“I will not be attending and will not send a representative”
Gerry Adams’ refusal to attend the Derry debate follows below the foldThe invitation:
To Gerry Adams
I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to either participate or send a representative to sit on the panel for a debate which will be entitled “What is the truth behind the Hunger strike?”
This has been organised by the Republican Network for Unity and we hope to host panellists and guests from across the political spectrum.
The venue for the event will be at the gasyard in the Brandywell, Derry at 7.30 pm, Sat 23rd May 2009.
Panellists confirmed thus far include Richard O’Rawe, Willie Gallagher and Eamonn Mc Cann and we hope to have confirmation from various others.
It is imperative that we are inclusive and all encompassing so as to generate debate in this extremely emotive subject and maybe gain some form of clarity for the families of the men who died.
Though this will be an open debate we are actively encouraging former Blanket men to attend and contribute to the night’s proceedings.
I may be reached at the above telephone number and/or email address and would ask if you could please RSVP me at your earliest opportunity,
Regards,
John Cassidy
Gerry Adams’ response:
From: maire.grogan
To: johncassidy; Jcassidy2005
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 11:06:36 +0100
Subject: Reponse letter from Gerry Adams
John a chara,
Thank you for your letter to me received on Wednesday 20th May about an event in Derry on Saturday 23rd Ma y 2009.
You assert that your aim is “clarity for the families of the men who died”. It is presumptuous of you to presume that you speak for the families on this, or indeed any other matter. These families are well able to speak for themselves.
My understanding from recent conversations with family members of hunger strikers who died during the 1981 Hunger Strikes is that they are quite clear about what happened. I have never had concerns to the contrary raised with me by any family members.
Any family member I have spoken to in recent times has been angered by the politically motivated stories printed by the Sunday Times which was hostile to the Hunger Strikers from the outset and also to Sinn Féin. Other political opponents of Sinn Féin have been quick to jump on this anti-Sinn Féin bandwagon to=2 0propagate bogus claims for political objectives of their own. This is a disgraceful affront to the memories of those who gave their lives. It totally disregards the feelings of family members.
Your event, in my opinion, is part of that agenda. I will not be attending and will not send a representative.
Is mise le meas,
Gerry Adams MP, MLA
Máire Grogan
Office of Gerry Adams MP MLA
Sinn Féin Party President
MP & MLA for West Belfast
0D
Tel: 028 90 347350
Fax: 028 90 347360
Email: maire.grogan@sinn-fein.ie
Website: www.sinnfein.ie
Earlier on Slugger:
1981 Hunger Strike Truth Commission Includes text of British document of July offer and transcript of Willie Gallagher’s speech at the Derry meeting
The Truth is a Heartbreaking Thing Initial summary of Derry meeting
Upcoming Debate: “What is the Truth Behind the Hunger Strike?” Announcement of public meeting and note of Radio Foyle debate between Raymond McCartney and Richard O’Rawe (also discussed on The Pensive Quill: A Shifting Narrative)
When in a hole… Contrasts between Danny Morrison’s position and previously published accounts of the time
What were the hunger strikers told? Questions emerge that cast doubt on what the hunger strikers knew when about what negotiations were being conducted on their behalf by the Adams subcommittee.
“Let’s have the whole truth” – Danny Morrison and Richard O’Rawe statements
Did Thatcher Kill All 10 or Only 4? – contains statements and interview excerpts
but why rusty? Why, if your version s the true versionof events, why did they do it?
You quote only what suits you. Brendan Duddy was interviewed in theBelfast telegraph last week and he said that “Nothing was ever communicated on paper to the IRA.” He also said that he agreed with what Sile Darragh had said in a letter to the Irish News. For those of you who didn’t know it, Sile Darragh was OC of the prisoners in Armagh in 1981. In her letter to the Irish News, which Duddy said “Sile Darragh got it spot on,” , Sile said, “Richard didn’t speak to the hunger strikers, didn’t visit the prison hospital or meet with the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace. This whole matter will be put to rest when he grasps the difference between an offer and a deal (which the British refused to stand over).”
That’s what Duddy says, in black and white, he agrees with so go argue with him.
I would like to know Rusty nail how you explain the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer??? Well?
You quote Gerard Clarke as a primary source overhearing the conversation with Bik and Rickie. Rickie in his book says the conversation was in Irish. Gerard Clarke can’t speak Irish. Go asked him! If he can he must have learnt it last week.
circles,
Perhaps i’m missing something here, you claim you don’t like Adams but you won’t hear anyone ask questions of him or the S/F leadership during one of the most emotional periods of the troubles.
Surely if information comes into the public domain then people interested in that information have a right to question it, rubbish it, or confirm it’s truth or inaccuracy, would you not agree?
O’Rawe from what I remenber made a serious accusation, which Danny Morrison, Bik McFarland and the S/F run A/Town News group rubbished completely.
Subsequent revelations have proved O’Rawe truthful, Danny Morrison and Bik McFarland to be bare faced liars and the A/Town news just a propaganda spread-sheet.
