I’m just fresh (and piping hot) off a discussion on the Nolan radio show with Tom Elliott. We were discussing the case of IRA man Colum Marks, who was shot dead during an IRA attempt to mortar bomb Downpatrick police station in 1991. Mr Marks was unarmed when killed and the Attorney-General has called for the PPS to investigate the decision not to prosecute any police officers. Tom Elliott claimed that cases like this, involving the killing of an IRA man, were being investigated, while those involving the IRA killing others, such as Enniskillen, were not.
Tom, of course, is a former leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and while – as he reminded me – he is not running in the present election, he will naturally be supportive of his party’s efforts. So any opportunity to present himself and by implication his party as the champions of the forces of the state and the hammer of republican paramilitaries, he’sure to seize on. I don’t blame him. It’s what politicians do, especially during an election campaign.
But Tom’s case and that of callers to the show is flawed, because they’re mixing up two things. Tom complained about a hierarchy of victims – that republican so-called victims come front of the queue, while unionist victims like those at the Enniskillen bombing must take a lower place. He’s right about the need for an absence of hierarchy of victims: the violent death of anyone, be it paramilitary, security forces or civilian, is an equal tragedy for the dead individual and his family and friends. In contrast there should indeed be a hierarchy is in investigation of police and ‘security’ force actions.
Why is that? Because we recruit and pay the guardians of the peace to keep us safe. We do not recruit and pay paramilitaries to do this.
As our paid protectors, it’s the job of the police to protect us all and uphold the law. If the police genuinely believed they were at risk of being killed in Downpatrick, they had a right to defend themselves. But if they were working on the notion “They shoot us when they can – now it’s their turn”, even when their adversary is unarmed, they are completely wrong. If there is doubt as to which was the case here, then it is good that the Attorney-General call for further investigation of the role of the Downpatrick police.
Tom and his acolytes are keen to demand the investigation of republican paramilitaries and irate that the guardians of the peace should be investigated. There’s a case for investigating all disputed deaths, but at the head of the queue must come those sworn to protect, not inflict. Otherwise, quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Who will protect us from the protectors?
Check the name, jude. I laughed when Fatboy told you to stop talking because he could go on for longer than you. And remember that’ to convince a man against his will is to leave him of the same opinion still’. Still it’s great to hear our side of the case being lucidly presented.
Thank you, fiosrach. Actually I couldn’t hear the programme properly at that point so I figured it made sense to just keep talking. I’m not sure he could go on longer than me – I’m fitter than him…:)
Fatboy?
Are you 14?
Well Tomás’s comment regarding the “scum of Sinn Féin” should really cover all bases when it comes to analysing where he’s coming from. Enough said??
I thought of mentioning that but felt it would make the poor man uncomfortable..
It was fortunate for my radio that I missed most of the discussion.. I find the UU in particular, mealy mouthed when it comes to discuss recent past history they seem to have convinced themselves that the last iteration of violence erupted out of nothing, just as civil rights for all were being delivered by the NI govt.
One often hears Nesbitt say that the political outcome wasn’t worth one death and he is correct but I would like like him to explain why the Unionist Government thought it was worth killing RCs from 1966 – 69 in their attempt to face down the demands for civil rights.
They unionists can’t have it both ways, if the IRA were common criminals then they were subject to the criminal law and state forces have to abide by the law.If it was not ‘war’ then you can’t just shoot people on the basis of what they may or may not have intended to do.
Obviously the ooeration against the IRA unit was based on good intelligence but rather than arrest the men prior to the operation and prosecute tgem through the courts the state forces lay in wait to ambush them with the intent of killing them and of course then trying to use the law in order to justify the unjustifiable.
‘Tom, of course, is not running for the present election’ is the phrase, Esteeemed Blogmeister, which caught this particular blogtrotter squat on the snot.
Right now, down here in the Free Southern Stateen, we are at twenty sixes and sevens trying to keep an eye on three electoral balls in the air and on the air at this m. in time, going f.. Well, one tells a statistic, maybe even a damn statistic.
Perhaps it might be more accurate to phrase it as follows:
Pre Election: USA.
Election: Norneverland.
Post Election: FSS.
It is the first mentioned there which has so far come up with the quote of the season:
-One canvases in poetry but rules in prose.
This quote is credited to Bill’s Hilary who seemingly coined the phrase during one of her not infrequent visits to her local botoxery (the bills for which are rumoured to be picked up by Mr. C.)
This mention of poetry brought to mind a near namesake of the non-electioneering Tom Elliot. That would be, of course, Tom S. Eliot who was one l of a poet in his time. So much so, he was awarded the Nobel Prize to keep the literary knockers at bay.
So, in the highly improbable event of Tom Elliot (two l’s but so far no Nobel) taking to the hustings, perhaps it might be prudent of him to have a quote from his near-namesake to hand. But, which?
-April is the cruelest month.
That would seem to be fit the, erm, bill. Or, even the Wilhelm, for those of a particularly Teutonic turn of mind as our separated breds in Norneverland are so proud to be.
