Slugger O'Toole

Conversation, politics and stray insights

Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)

Tue 1 June 2010, 11:38pm

As I stated in the previous blog unionists have relatively little to fear from outing collusion. However, if any collusion between the forces of the state and loyalists is to be outed then the evidence held by the state of collusion between assorted groups and republican terrorists also needs to be brought out. If any linen is to be washed in public then the scarcely soiled linen of any relationship between the forces of the state and loyalists must be set beside that of the foul and putrid linen of assorted other organisations and republican terrorists.

The first thing to be noted is that it seems likely that republican murderers were protected by our own government. David Simpson has raised in the House of Commons the specific issue of Francie Molloy and the murder of one of Simpson’s own relatives, Frederick ‘Eric’ Lutton. That would seem to be at least as suspicious as any claim of collusion between the state and loyalists. If Molloy was such an important informer that he had to be protected then some may regard that as acceptable. However, if issues of collusion are going to be debated then that issue and ones like it should be brought to the fore.

Molloy is only one leading republican against whom repeated allegations have been made and yet no prosecutions ever pursued. The murderers responsible for the IRA bombing of Claudy have been repeatedly named and yet never prosecuted. The police have stated that one of the leaders was a named Catholic priest (Fr. Chesney) and that he was allowed to leave Northern Ireland and go to live in Donegal. As I have noted previously a man is being prosecuted for the murder of Jennifer Cardy but the named child murderer Chesney was never prosecuted. People are currently disgusted (rightly so) about the failure to prosecute assorted priests for child abuse in the past. Here we have clear evidence of the failure to prosecute a priest who abused the most basic of all children’s rights: Kathyrn Eakin’s right to life. There are also of course a number of other suggested members of the Claudy gang who have been arrested but it seems that there is inadequate evidence to prosecute them.

There are also persistent very strong suggestions that there is evidence against even more senior republicans than the Claudy bombers. Operation Taurus against Martin McGuinness was never pursued despite what apparently was adequate evidence to make convictions a possibility. Ian Paisley previously accused McGuinness of involvement in the murder of Frank Hegarty. There is also suggested to be evidence tying Gerry Adams to La Mon and Bloody Friday which again has never been tested in court. Had that been evidence linking loyalists to criminality, the republican movement would be baying “collusion” at every opportunity.

Running informers and touts may be seen as being a necessary evil; the problem seems to be that some of the protected individuals appear to have been committing extremely serious criminal acts. Had this been the other way round it would be being portrayed by republicans as a national scandal. Republicans understandably do not seem to be terribly exercised by the state’s failure to prosecute them and appear to try to ignore questions about this. This is unsurprising but in addition there are also persistent suggestions that leading republicans colluded with the security forces to remove those in the republican movement whom they wanted rid of. As an example it has never been fully explained how the SAS knew about their breakfast guests at Loughgall that May morning in 1987 but if, as has been suggested, very senior leadership figures in the republican movement wanted rid of the leaders of the East Tyrone IRA then that collusion should be produced. In no way, however, can the security forces be realistically criticised for the deaths of the eight “Loughgall matyrs:” arresting eight terrorists armed with automatic weapons and a bomb in a digger would have placed the forces of law and order in far too big a risk of death to be justifiable. Whilst the security forces and the intelligence services have nothing to be ashamed of in the Loughgall attack, there are those within the republican movement who might have their positions made uncomfortable by any revelations about how the terrorists met their end.

Although the security forces may have evidence of informers etc. within the republican movement they may also have very considerable evidence of links between other organisations and republican terrorists: evidence which if collusion etc. is to be fully explored should be brought out.

I have already mentioned the issue of a Catholic priest who was not merely a child abuser but a child killer but there are also other possible incidents of collusion worth mention. The building within which the Enniskillen bomb was placed in November 1987 is now called “The Clinton Centre” after the ex president of the USA. However, previously it was the Catholic Church’s reading rooms; it was that when it was blown up with such disastrous consequences. It has been reported that that building had been routinely searched by the security forces each year before the Remembrance Parade. However, in 1987 the RUC did not search the building. This leaves the possibility that one of the murderers, none of whom have ever been caught, got wind of the fact that the no search had been made. Of course one could postulate an even more sinister set of circumstances: again if we are looking at collusion in a spirit of openness it might be useful for the government, security services and indeed the Catholic Church itself to explain what it suspects is the explanation for the odd coincidence of there being no search the very year the IRA decided to murder people.

There are other examples of apparent collusion which have never been adequately investigated. The murder of the two most senior RUC officers killed during the troubles: Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan on their way back from a meeting with Garda officers in the RoI has never been explained. Again there is the strong suspicion of these men being the victims of collusion between Garda officers and the IRA. Again there have been no prosecutions and this looks a more flagrant example of collusion than any accusation which has ever been levelled at the RUC. Furthermore the Smithwick Tribunal has still not got the length of public hearings.