Now circles your question why would Adams and a selective few do it, is not for Rusty to answer or Clarke or O’Rawe but for those involved in the decision in the first place, surely you should be asking if Adams didn’t know about the offer why is he afraid to face the public on the issue? why circles WHY????? or perhaps your dislike of the man is equally matched by a dislike of anyone questioning him eh?
@circles: You wrote:
And to top it all off – there has yet to be a convincing explnation of what Adams motive would have been letting men he knew well die – and without the motive, these are pretty heavy, slanderous accusations for ex-comrades to make.
The only person who can give a convincing explanation of what Adams’ motive was is Adams himself. To date he has lied about his involvement, claiming on RTE he only found out about the Mountain Climber after the hunger strike ended, and, as shown in the above email, he arrogantly refused to attend a public debate in a manner that showed complete contempt for the people he claims to represent, and who he has been the leader of for almost 3 decades.
I wouldn’t be holding my breath if I were you, waiting on that explanation from him.
@blanketmanH3:
Brian Rowan’s article, already discussed here on Slugger when it was published, about Brendan Duddy of last week was totally eclipsed and rendered irrelevant by what Duddy himself had to say to a room full of former blanketmen, ex-prisoners, relatives and other republicans activists of all stripes on Saturday evening in Derry. Did you attend the meeting yourself? It was a very powerful night. What Brendan Duddy had to say that night was so important it completely blew the Rowan piece out of the water and rendered it a mere footnote, if not an irrelevance of little substance.
You suggest I go argue with him myself. Well, given that I attended Saturday’s meeting and heard what he had to say for himself directly, and heard him forthrightly answer very difficult questions put to him, does that count? In fact, the man rather to his credit bravely faced a lot of misdirected anger cast his way because of the absence of the people who should have been there to answer questions about exactly what they did during the hunger strike and why. He took the anger and hurt that has been pent up over years and meant for others who had not the stones to face up to the consequences of their actions.
But that is neither here nor there. The Rowan article is lightweight, fluff in comparison to Duddy’s own testimony on Saturday. I don’t need to go argue with him, I went to hear him speak when the opportunity presented itself. I made the effort because it was important to do so.
As for Gerard Clarke. You sign yourself as a blanketman from H3 yet you don’t remember the amount of Irish you would have absorbed just from being there. A silly point. Listen to the man himself explain what he heard – watch the video. And while you watch it, and think you can win this by sneering at him, keep in mind, he is not the only prisoner on the wing who heard the conversation. Go back to this thread on Slugger and read the transcript of Willie Gallagher’s speech, where he quotes from a recording the IRSP has heard. And then tell yourself, if there’s two people, there will be more. Because if you tell yourself that doesn’t prove anything, you will be sadly mistaken as others come forward.
It is time for people to stop the lies. Throw the hands up. If it was an honest mistake, which is completely understandable, for heaven’s sake, admit to it!
Circles is right. It is time now for honest answers as to why. It is absolutely nonsensical and only doing more damage to people’s reputations to keep continuing the absurd denials. Acknowledge the truth, and explain what really happened.
Is it as simple as what the anonymous source in the same Rowan piece you are enamoured of says? That the Adams committee looked down on the prisoners, saw them as naive, inexperienced, incapable of making a decision and so made it for them? Were they so full of some egotistical sense of their own importance that they didn’t even care? They just assumed they knew better than the prisoners what they could live with?
People are human, they come with a lot of frailties and faults. It is more forgivable to say, “I was young and full of myself, it was an intense, pressure filled time, I lost the run of things, and the people around me had other intentions I wasn’t then fully aware of, I am sorry. I meant no harm, I truly believed then I was doing the right thing” than to cling onto a lie that gets shredded more and more with each passing day, and expect people to continue to believe it, and continue to have any respect for you for doing so. Your frailties begin to seem monstrous instead of human in that light, and become more impossible to forgive.
Great hurt, suffering and betrayals have been perpetrated on the Republican community – nevermind the wider community – by their leaders during the troubles. By honestly taking responsibility for their actions and sincerely acknowledging the damage that they have done to their people and their cause, there is a chance to mitigate some of the disaster history will bestow on them as time moves on and more of the truth about who did what when to whom comes to light. And it will.
Depressingly, however, going on past form from those leaders, I do not expect that to happen. We will continue to be treated with more and more contempt and history will later look upon those men as pure evil.
Rusty
There wouldnt be an election soon would there?
Circles,
I’m not convinced that as you suggest the leadership outside (they themselves after all were still relatively young and relatively inexperienced men) saw that all the benefit had been derived that could have been just eight weeks after Bobby Sands’s died.
Oracle – I’m not getting into a meaningless discussion with you about how its possible to not support somebody and still not automatically expect the worst of them. If you can’t imagine that its possible to not be enamored with Adams while at the same time not joining those looking to vilify him then I won’t be able to help you.
It just gets worse though – we now have a situation where Duddy himself has lied giving 2 completely different versions of events. Which one to believe? Is his evidence still credible?
Oracle you maybe ready to believe Rickie O’Rawe’s version – maybe even with a touch of schadenfreude – but there are as many questions against what he said as there is of the SF version of events.
