Which Dixie, if they were going to publish the statement of what they verbally promised they would have to admit negotiating with the IRA, however as they would only publish AFTER the hungerstrike ended why bother following through, they’ve publically condemned the prisoners and the IRA constantly during the hungerstrike, so who would believe Adams that he had a verbal ‘offer’.

Any political (or indeed anyone) considering doing a ‘U-turn’ needs to pave the way.

Regarding the by-election, 05/07 – 20/08, lets address it, run me through your timeline, offer made 5th July, offer accepted when, announced when, offer publically agreed when, who claims victory, when does the world media calm down, when does the SDLP announce they will stand, when does the SDLP election campaign start.

Are you claiming that once the offer becomes a public deal the worlds reporters go home and write about something else, are you saying SF would not claim a victory going into the election, are you saying that the SDLP had their posters and workers all ready, are you saying that the voters would forget about the hungerstrike in a few days and all would go back to normal.

Dixie, the rubbish about the by-election is a red herring, its people who ignore what the atmosphere was like at the time and just look at dates and events and concoct a storyline that fits

What better way to fight an election than on a platform of having defeated Thatcher, made her talk to the IRA and concede 4 out of 5 demands.

It didn’t happen because you don’t have to be a genius to work out that if someone will only tell you something verbally in private they are not going to publish it in public.

Now while they were making these statements and many others in public we know that they were in talks with Adams via the Mountain Climber, that is beyond doubt, even Bik now admits this. Not only that but according to Adams in his autobiography, he was on the phone to a British official when the phone went dead, he then heard that Joe had died.

Now this proves that at that vital stage the Brits were in direct contact with Adams and not via the Mountain Climber. Why would the Brits be in direct contact with Adams if they didn’t see the need to push things on at this, as I say, vital stage?

This point, which is from Adams mouth that he was in contact with the Brits, begs the question was this why they kept stalling on going in during that time? Where they waiting on Adams to agree to what was on offer? And we already know that the IRA was saying more was needed from Brendan Duddy. We also know from Bik’s comm at that time that he was saying to Adams that ‘if we don’t pull this off and Joe dies the IRA are going to come in for some stick.’

What do you think he was talking about pulling off?

Fin you are good at side stepping awkward questions and I see you’ve ignored the point I made about the 20th August by-election and the implementing of the offer that was on the table from July 5th after the Hunger Strikes finally fell apart.

Fin, I already posted on this and obviously you ignored every point I made…

What Father Meagher handed Adams was a worthless piece of paper and the Dark hadn’t seen it when he called of the Hunger Strike. In fact the main demand was clothing and work was another and this as I’ve pointed out several times was the part of that worthless piece of paper regarding these demands;

“The prisoners would have to wear ‘prison-issue clothing’ during week-days, when they were engaged in prison work.”

Would you call that an offer?…There was nothing contained within those documents that would have ended that Hunger Strike even had Dark let Sean McKenna die.

so at what point was Thatchers private position going to meet her public position and become one?

What relevance is all of that to the current debate. I’m sure you’re aware that all sides had both a public and private position and that private positions differed to the public positions, very much so in the case of the Brits as evidenced in the FOI documents.

So even the Irish government didn’t trust Thatcher.

“The government view is that if they (striking prisoners) wish to die, then they had better get on with it. It’s a standoff. If somebody dies, there will be a limited degree of disorder, but we think we are prepared for it. By and large, it (the hunger strike) is a test of nerve, and I think we (the British government) have enough nerve.”
High ranking government official in Belfast
Chicago Tribune, 3 March 1981

“We shall continue in our efforts to stamp out terrorism. Mr. Sands was a convicted criminal. He chose to take his own life. It was a choice his organization did not give to many of their victims.”
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Washington Post

“Crime is crime is crime.

It is not my habit or custom to meet members of parliament from a foreign country to talk about a citizen of the United Kingdom resident in the United Kingdom.”
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on refusing to meet
with Irish Prime Minister
Charles Haughey
Chicago Tribune, 22 April 1981

“‘The government sees no justification for giving prisoners in Northern Ireland a substantially different regimen’ from those imprisoned elsewhere in Britain.”
Northern Ireland Secretary Humphrey Atkins, after death of Thomas McElwee
Washington Post, 9 August 1981,

“I and my predecessors have already made clear that further development of the prison regime will be possible once duress is removed.”
James Prior, British Secretary for Northern Ireland
Chicago Tribune, 4 October 1981, 1-6

‘If you didn’t go on hunger strike when you were told to, you wouldn’t last very long, and neither would your family,’ she said…”
Jill Knight, member of British Parliament
Chicago Tribune, 7 October 1981

“During these weeks in July and early August I may also have been influenced more than I realised at the time by the frustration I felt at having to deal thereafter with the British government while I had, in a sense, one hand tied behind my back. For I would naturally have liked to confront them with — and would have liked even more to be able to make public — my knowledge of the furtive contacts on their behalf with the IRA, which seemed to have proved fatal to the resolution of the problem. But careful reflection led me to conclude that any revelation to the British of our knowledge of these activities would be likely to render a solution less rather than more likely. Disclosure of this knowledge could have drive the British government, and the Prime Minister in particular, into a state of embarrassed intransigence. This might have been accompanied by denials, which — if we had refused to accept them, as in honesty we would have had to do — would have made impossible the development of any kind of reasonable relationship between that government and ourselves. The fact moreover that our information, while absolutely convincing in its detail, was necessarily second-hand (it was what a member of the commission had told us Adams and Morrison had said to them) reinforced the need for caution.”