Of course the Garda are far from the only organisation of the RoI state which has been involved in collusion: the trial of Charles Haughey shows very strong evidence of attempts by senior members of the RoI government to support and advance a sectarian murder operation in the United Kingdom. The fact that one of the individuals (Haughey) involved in this activity went on to become the Taoiseach of the RoI shows an attitude towards collusion which would far surpass even the most excited fantasies of those seeking collusion within Northern Ireland. After his election of course Mr. Haughey seems to have continued the policy of collusion and the investigation into the murder of members of the parachute regiment at Warrenpoint appears to have been sabotaged at a high level within the Irish government.

Clearly the above is but one example of the shameless state collusion between the RoI and the sectarian murderers of the IRA. The repeated failure to extradite republican terrorists sits ill with the repeated claims by the RoI government to be actively fighting terrorism. To be fair there are many honourable exceptions and it appears that many members of RoI security forces were committed to stopping the IRA: at least 10 of them paid for that commitment with their lives (the true heroes of the Irish Republic during the Troubles). It would appear, however, that there were two competing viewpoints: that of official formal cooperation with the UK’s security forces against a brutal sectarian murder gang and alongside that a semi official policy of minimising the practical outworking of that cooperation in any individual cases.

As I stated at the start collusion covers a multitude of issues; none of them should make people comfortable, it is unfortunate that the police have to use informers and at times not prosecute certain offences but the utilitarian approach that the end justifies the means is up to a point a valid one. The problem of course occurs knowing where the line is to be drawn between acceptable and intelligent use of the likes of informers and inappropriate and immoral actions by the forces of law and order. Sadly at times this seems to have happened in Northern Ireland; however, it seems to have happened remarkably rarely considering the circumstances. In addition there is no credible evidence of an organised campaign of collusion by whole arms of the state in the way which republican fantasists like to pretend.

The republican movement has attempted to make much of the issue of collusion in spite of a marked absence of evidence. Their claims of a desire for a truth commission typed approach have been met with concern by unionists. The reason for this of course is that republicans actually want a process which exposes any and all inappropriate or misguided actions by the security forces. Even if every one of these occurrences was completely explained and poured over they would then claim that this represents the tip of some supposed iceberg of collusion.

What republicans would not want of course is any truth about their own immoral actions: they are never going to tell us the truth behind their murders; what truth was discovered about events like Enniskillen was denied and of course they cannot even admit to the likes of Kingsmill, Darkley and so many other murders. Whilst it may be fair to say that the republican movement does not keep detailed records of their actions there is little doubt that if the security forces revealed what they know about such incidents it would make far from comfortable reading for the current republican myth makers who would have us believe that the IRA campaign was for civil rights for the nationalist community rather than a brutal sectarian murder campaign with added murder of any of “their own side” who dared cross them. In addition republicans would have no desire for the evidence of their own collusion with the RoI and other parts of civic society to be revealed. Lastly and possibly most seriously for republicans, what they want least is any discussion of their own leadership’s collusion in setting up their own members for arrest or death at the hands of the security forces. The truth about collusion may contain mild embarrassment for unionists but would contain a great deal more for unionism’s enemies. As such the next time republicans ask for the truth to be revealed or for a truth commission it needs to be pointed out that what republicans actually want is a less than a quarter of the whole truth. Unionists may have some embarrassment to suffer if the whole truth is revealed: republicans, however, cannot handle even a half of the truth.

Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Delicious Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Digg Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Facebook Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Google+ Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on LinkedIn Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Pinterest Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on reddit Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on StumbleUpon Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Twitter Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Add to Bookmarks Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Email Share 'Some thoughts on collusion (Part 2)' on Print Friendly

Comments (62)

  1. RepublicanStones (profile) says:

    No credible member of Army intelligence or Special Branch has ever come out and admitted to any of this

    Lets face it turgon anyone who did would be discredited, now wouldn’t they?

    they are never going to tell us the truth behind their murders

    Indeed witness the attempted discrediting of John Weir.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  2. joeCanuck says:

    Good post as usual, Turgon, well thought out and researched.
    What are your thoughts on the one investigation carried out, but which the government refuses to publish. Here are some thoughts I penned a couple of weeks ago (when the High Court ordered details be given to a Coroner) but have remain unpublished until now:

    Who rules, the Government or Parliament?