Additionally, the one-sided nature of this “truth commission”, evident already from the poster advertising the event, does not particulary inspire confidence that anybody involved in the organisation was really after the truth of what happened.
But you’ve already made up your mind on the existing and inconclusive evidence – just don’t try and bully those who haven’t into adopting your position.
I would also disagree with both you and Rusty – there is certainly an agenda behind this raking over the past. I think it only fair of those with an agenda to be honest enough to admit to it and not hide behind a completely false pretense of a simple interest in the truth and “the good of the families” (this applies to both the Network for Unity and SF). If that were really the case then an evening of diatribe is completely inappropriate. Its a blatant cop out to say “well I couldn’t possbly imagine a motive, you should ask Adams” – when in fact I think both yourself and Rusty have your own ideas why.
Without having the guts to provide a motive as to why somebody would let 6 men die needlessly, I think this all makes for a piss poor case.
latcheeco – i wasn’t trying to convince you, but I don’t think the leadership outside were as naive as you seem to think.
And even if they were, and even if they did seek to maximise propaganda (which had clearly peaked and risked going into reverse), I doubt they would have been so naive as to let another 6 men die needlessly before realising things had gone a little wrong.
Rusy Nail you didn’t answer my question. I would like you to explain the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer??? Well?
The INLA has said that Bangers Morrison didn’t tell Micky Devine and Kevin Lynch about the offer. What is your position onwho is telling lies there, giventhat Bangers has a Freeodom of Information document showing that he met ALL of the hunger strikers on 5th July?
If only Pennies had come to the meeting he could have told us what, if anything, he told the hunger strikers.
You don’t happen to know him, do you?
10.”Rusy Nail you didn’t answer my question. I would like you to explain the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer??? Well?
The INLA has said that Bangers Morrison didn’t tell Micky Devine and Kevin Lynch about the offer. What is your position onwho is telling lies there, giventhat Bangers has a Freeodom of Information document showing that he met ALL of the hunger strikers on 5th July?”
That doesn’t mean he told the hunger strikers about the offer as big Laurny refered to ”vague prison regime changes.” Looks to me that Danny lied to the hunger strikers. I too have been following this debate very closely and attended the debate and before it I was hugely sceptical now I am convinced after hearing all that disturbing evidence that Danny and Gerry have some very serious questions to answer. Danny and Bik first claimed whem Rickys book came out that there were no offers and no proposals of substance, how can they now maintain this, the evidence is there and it’s no wonder they are hiding. Lets hear the truth.
@blanketmanH3:
Let us turn again to primary sources. First of all, to say that “none of them asked whatever happened to the offer” is patently untrue and a very misleading question. It smacks of a desperate grasping at straws. Surely a blanketman wouldn’t have to ask this sort of question? Never you worry; I am happy to answer.
In the first place, as shown in Biting at the Grave on page 96, which has been quoted on Slugger before in reference to Danny Morrison’s claims:
Just because Morrison met all the hunger strikers on the 5th of the July does not mean he told them anything, in terms of the information being discussed here. No one is questioning that Morrison was in to see the hunger strikers on the day. So the faux outrage you are expressing is for naught.
O’Malley, again in Biting at the Grave, page 96, says: “…Danny Morrison was allowed to go into the Maze/Long Kesh to see the hunger strikers on the morning of 5 July…to apprise them of what was going on, although he did not go into detail. Morrison says that he relayed information about the contact and impressed upon them the fact the ICJP could “make a mess of it, that they could be settling for less than what they had the potential for achieving.”
So, it is not in dispute that Morrison went into the prison and spoke with the hunger strikers. Judging from O’Malley’s account, he did not go into any detail – which would lead one to conclude he said there was contact with the British and not to trust the ICJP, given the quote from Morrison himself. Put together with all the other accounts, Morrison told the hunger strikers nothing of substance, only enough to keep them in line with the agenda being pursued by Adams. This would also be in keeping with the Provos doing everything they could to scupper the ICJP deal, as detailed earlier in this discussion.
O’Malley’s account of Morrison’s discussion with the hunger strikers is also corroborated in Holland & McDonald’s INLA: Deadly Divisions, page 179:
We also have the suggestion from Morrison on Radio Foyle that he told Kevin McQuillan about the deal, which was immediately denied by McQuillian, who said: “This did not happen. If he had of appraised me of such a serious development, my first point of reference would have been to contact the National leadership of the Republican Socialist Movement, in particular those delegated with the struggle within the Blocks. At no point had I cause to. Clearly put…it did not happen.”
In addition, Tommy McCourt at the Saturday meeting heartbreakingly related his last visits with Mickey Devine, and lamented that if he had only knew of the offer, nevermind the prison leadership’s acceptance of such, Mickey would not have died on hunger strike.
Continues…
As you see, the weight of evidence against Danny Morrison is stacked against him. Other hunger strikers have said they too knew nothing of the offer nor acceptance, which supports what Jake Jackson said, not what Morrison implies. It makes more sense that Morrison went in to put pressure on the hunger strikers to not succumb to the ICJP offer, to let the Army Council, as represented by the Adams committee, handle the ‘contact’ with the British, which was still veiled in secrecy in presentation.