It does not get more clear than that.

However, to make it a little clearer – in last week’s Irish News, Fitzgerald revealed:

“They were keen to accept that. We knew that. We had our sources within the prison,” he said.
“As well as from the commission, we knew something was happening in the prison from other sources.”

This would also be a factor as to why the then-Taoiseach could not press the British or make public what they knew.

Dixie, this was also the format for the 2nd hungerstrike ending.

“As was stated in the documents they weren’t going to admit negotiating with PIRA even when a deal was sealed. If again you fully read what Rusty wrote and others wrote this would be clear.”

Dixie, everyone and his brother was urging Thatcher to do a deal (except unionists) why keep it a secret, as I said previously the Isish gov knew, they had a mole in he prison, IF, that had been the atmosphere at the time (AND IT WASN’T) they could have informed HMG they knew and it was ok. The reality was the opposite, Thatcher stated publically that she would not take advice from a foreign gov (Irish) in talking to criminals.

Why did a 2nd hungerstrike start? Rusty doesn’t say’
fin

This has been covered several times fin and I wrote this only recently…

Why do all those supporting Adams keep pushing the lie that the Brits reneged on an offer during the first Hunger Strike? They know it’s a lie it has been documented that there was nothing in the piece of paper which the Dark hadn’t yet seen when he called off that Hunger strike to save Sean McKenna’s life.

Father Meagher had just handed it to Adams when he got word that the Hunger Strike was over. So how can they renege on a deal not yet completed?

In fact the part in that document concerning clothes, the most important of the Five Demands was nothing more than…

“The prisoners would have to wear ‘prison-issue clothing’ during week-days, when they were engaged in prison work.”

McGuinness advised people to read Ten Men Dead, well if you do so you’ll find it on page 44. It can also be found in Denis O’Hearn’s book, pages 295-302.
When Bobby got to see the document he said to Father Meagher, “It wasn’t what we wanted.”

And why would Bobby Sands be writing out a comm on the night that the Hunger Strike ended saying he would be starting another Hunger Strike on January 1st if there was an offer on the table? Don’t take my word on that, Jim Gibney said he seen that comm in a speech in March 2004, Bobby’s 50th birthday.

Why do they continue to peddle this lie?

———————————————

The second Hunger Strike began obviously because the first one had failed due to the Dark calling it off to save Sean’s life.

You keep referring to a third Hunger Strike, where do I say this? I said that the second Hunger Strike could have been suspended for 24 hours to see if the Brits kept to their word, then if not, resumed with those who were waiting next in line.

————————————————

‘But that’s all rubbish anyway Dixie because the whole world and the Irish Gov was calling on Thatcher to do a deal, so why did Thatcher have to keep it a secret?’

As was stated in the documents they weren’t going to admit negotiating with PIRA even when a deal was sealed. If again you fully read what Rusty wrote and others wrote this would be clear.

If the IRA agreed to bring the Hunger Strikes to an end then they would as they did on October 6th, implement changes to the prison regime which contained that on offer from July 5th.

The prisoners stated in their July 4th statement that they were willing to accept changes that included all prisoners whether political or not, which is ‘changes to the prison regime’ is it not?

Also its worthwhile reading the statement republished above, it clearly states it wouldn’t be a commitment to end the hungerstrike that triggered its release, it was the ENDING of the hungerstrike.

Dixie why did the first hungerstrike end? Rusty brushes over this?

Why did a 2nd hungerstrike start? Rusty doesn’t say

Are the reasons for the 2nd hungerstrike any different than the reasons you envisioned for a possible 3rd hungerstrike if Adams had done what you and Rusty believed he should have.

Rusty says the offer had to be kept secret, because negotiating with the IRA would have “impacted relations with the Irish government” is this the same Irish Gov. that Fitzgerald claimed to have had a mole in the H-Blocks and knew all about the deal. If in 1981 these were the thoughts of HMG than the Irish gov would have had the same thoughts. Yes? and would have surely given Thatcher the nod. Yes?

But thats all rubbish anyway Dixie because the whole world and the Irish Gov was calling on Thatcher to do a deal, so why did Thatcher have to keep it a secret?

Now we know if the Hunger Strike had ended before the Fermanagh / South Tyrone by-election on August 20th that the SDLP would no longer need to stand aside and would have stood against Owen Carron and without doubt Ken Maginnis would have taken the seat.