Consider the following:
Today, April 20, is the birthday of (gulp) the Teutonic Tanaiste, Adolf. ( Happy birthday to Hitler on his 127th !)
Tomorrow though, April 21, is ze Biggie, i.e., ze birthday of (gasp) ze Teutonic Taoiseach, Elizardbeth. (Happy birthday to Hausfrau Saxe-Coburg-Gotha on her Big Nine Oh !).
All of which is a cause of great uplift and a sparkling tonic to those of us down here south of the Black Sow’s Dyke, those of us from the Royal Dublin Society to the Royal Irish Academy to the Royal College of Surgeons and especially those of us from Royal Meath for whom tomorrow Big Birthday has a particular resonance:
-E 2 was delivered on April 21, 1926, by Caesarian section at her maternal grandfather’s London house, (gulp) 17 BRUTON Street, Mayfair.
(The private birthplace, it would appear, was chosen in preference to a public hospital to obviate the dire possibility of the – oh, horrors ! – incorrect badge being adhered to Her Madge).
All of which begs, with cloth cap outstretched, just what IS it about April for the Teutons ?
Perhaps the answer lies in the title of a novel by the darling girl from Clare, Dame Edna O’Brien:
-August is a wicked month.
Auf wiedersehen, mein Blogmeister !
–
In the Free Southern Stateen if you have three electoral balls in the air, naturally its going to be a balls-up!
Regarding Bill paying Hillary’s botox bills to beautify her – mission impossible – he’d be better spending it on a new Monica!
So are Sinn Fein welcoming this investigation because they want to secure better support for policing amongst republican communities and to show that in post-GFA Northern Ireland we make sure the police are answerable for their actions and operate strictly within the law? If so that’s a fine and noble thing.
But if Chris Hazzard (on the Sinn Fein website yesterday) really thinks all victims have an equal right to justice;
“The family of Colum Marks deserve justice just like every other victim of the conflict and I hope this decision today is a first step in getting to the truth of how Colum died.”
does he think that justice requires a prison sentence for anyone convicted? Or should Sinn Fein say now that, while investigation is necessary, any sentence should be suspended in the interests of equity between “combatants” and community cohesion?
Come to think of it, post-GFA, does a convicted policeman not have a human right to equal treatment? Should our republican champions of human rights not be defending this poor man against an arbitrary and sectarian witch-hunt?
Sinn Fein’s position on this just seems a bit hypocritical and a bit Trojan Horsey.
I thought that the RUC had Barracks, not Stations,
When the unarmed Gardai took over the old RIC Barracks, the buildings were not redefined.
I don’t know about the younger generation, but mine continued with the old description.
Good.story.Jude.
Thanks.Jim.
There is a trend emerging. Áine Lawlor RTÉ talked over a Sinn Féin representative and threatened to turn his microphone off recently, demonstrating disrespect for the electorate. Mr Nolan’s efforts today demonstrated the same lack of respect.
The state has a duty to protect citizens, all citizens. Kitson defined counter-insurgency as military, paramilitary, political, economic psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat subversion. It was Kitson who argued that the law could be used as another weapon in the government’s arsenal. It has been established that there was collusion between the British Army, the RUC, the RUC Reserve and loyalists. Evidence from the British Army established that loyalists had weapons, yet the UDA and the UFF were involved in hundreds of sectarian murders, a blood thirsty response to chronic social and economic deprivation.
Social and economic deprivation is a reality for many in the north of Ireland. It is evident, however, that unemployment, educational underachievement and a crisis in the Health Service are of secondary importance in the mindset of political unionism given the use of pejorative terms such as “Scum”, “Rogues and Renegades”. It was words from some rogues and renegades in Westminster that resulted in deaths, injuries and destruction, perhaps that is the real reason why some politicians and commentators attempt to stifle debate about collusion in Ireland.
Sorry I missed you this morning Jude .I’ve been busy these past few days. As anyone with a titter of wit knows, it was the armed wing of the unionist community being paid by all our taxes which was in the frame. There were few nationalist policemen. No..they can’t have it both ways when we are all paying their wages to treat all of us equally and carry out the law to the letter. Then again , maybe it was like the LAPD in America and just like every black man was fair game to hassle and perhaps kill, so too were Nationalists fair game for harrassment and the more virulent republican strain fair game for culling. The argument is lost on the disbanding of the RUC in any case . Why was there any reform needed at all if there was nothing to reform? Why did a police “force” suddenly become a “service” after the Good Friday Agreement? If there was nothing underhand going on why was recruitment of nationalists made a priority in the new service?
And they used to be a police force but now they are a police service – making the community safer!
Sinn Fein/IRA leader Gerry Adams stated on the Irish republican state broadcaster RTE, that things like this happen in war???
While Adams was not making specific reference to the incident above when he made his comments. He was making reference to the IRA abduction, torture, murder, secret burial and the two decades of denials of a widowed mother of ten children Jean McConville, by Sinn Fein/IRA. Therefore if we follow Adams logic, this is indeed what happens in war. An IRA terrorist who with full knowledge of his actions and the possible consequences goes out to murder and in the course of his actions he is himself killed, seems to me this is what happens in war. Gerry said so.