Given Danny Morrison’s track record with the truth, which admittedly is not as terrible as Gerry Adams’, but is still not without its blots, and the weight of primary and contemporary sources not supporting Morrison’s propaganda, if I were to have to state a “position onwho is telling lies there”, the INLA or Bangers? The choice seems to me to be obvious. Sorry, Bangers.
You ask me to explain “the hunger strikers continuing to hunger strike, as if none of them asked whatever happened to the offer???”
Again let us look to a primary source to explain that, in this case, O’Rawe’s Blanketmen.
On page 181, he describes the agreement between himself and McFarlane – “Well, Rick?” he asked. “I think there’s enough there, Bikso.” “I agree. I’ll write to the outside an’ let them know our thinkin’.”
If it were correct that the prisoners were always in control, this would be true, wouldn’t it? Bik would have sent the acceptance of the deal out, and the Army Council, as represented by the Adams committee, would then move things forward from there in accordance with the acceptance. This clearly did not happen.
On page 184:
So there we have the moment when the power shifted from the prison leadership to the Adams committee. Comparing the attitude of the anonymous source in the Brian Rowan piece you like, in which the prisoners are naive, inexperienced and incapable of making a decision, which is why the Adams committee over-ruled their acceptance of the offer, with O’Rawe’s description of the way the prisoners viewed the Army Council, we see a convergence:
It is not true that none of the prison leadership asked the Adams committee about the rejection, the comms were flying from Bik about it; page 187 details some of them. And then Joe McDonnell died, and it became too late to do anything about it: the prisoners, having learned bascially that things were out of their control, kept on with the hunger strike – and would have likely kept going until who knew when – until the families were able to intervene and end it for them.
So between the secrets and lies, half truths and witheld information, is it any wonder the hunger strikers continued on their hunger strike? The majority of them had no knowledge of the offer or acceptance. The prison leadership was following orders they believed had the full weight of the Army Council behind them. And how were they to know otherwise, until now, some 28 years later, when the truth of it all is finally being forced to the surface?
The standard republican version is in complete tatters. The evidence produced over this past two months has demolished Adams/Morrison’s version. Why is Danny and Gerry hiding from this or are they hoping it all goes away?
another blanketman
Just cause you say its so doesn’t meant it is so
The only evidence for either narrative is peoples opinions, opinions change over time as do memmories
So far the Adams narative has stood up very well except for a few axe grinders and those predisposed to believe them
I think we may end up with more blanketmen here than were ever blankets in the kesh.
Rusty, its evident that you’ve researched this subject, can I add this quote
“The British document claims that the IRA had accepted the substance of an offer to end the hunger strike but objected to the tone. However, Mr Duddy said he was not aware of the IRA being prepared to accept the offer. “I never heard or saw anything which said the substance would be enough to end the hunger strike.
“The offer most probably came in and to the best of my knowledge the answer was that more had to be done. I believe that the fear was there would be another con job,” he said.”
http://www.derryjournal.com/journal/IRSP-anger-at-hunger-strike.5300231.jp
If this is the case I don’t understand the debate
fin, listen to the recordings in full rather than cherrypick a quote that suits.
paul, we’ll just have to agree to disagree as it certainly looks and sounds to me and anyone else I’ve been talking to that Danny and Gerry, at best, have serious questions to answer about their earlier public positions which have indeed been demolished.
@fin:
Brendan Duddy could only answer to what he was privy to. He, like many others who should have been informed, was never told of the prison leadership’s acceptance of the offer.
This was confirmed at the Derry debate:
Page 184, Blanketmen (2005), describes what happened after the prison leadership had sent word to the Adams committee that they would accept the offer:
From a letter, publicly released in February 2009 and dated 8 July 1981, from Downing Street to the NIO, which shows that the Adams committee rejection was delivered to the British:
So the quote from Brendan Duddy you reference is quite in keeping with his role as the link between the Adams committee and the British. The Adams committee did not tell him the prisoners had accepted the deal, and the message he brought back to the British was the same as what the Adams committee sent into the prison, overriding the prisoners’ acceptance: ‘More was needed’.
I hope this clarifies the point for you.
He, like many others who should have been informed, was never told of the prison leadership’s acceptance of the offer.
And where’s the evidence of that – beyond O’Rawe’s word?
Independent veriable evidence that will withstand scrutiny – as this is really the nub of the matter.
Let’s hear it…
interesting thread this. it looks to me as if gerry adams utilised the hunger strikes to build sinn fein’s political base.
though why he continued it for so long is only for him to say. does anybody think he will ever speak on the subject?
ADDS:
This really is a case of one word against another and really it seems that the O’Rawe claims have only succeeded in muddying waters rather than providing clairty.
Rusty Nail, you come across as sinister and biased on a blog which prides itself on being impartial.
You hector and disparage personalities and contributors while offering only one-sided evidence – usually from O’Rawe’s book and heavily spun passages from others – in defence of your clearly overly passionate and disjointed argument.
