the case.
If this was the case (I say if), then she was exposed to huge risk by the British who simply abandoned her when she came under initial suspicion & allowed her to continue her work for them instead of getting her & her family out of west Belfast.
The morality of using a desperate young mother in this way & then abandoning her needs examination to say the least. Perhaps both sides have things to keep quiet about this sad case.
Just after finishing listening to you Jude and dear Ruth. Ruth is as selective and as picky as ever on what she wants to talk about and what she doesn’t, whatever suits her argument and agenda really, to hell with the facts. She said she wasn’t brought on to talk about the Mau Mau uprising where the British raped men and women, tortured them, castrated the men, etc She also didn’t want to talk about the million Iraqi children made orphans by her much loved British Army. And she certainly didn’t want to talk about the paratrooper who shot Joan Connolly, a mother of 8, multiple times. So bad was her injuries her face was partially blown off. In fact her injuries were so horrific that it took 3 days for her body to be properly identified and was mainly identified by her hair colour by her husband. No, no, Ruth didn’t have time for all that, much more important things like politically attacking the shinners.
In my experience I find those who scream the loudest about the IRA’s actions suddenly become mute when the British Army or Loyalist paramilitaries atrocities are mentioned, some even going as far as to try to JUSTIFY British Army/UVF/RUC/etc actions because, lets just be blunt and straight to the point, because it was against “them’uns”. The hypocrisy stinks to the high heavens and I’m in no doubt some of those who called in on the Nolan show are those types of hypocrites.
There is one caller “George from the Shankill” who is on the Nolan show just as often as Stephen Nolan is. To say George is “a wee bit one sided” when it comes to the conflict here would be a wild understatement but somehow Stephen Nolan always finds the time for poor George to express his opinion, especially when Jude is on the show.
What happened to Jean McConville was terrible, it shouldn’t have happened but it was no more terrible than what had happened at Bloody Sunday and other atrocities caused by British State, IRA, UVF, INLA, UDA, etc.
What we’re seeing here isn’t genuine, honest sympathy for Jean McConville or her family, its Unionism trying to build a hierarchy of victims. You’d think that Unionism would’ve learnt lessons over the past 4 decades on what happens when you try to include some but exclude others but Unionism isn’t exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, that has been obvious to the world for many years.
If Jean McConville had been abducted, killed and buried by the UVF with the RUC/UDR knowing all about it (collusion), would we have unionists in almost every paper, radio show, tv show, etc demanding justice for her and her family? I doubt it very much.
It was like when Joan Connolly was mentioned to UUP leader Mike Nesbitt on twitter, his reply was: “Who’s Joan Connolly?”. Says it all……
The definition of a Unionist is someone who ardently defends & justifies Dresden & Hamburg while at the same time denouncing Warrenpoint as the most vile, evil, beyond-the-pale atrocity.
That’s because Dresden, Bloody Sunday, Ballymurphy Massacre, Dublin/Monaghan bombings, South African concentration camps, etc was against “them’uns”.
Anyone who attacks or harms “brave” British troops are evil, wicked people. Even if they’re torturing and killing your people….
A very good article, Jude. Sad fact is that the conflict isn’t over. It is being fought out daily on our TV screens and in the press media. And of course those anti-republican anti-progressive forces which control the media and the dominant discourse still want to be the winners.
What happened to Joan Connolly and her family was murder and wrong. The comparison is also wrong. No order was given to disappear her remains, her children were not shunned split up and put into care homes while the community peddled the lie she was still alive and had run off with a British soldier.
A grave was not dug for the purposes of enforced disappearance – which is where Jean Mc Convilles killing is different again because there is specific legislation under ICC for disappearance of bodies.
It did not take 31 years for Joan Connollys funeral to take place, her children were not driven by republicans out of their homes for trying to find the truth if what happened to their mother and they did not have an ira leader telling them he was in jail at the time of the murder. By the way another point of order – Adams hasn’t been released unconditionally – the Pps are reviewing the evidence against him and deciding whether to bring charges or not.
The P.P.S are reviewing evidence with a view to charging Adams with IRA Membership. There will be no charge against Adams in relation to Jean McConville’s murder.
point of order
Well said on your post but as you will note from the majority of the surrounding posts, there is not a lot of sympathy .Plenty of whataboutery though.There seems to be little moral outrage about the disappearing of bodies in this parallel world!