Therefore are we to presume that the Brits realising this would have wanted the Hunger Strikes to continue handing Sinn Fein another propaganda coup and having done this would’ve given in anyway upon the Hunger Strikes falling apart?

It was the same that the ICJP had been offered, in fact didn’t Adams tell Crilly and Logue that the prisoners had more on offer than they [the Commission] had?

Therefore both Adams and the ICJP knew what was on offer. Secondly the Brits said that they would show the statement to both the Hunger Strikers and the press as soon as PIRA gave a commitment to end the Hunger Strike.

It was not a deal either, it was an offer which only becomes a deal when both sides agree.

How could they guarantee something from HMG which had not been said to them by HMG, let alone put down in writing? the ‘deal’ was delivered to them verbaly from Adams via Duddy.

“Then he could have told the Brits that if when the Hunger Strike ended that they [the Brits] hadn’t released the statement immediately as promised”

What statement, what did it say, get a promise to release a statement which you have no idea whats in it? once the stike is over the Brits could put anything they like on paper and claim thats all they offered.

“then the Hunger Strikes would resume within 24 hours, as dozens of men were waiting in line to join the Hunger Strikes.”

Wow, hungerstrike number 3, sorry folks our 2nd misunderstanding, we really must start getting these things in writing

“If the Brits back tracked and reneged on their promise then the ICJP would have no choice to inform the world about the Brits nefarious tactics in bringing the Hunger Strike to an end ”

No, the ICJP could inform the world what Adams had told them, Adams in turn could inform the world what Duddy had told him, the Brits could quite rightly deny it all.

“and the Hunger Strike could have resumed with fresh men who had the moral high ground to themselves.”

Would the 3rd hungerstrike end on a verbal agreement (3rd time lucky!) or do you think they would ask for something in writing

Which is more reasonable, the idea that no such comms existed, or that the comms existed and were “disappeared”?

The known facts as have been confirmed bear out their one-time existence. Whether they still exist, and by this time it is highly unlikely, is questionable. It makes no sense, however, knowing what we do know, for them to have never had existed in the first place.

Plain and simple, are you saying that if he thought there was a ‘huge opportunity to end this’ that he wouldn’t have wrote out to Brownie [Adams]and told him so and wouldn’t Adams have replied with his views on it?

Now I acknowledge that comms coming into the jail would’ve been destroyed for obvious reasons but we know from Ten Men Dead that those going out were saved and all that I’m asking is, what happened to that comm from Bik? It would be beyond comprehension to believe he didn’t sent one out especially if he thought something could bring it to and end.

However if such a comm were ‘discovered’ then the question would be, what was Adams’ reply…Did he agree with Bik and if so what then happened? Or did he disagree and why?

Like so much of this whole nasty little campaign it is yet another argument lacking any evidence other than the prejudice of its author who clearly has never heard of Occam’s Razor (though he seems familiar with the works of Dan Brown)and made the obvious assumption that if a ‘comm’ was not seen or replied to it might be entirely reasonable to assume first that it never in fact existed.

Of course if one wants to play a dirty little black propaganda game then what one does is posit the existence of such an item, including one’s clairvoyant knowledge of its content (which naturally will suit one’s own argument), and then claim that it’s failure to materialise is due to a cover-up conspiracy.

As to the hysterical over-emotionalism of the one who goes by the pseudonym, What’s the point (what indeed?), attempting to ring treachery and denigration out of the completely innocent use of a word I only have this to: “Do go away, please and grow up!”

Is that this statement?:

Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

1. In the light of discussions which Mr Michael Alison has had recently with the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace, during which a statement was issued on 4 July on behalf of the protesting prisoners in the Maze Prison, HMG have come to the following conclusions.

2. When the hunger strike and the protest is brought to an end (and not before), the Government will:

I. extend to all male prisoners in Northern Ireland the clothing regime at present available to female prisoners in Armagh Prison (i.e. subject to the prison governor’s approval);

II. make available to all prisoners in Northern Ireland the allowance of letters, parcels and visits at present available to conforming prisoners;

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;

IV. ensure that a substantial part of the work will consist of domestic tasks inside and outside the wings necessary for servicing of the prison (such as cleaning and in the laundries and kitchens), constructive work, e.g. on building projects or making toys for charitable bodies, and study for Open University or other courses. The prison authorities will be responsible for supervision. The aim of the authorities will be that prisoners should do the kinds of work for which they are suited, but this will not always be possible and the authorities will retain responsibility for decisions about allocation.

3. Little advance is possible on association. It will be permitted within each wing, under supervision of the prison staff.

4. Protesting prisoners have been segregated from the rest. Other prisoners are not segregated by religious or any other affiliation. If there were no protest the only reason for segregating some prisoners from others would be the judgment of the prison authorities, not the prisoners, that this was the best way to avoid trouble between groups.

5. This statement is not a negotiating position. But it is further evidence of the Government’s desire to maintain and where possible to improve a humanitarian regime in the prisons. The Government earnestly hopes that the hunger strikers and the other protesters will cease their protest.