It doesn’t matter, I suppose, given that those who believe in this are a tiny minority of recalcitrants who will go on – each May – having their meetings (or ‘truth commissions’) during which they’ll slap themselves on the back, scream for God almighty, and prepare the scaffold for their bete noires: Adams, Hartley, McGuinness, Gibney, Morrison et al.
And just – for those with a brain and self-respect reading this thread – where does that lead us?
To the same group of malcontents who’ve detested Sinn Fein since 1994 and have identified said group as the root of all evil.
This conspiracy theory is all too convenient at slamming them – but somehow, in some way – exonerating O Bradiagh and the others in key leadership position of the republican movement at this time who were in a position – if they wished – to end the Hunger Strike.
Colm Scullion was cited by Eamon McCann as someone who would verify it all – he was the man to label Bik et al as LIARS.
Sadly, he became a claymore under all of this.
No matter, let’s ignore him and move on to the next.
Brendan Duddy – he gave an interview to the Bel Tel which again bolstered Sile Daragh’s contribution…
And what is the response of creepy, agenda orientated Rusty Nail: oh, you shoulda heard what he said at the meeting, it was completely contradictory and blew away what he said in that interview.
Let me remind you: if this was a court of law and that was established he would no longer be regarded as a credible witness.
And you, pal, are not to be regarded as a credible blogger.
Of all the ridiculous blogs on here by your not really good self, the one that Gerard Clarke – who could not speak Irish – understood – at a considerable distance – what was being discussed is an embarrassment to you and all associated with this.
I understand your response to this will take time as you seek advicde – but really, this is all really rather sad.
And I do think that we’re only a few FOI requests aways from this being firmly put to bed.
It’s not wonder you use the cloak of anonymity when posting – maybe you’re not so sure yourself.
And to anticipate your one of your next posts: I am just an ordinary contributor, not a blog master.
If you’d balls and were so sure of your case you’d put your name to it.
This conspiracy theory is all too convenient at slamming them – but somehow, in some way – exonerating O Bradiagh and the others in key leadership position of the republican movement at this time who were in a position – if they wished – to end the Hunger Strike
people like…………martin mc guinness (COS)?
AOJ
Of all the ridiculous blogs on here by your not really good self, the one that Gerard Clarke – who could not speak Irish – understood – at a considerable distance – what was being discussed is an embarrassment to you and all associated with this.
was he not next door?
Even if he was sat on Bik’s knee, Bobby, he wouldn’t have understood – the conversation was in Irish and as AOJ says, Gerard Clarke doesn’t speak irish.
”Brendan Duddy – he gave an interview to the Bel Tel which again bolstered Sile Daragh’s contribution…”
So ignore hearing his own words as the Belfast tele article is correct, according to you. Doubt you’ll sell that to many outside of hardcore Adamsites. Give your head a shake.
ABM – so Duddy lied either at the meeting or to the Tele.
Either way that seriously compromises anything he has to say – or should we just pick his version of events that we agree with and bury the other version in the sand? IMO both are now worthless – which hemay indeed have done deliberately.
Even if he was sat on Bik’s knee, Bobby, he wouldn’t have understood – the conversation was in Irish and as AOJ says, Gerard Clarke doesn’t speak irish.
I was on that wing and as any ex-blanket man knows 99% of those on the wings had enough Irish to be able to understand everyday conversations.
Rusty Nail is correct in everything he/she posted and I’ve yet to see a post with an opposing view give anything other than the thus far type of Adams/Morrison defence…If you shout enough no one will hear them…
99%? I guess I’ve met an awful lot of guys who were in that 1%.
Are you sure you’re not just whistling, Dixie?
So thats another wobbly stool in the bar room of evidence.
Dixie’s right. He and I was in the leadership wing. Some of us had better Irish than others but all of us had enought Irish to understand the basics. It happened. Bik and Ricky had that conversation. Now stop it. its hurting republicanism.
“Let me remind you: if this was a court of law and that was established he would no longer be regarded as a credible witness.” – AOJ
“ABM – so Duddy lied either at the meeting or to the Tele.
Either way that seriously compromises anything he has to say – or should we just pick his version of events that we agree with and bury the other version in the sand?” – circles
If a history of lying rules one out as a credible witness, then that rules out Gerry Adams and his version of what transpired, leaving Mr O’Rawe and others in as the credible witnesses.
Do all panels like this have alleged ex-MI5 touts stirring fantasy for the security services:)
Actually Bik is not in hiding and is out and about as usual.People have to realise he just did as he was told at the time and was never really told things in depth but just to say yes,no or whatever.He was always loyal to the cause at the time without questioning many things as he trusted people above.
I know Bik is very upset and very,very angry at the moment at people who know nothing at all about the situation and mouth off fictional garbage on websites.All this seems to be engineered at a very high level politically and within the british security services.
Dixie your 99% was garbage haha.As for simon you sound another fantasiser.I actually know 100% what conversations went on and in what language but here is not the time or place.Posters on here pretending to have been in the cage are a disgrace to those that died.
I don’t think Brendan Duddy lied, or is not a credible witness. Rusty is correct that he came in for a lot of mis directed anger that night, this IMO is due to the nature of his role being misunderstood.