Glenn, while it is tempting to agree with you I don’t think we should buy into the narrative that it was a war.
As Jude says, we do, and we should, expect our state forces, regardless of how, many rotten apples there are, to be accountable in a way we do not expect of paramilitary gangs.
Even if they do claim to be the legitimate Irish army.
If there are questions about the force used in the killing of Colum Marks then that should be investigated.
It may be hypocritical of those who say the PIRA campaign was war to complain about such events, but the rest of society should still want to know what was done in society’s name
That’s right Gio ‘we’ don’t want he narrative rewritten that the IRA was involved in a war now do we? That would then contradict all that has been said about them all these years by the British state and its quislings, ‘we are fighting criminals and terrorists etc etc’ for example.
Have no doubt about it that the vast majority of volunteers knew there was the very real chance they would be summarily executed by the enemy if encountered. Therefore it’s pretty safe to assume they accepted that risk? And therefore, without making an ass out of you or me, if these dead volunteers could somehow communicate to us in the present day it’s very likely they would say they accepted the risk and therefore their fate.
However, and this is aimed at Glenn, the families and friends of the fallen volunteers,are certainly within their rights to defend their loved ones honour and name. If that means challenging the British through the courts then so be it. Perhaps if the British finally admitted they were in a war then it might even put a halt to all these cases being brought against them? Unfortunately that wouldn’t suit the narrative of a lot of folk, such as, well Gio. We can’t have the IRA and the British forces being treated as equal combatants;that would be intolerable for the letsgetalongerists wouldn’t it?
By your own logic (and also Gerry Adams) Glenn, then every UDR, RUC, B Special, British soldier and Unionist paramilitary that was killed during the Troubles only have themselves to blame. They knew the risks of joining the RUC/UDR/etc, they had full knowledge of their actions, they choose to put on a uniform and paint a target on their back, right?….After all, these things happen in War…..
On the subject of Jean McConvile, she wasn’t took away and tortured for the sake of taking her away and torturing her. Jean was allegedly an informer. I, unlike many here on this blog I’m assuming, have spoken to people who were actually in the IRA at that time and every single one of them are 100% certain Jean McConvile was an informer. They apparently even found the British Army radio in Jeans kitchen where she was communicating with British soldiers. The woman named by the Sunday World who allegedly ordered Jeans killing lived a few doors down from me for years before she died of old age. What happened to jean was wrong and brutal but it wasn’t a case of the shankill butchers where she was took away simply to be tortured because of her religion. She was took away, like many people, because she was believed to be an informer. There’s a massive difference.
On the subject of torture, the British Government did plenty of that. The case of the hooded men where RTE found files of very senior British Government officials approving and sanctioning torture. If those people were alive today they would be imprisoned for breaking international laws. In Castlereagh people were tortured by the RUC. Of course in Kenya British soldiers tortured, castrated and even raped men with approval by British Government officials. My uncle was on the Maidstone ship during internment and torture went on there on innocent people. As my uncle said “most people before going on the Maidstone weren’t IRA members but they certainly were when they left it”.
I do agree with Tom, there IS a hierarchy here. 20,000 Republicans passed through prison here. The number of British soldiers, RUC, B Specials, etc that passed through the courts can be counted on one hand. Tom tried to minimize that the “security forces” were responsible for, to quote Tom, “just” 10% of the killings here. Considering around 3,500 people died here, that means the state was responsible for 350 killings, not counting numerous people injured and maimed.
But Tom (and Theresa Villiers) are factually wrong when they say the “security forces” were responsible for “just” 10% of the killings here, they haven’t factored in collusion and the murders that descend from that. Considering Unionist paramilitaries got 85% of all their intelligence from the State, then its fair to argue the state was really behind 40-50% of all the killings here. Unionist paramilitaries, consisting mostly of lower class poorly educated Loyalists, were used as cannon fodder and to pin the blame and put behind bars. Paisley used, abused and betrayed young Loyalists, so did the British state. Files clearly show Unionist paramilitaries were regarded as “Allies” of the British Army.
One caller brought up the killing of UVF man Brian Robinson as if to say that the “security forces” were even handed to all paramilitaries. That wasn’t the case and Brian Robinson was maybe the only Loyalist ever shot by the security forces. One man rightly brought up the Glenanne gang that murdered over 120 Catholics (only 1 was an IRA man) and the “security forces” knew their every move and didn’t intervene.
One caller said that people should stop crying about being shot if they were going out to kill. Well if the British Government acknowledged IRA men as soldiers then you would have a fair argument there. But the British Government didn’t, they didn’t want to play by the rules of war and regard the conflict here as political (which it plainly was). Hence why its fair and just that cases like this, where an IRA man is shot dead where he should’ve been arrested, should proceed.
Was there a shoot to kill policy when it came to Republicans? Of course. Its just another example of the British Government breaking its own laws. And as one wise man said: “When those that make the Law break the Law then there is no Law”…..
If it wasn’t a war then what was it? An insurgency? An armed rebellion against a colonial oppressor? How does one define such things?