It isn’t that people don’t know what his role was, they simply are unaware of the specifics of it. For example, Brendan Duddy was asked why didn’t you say something and you could have saved all those mens lives? Because that was beyond his powers. Brendan Duddy went to great pains to point out, it was not his role to point to a particular line and say well no this could be worded better, or any thing like that.
The role of an interlocteur/conduit has never been examined in this conflict, and we really misunderstood the nature of that role, that goes for jurnos like Brian Rowan as for the rest of us.
Rowan was in the audience, if he’d found fault, or a contradiction between the testimony of Duddy on Sat night, and that to which he’d given Rowan, Rowan could have clarified it there and then.
I spoke to Brian Rowan, and he can confirm or deny this, he then spoke to Liam Clarke before the meeting began.
Brendan Duddy is a person who gave me the impression on Sat night that he is very literal in what he says. In doing so things have arisen from his account that needed clarification and contextualised. That is the problem here imv, not that duddy is not a credible witness, he was credible enough to be used as a conduit by both sides since 1974, and put it to everyone that he wasn’t talking bullshit at this late stage.
This is too open now, for Duddy or anyone else to lie, thats why Adams et al are staying silent.
Good morning, everyone.
Some background, to begin:
Sile Darragh is a member of the Bobby Sands Trust, which has a vested interest in protecting the Morrison narrative, not least because Danny Morrison is its secretary.
5 of the current Trust members are party to the dispute over the prison acceptance of the July offer. A further Trust member then weighs in with a letter supporting their position, and it in turn is flogged by Raymond McCartney on Radio Foyle as the new leadership line, which appears also in the Brian Rowan article about Brendan Duddy.
By the by, the Sands family has long disowned the Bobby Sands Trust and have sought in the past to have it wound up. In 2000,
Now, onto Síle Darragh’s letter – which really doesn’t amount to much more than what has already been said by the Morrison crowd; its only value is that it allows them to now say, “Síle Darragh’s letter,” and imply by reference that she is some sort of new authority for having put her name to something Morrison himself likely wrote. No matter – it says:
I have before me Ten Men Dead, too, and so, to look at the pages cited.
Continues…
Page 293 – the full quote describes the offer made through the Mountain Climber link. This has now been confirmed by Brendan Duddy as the offer obtained by Liam Clarke via FOI requests and can be viewed here.
Page 294 – says that the section on remission is “a vague offer”, but as we see from the NIO document:
III. allow the restoration of forfeited remission at the discretion of the responsible disciplinary authority, as indicated in my statement of 30 June, which hitherto has meant the restoration of up to one-fifth of remission lost subject to a satisfactory period of good behaviour;
(Síle’s letter was written before the NIO material was available and, obviously, before the Derry meeting).
Page 295 – a misleading extract from a comm of Bik McFarlane’s. He is speaking of the offer the ICJP was pursuing:
“I saw all the hunger strikers last night (6 July) and briefed them on the situation. They seemed strong enough and can hold the line alright. They did so last night when the Commission met them. There was nothing extra on offer – they just pushed their line and themselves as guarantors over any settlement.”
So although the word ‘offer’ appears in the line, it confuses things as it is referring to a different offer from the Mountain Climber one.
Page 297 – This refers to when Adams told the ICJP to back off because he had a better offer from the Mountain Climber.
Page 294 and 302 – That Morrison was in the hospital on the day has never been in dispute. However, the reference on page 302 to his visit is worth looking at a little closer. It quotes a comm McFarlane sent to Adams reassuring him that the hunger strikers were accepting the Adams line:
What this reads as is McFarlane reporting back that he had told the hunger strikers what Adams wanted him to and that they believed him.
Darragh then goes in her letter to say “Mr O’Rawe didn’t speak to the hunger strikers, didn’t visit the prison hospital or meet the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace.” This has no bearing whatsoever on O’Rawe’s role, and his knowledge of the acceptance of the Mountain Climber offer between himself and McFarlane.
Continues…
So now that we have looked at the Darragh letter in detail, we turn to Brendan Duddy’s endorsement of it as reported by Brian Rowan.
It is entirely consistent with his position at the Derry meeting, and in keeping with what his knowledge would have been at the time in his role as the Mountain Climber link. The difference is that in Derry, he was presented with the NIO document and able to verfiy that as the offer he conveyed to the Adams committee, he was able to clarify that he was never told of the prison leadership’s acceptance of the offer, and he confirmed the response from the Adams committee was to reject the offer. Brian Rowan, who was at the Derry meeting, did not have the NIO document at the time he wrote his article, and apparently did not ask him if he knew of the prison leadership’s acceptance of the deal. A failure to ask relevant questions does not mean ‘the witness is unreliable’; it means the lawyer is shading the examination, or not asking the right questions.
It is because Duddy answered all questions put to him in Derry, and moved the story forward beyond the Morrison offer/deal fudge because of the clarity his answers brought, that he is now being thrown under the bus by those who previously championed him. His account is still consistent with events as we know them and what knowledge he would have in his role as the link. The contention is that the Adams committee over-ruled the prison leadership’s acceptance of the offer Duddy was aware of; why then, would Duddy, who was not in direct contact with the prisoners, know otherwise? He would only know what the Adams committee told him as to what the IRA’s position was. He knew of the offer going in, and he knew that the offer was not accepted by the Adams committee. So of course he would say, “Síle Darragh got it spot on,” because she is describing what the Adams committee told Duddy.
There’s no contradiction; he has remained consistent throughout, given the remit of his role.
Great! So, Carrie Mackers, you now accept that Bangers met Kevin Lynch and Mickey Devine along with all the hunger strikers, though you believe he only told them te minimal. So much for your view on how intelligent these men were, who were facing death. They said, so Danny your in to tell us about the weather. Carrie, You have a problem here. Laurence McKeown and Micky Devine were borth brought out of the blocks to go to that meeting. Lorney and Paddy Quinn told me that Bangers told them EVERYTING and that Micky and Kevin were there also. Bangers spoke to Micky’ sister when she visited him on the Monday after her visit and she knew he was in Sunday I think Kevin McGillan brought her to the meetinf on the Falls.
But you still haven’t answered myquestion, which Ricky has never addressed either!
Lets go back to basics.
The devil Bucky beard tells Bik, fuck off, die some more, we need Owen elected. Bik says no problem mate, I’ll get them to die
Heres your problem, Carry,and I hpe that Mick Fealty, or whateve is the name of the guy who runs this site, publishes this promientely. I have been to the Central Library and at first I just assumed, becayese we had no papers and all. everything that you and Ricky said were right about dates.
The Fermanagh and S0uth Tyrone by election which Bucky Beard (who I adore to this day, he is brilliant, let there be no mistake about it when you consider the poor Palesitinians or now the Tamils, and I am not related so somedboyt in the Rock Bar has said who is blanketman! Its Seany Adams …NO!) WAS NOT CALLED UNTIL 29TH JULY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fermanagh and South tyrone was not called until 29th July!!! Check it out. Your argument whics basically lets face it is anti is pt out to dry and I didn’t even know it really until the thingstareed me in the face!
So how could Joe who died on the 8th be sacrificed for that or the others!!!!! Also spoke to the Scull who is the person on the tape. He is raging that thngs that he said about thngs that he only knew little about,that is Richards youphoria, which he definitely witness and which I accept, is being turned into an offer refused.
Get a grip. We were dealing with Thatcher that had let Bobby (MP!) and the three lads die and we were supposed to say okay it s off, A phone call from a Brit in London to MountianClimber in Derry to McGuiness, to Adams to Bangers to the lads and we should say that’s it its sorted, they’ve offered us half a demand our shirts and trousers and that’s what and Header we went through from 76. Go to hell.
By the way spoke to bangers and he emailed the organiser three weeks before the the event thanking him for the invitation but apologising that he couldn’t attend. He was in Austria for his tenth wedding anniversary and then they sayt he refused!!!! Yeh got to hell!!!!
WAS NOT CALLED UNTIL 29TH JULY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What is the discrepancy here? It doesn’t matter when it was called, once the death of the incumbent of the area happened there was going to be an election, anyone with any political foresight would know that. It’s irrelevant, unless I’m missing something here?
Rusty etal, this has the potential to be one of the more interesting threads on Slugger and I hope to read it more fully when I have time. However, it would be nice if everyone was a bit more polite to one and other, regardless of Rustys beliefs in all this an effort has been made to put together a reasoned position and Rusty continues to return and answers questions, it is also remarkable that this thread has attracted a number of ex-POWs who I also believe are worthy of some respect, so lets all play nicely.
Rusty, I think what struck me about Duddys comments which I posted was that (I believe) he said that bits around the Council been happy with the offer but not the ‘tone’ did not happen, and also, his comment regarding the expectation of it been another ‘con job’.
Regarding the first hungerstrike, and the issuing of prison approved clothing, I’d like to ask the ex-POWs who where there if the scene in ‘The Hunger’ where clothing, which quite frankly was a crime against fashion with bright colours to make your eyes bleed actually happened?
@”blanketmanH3″: You wrote:
So how could Joe who died on the 8th be sacrificed for that or the others!!!!! Also spoke to the Scull who is the person on the tape. He is raging that thngs that he said about thngs that he only knew little about,that is Richards youphoria, which he definitely witness and which I accept, is being turned into an offer refused.
Get a grip. We were dealing with Thatcher that had let Bobby (MP!) and the three lads die and we were supposed to say okay it s off, A phone call from a Brit in London to MountianClimber in Derry to McGuiness, to Adams to Bangers to the lads and we should say that’s it its sorted, they’ve offered us half a demand our shirts and trousers and that’s what and Header we went through from 76. Go to hell.
At last, we get to the truth. Thank you, Danny Morrison. I have known it was you from the start.
You have just confirmed that Richard’s cellmate did hear the conversation between Richard and Bik; you have accepted that they agreed to accept the offer you relayed to Bik.
You have now given us the reason that your committee rejected the deal, despite the prisoners’ willingness to accept it. You didn’t think it was enough, so you made the decision for them.
The whole idea that it was the prisoners and hunger strikers themselves that were in control of the hunger strike is now complete rubbish. The Adams committee ran this show, no one else. And when the prisoners themselves felt that the offer from the Mountain Climber had enough that they could settle for, and stop their comrades dying, you, Adams, McGuinness, Gibney and Hartley said, No. It is not enough. And you batted it back to them, Joe McDonnell died, and the hunger strike went on until all told, 10 men were dead.
You are hoisted on your own petard in your foolish attempt to be clever and in a fit of pique and anger at getting so thoroughly caught out.
At least you finally, albeit in a despicably sneaky and cowardly way, have admitted to the truth of what happened on the hunger strike in July of 1981.
Thank you for that.
It is really no good for those who oppose what Richard O’Rawe claims to howl at Rusty Nail, nor I might add does it do any good for Rusty to bring the Sands family into the debate, their differences with the Sands Trust are mainly political and administrative.
Whilst I am stamping my feet, for the life of me I do not see how it helps to tag as being responsible for six hunger strikers deaths republicans who at the time felt they were doing their best and the right thing.
Having said this, as Rusty Nail has pointed out, the comms are in the public domain placed there not only by Richard O’Rawe in his book but also by the writers of the more authoritative books on the Hunger Strike.
There was an offer taken into the jail by Dan which offered a way out of the Hunger Strike. No matter what Bik may say and for whatever reason, after Morrison’s visit he sent a comm to the A/C committee overseeing the hunger strike and they replied the offer was not good enough. McFarlane and O’Rawe both accepted this decision as it seems did the hunger strikers who were made aware of it. (For example we know GH was not at the time told about the offer)
All the huffing and puffing will not alter these facts, those who claim the A/C committee made this decision for low reasons do not know this for a fact, they are just guessing.
This whole kerfuffle has arisen because Gerry Adams, who headed the A/C sub committee will not take ownership of the committees decision and tell the world how and why they made their decision not to recommend the deal.
Like on so many other matters he seems content to keep quiet, let the matter fester and hope it eventually dies down, no matter that history becomes distorted in the process. I realize his life is complex and people are only to willing to hang him out to dry, but by doing this Adams is placing the onus, and the heat on Morrison and McFarlane, instead of shouldering the responsibility himself, which is the job of a ‘true’ leader.
I find it contemptuous that any Republican would try and justify the non acceptance of this offer by claiming the Brits renegaded on a similar deal that ended the first HS, when they know it collapsed and there was no actual deal had arrived on the table before Hughes pulled the plug.
Please stop insulting the comrades who were involved in the first hunger strike by telling lies, the simply fact was Sean McKenna wanted to live and good on him for that and bless Brendan Hughes for saving his life. It is a great pity that Bik when OC, despite his many fine qualities did not have that extra well of common humanity that Hughes possessed.
Finally just a point on Richard O’Rawe who unlike all the other actors in this tale, has actually admitted he made ‘a mistake’ in accepting the Army Council committee com which rejected the offer. I have no doubt this is what drives him.
In many ways he reminds me of the young couple McDonalds tried to silence over something they wrote. The burger chain took them to court and did all they could to destroy them. But in the end it was McDonalds who were defeated. Food for thought for some, although hopefully not a big mac.
So, you are Carrie?
But you were not herd during thos e days? Do you have any idea of what it was like? Have you spoken to the families?
Your Number One success – attempting to destroy “We were more than blanketmen. We were brothers.”
Mackers might know who I am. I helped him get a job in (3 or 94.
He is honest, unlikeyou
@”blanktetmanH7″:
Did you forget what block you were in on the blanket, Danny? Was it H3 or H7?
The bond between blanketmen will not be destroyed because the truth of what happened in July has emerged. The blanketmen are not at fault for this; they were loyal volunteers who did literally lay their lives down for each other.
An opportunity arose in July 1981 to resolve the hunger strike and prevent further deaths. This is now a matter of record.
The onus is now on the members of the Adams committee to explain why they rejected the offer.
Crying “British duplicity!” and leaving it at that will not be enough. We have just been treated to an awful show of Republican duplicity from those same leaders of that time; people are not so foolish or naive anymore to fall into line like Pavlov’s dog at the uttering of a worn-out cliche.
What was on offer in July, and rejected by your committee, was what the British implemented when the hunger strike came to an end.
Keep on with telling the truth, Danny, hard as it might be. It is far better than to desperately continue to cling to the lies.
Rusty, if identifying blanketmanH3 as Danny Morrison as a display of your powers of deduction (or rather jumping to conclusions), I think you’ve just blown a hole in a lot of what you said.
But well…..
Mickhall – thanks for bringing a bit of sense to all this.
How interesting!
You malign me because of what block I was in?
Are you Carrie, my honest angel? Please answer. Arye you a player?
Why won’t you anwser my questions?
You are out to split the Republican movemenbtand you don’t give a damn.
@circles:
You should know by now that I do not say anything I am not absolutely sure of or am unable to verify.
@Danny:
I am not the one who rejected the prisoners wishes and spent the next two decades covering it up.
That would be you.
Although rusty,on the other hand……..