    I know but the barest details of the so called shoot-to-kill incidents. Anyone has the right to use lethal force to protect themselves or someone else from the threat of death, perhaps from serious injury. But they are required to explain their actions to the authorities and maybe face a court.
    Now in the cases mentioned, Republican activists claim that the authorities deliberatey decided to kill people even though the shooters, Police or Army, were in no immediate danger. That would be murder.
    The Government of the day took these allegations seriously enough that they decided an inquiry was needed. The Inquiry was held and conclusions written up and the report handed over to the appropriate Minister. The Government decided that they didn’t like the conclusions and have refused to release the report. That should not be acceptable in a democracy. The report belongs untimately to the people, we paid for it. It also gives any reasonable person fair suspicion that there is something damning in the report.
    Now here in Canada, for the past 4 months there has been a battle between the government and Parliament over the Government’s refusal to hand over documents concerning what they knew or what they did about Afghan prisoners taken by Canadian Forces and handed over to the Afghani authorities (allegations of torture). The Speaker finally ruled a few weeks ago that Parliament is supreme and that they are entitled to any and all unredacted documents held by the Government. A compromise was subsequently reached by both sides that a tribunal of judges would make a final ruling on whether some documents should or shouldn’t be put in the public domain, having respect to national security issues.
    Does the UK Parliament not have the same right? Couldn’t they demand to see Stalker’s report? Or are they just not interested in what happens in what (to some of them) is a backwater hellhole?
    Finally, the details of the executive summary don’t just exist in Stalker’s report. Given how shabbily he has been treated, they must be firmly fixed in his mind. The Coroner should consider summoning him to appear at the Inquest as a material witness.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  3. I’m not going to try fisking this other than that the title – ‘Some thoughts on collusion’ – doesn’t match the content. This is simply a list of allegations that various leading figures in SF were either responsible for various deaths or informers. Its bearing on the issue of collusion is minimal and some of the content probably crosses the legal lines of libel.
    If you put as much thought into exploring the issue of RUC/Loyalist collusion, Turgon, you might have got a debate going (instead you’re only going to get cheerleaders and a lot of abuse for your efforts). To only cite Robert Hamill is a pretty lame account of alleged collusion, under the circumstances (compared to your exhaustive encyclopedia of republican collusion with anyone conspiracy theories, although you did leave out Billy Wright). Even so, in the Hamill case, the collusion allegation is that the RUC sat back and watched knowing what was happening, not that one reservist interefered in due process post hoc. Technically neither is collusion, there were dereliction of duty.
    Ironically, you could have given a real insight into whether mainstream unionism feels any collusion or potential collusion was justified, or the extent to which unionists genuinely believe it took place.
    Instead, you’re suggesting that pretending it didn’t happen is the best approach. Or that unionism isn’t yet ready to take a deep breath and confront the subject head on. In either case, you’ve spent a lot time telling us nothing we didn’t know already.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  4. Brian (profile) says:

    So, in summary:

    The only collusion that took place was between the ROI and the PIRA. They were basically working together. (fenian bastards, the lot of em!)

    99% of other claims and evidence of collusion were made up by Republicans divert attention from the fact that they were and are very, very evil.

    This would be laughable if you weren’t being serious.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  5. IRIA says:

    This is a laundry list of innuendo and reads like a Pete Baker conspiracy wet dream. Anyone who followed the “Informer’ Molloy” link will know that is BS. No chance he could’ve bedded multiple people in his lifetime.

    Anyone named under cover of the House of Commons and not out in “public” isn’t to be believed.

    O’Neil (above) is right. If you wanted to take this topic seriously, you would’ve gone into more loyalist collusion than just the Hamill case. All you did was take what is regarded a Republican issue (Collusion) and turn it into a Unionist one.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  6. aquifer says:

    For the Provisional IRA, conspiracy to murder was the rule, not the exception.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  7. Dec says:

    Whilst the security forces and the intelligence services have nothing to be ashamed of in the Loughgall attack

    Yes, let’s gloss over the riddling of the Hughes’ brothers car at the time. Still, what’s one more dead taig, eh Turgon?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  8. Turgon says:

    Dec,
    I agree that was terrible. Sadly the utterly innocent Mr. Hughes had the misfortune to drive into the ambush. He was wearing exactly the same clothes as the terrorists (a boiler suit). It is extremely sad but the people who illegally attacked the police station were the IRA. They have the primary responsibility for putting Mr. Hughes and his brother’s lives at risk.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  9. JohnM (profile) says:

    I couldn’t read beyond this bit in your first paragraph:

    “It is feared that the problems around collusion will detract from the clear high moral ground which unionists (and constitutional nationalists) hold over republicanism”

    You’ve got to be kidding, right? They may not have physically planted any bombs or killed any people, they just got the RUC/B-men/UDR/British Army to do their dirty work for them.

    There will be no moving forward until everyone (INCLUDING Unionists) get off their high horse and admit collective responsibility for what happened.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  10. tacapall (profile) says:

    Turgon. Why not mention the allegations about RUC Special Branch
    who colluded with the Mount Vernon UVF in over a dozen murders of innocent people then refused to co-operate with the Police Ombudsmans investigations concerning those allegations. How many inquiries have we had concerning collusion and shoot to kill allegations, none of which have been published. I guess the British Government does not share your belief that Unionism and itself have nothing to fear from the truth being outed.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  11. Big John says:

    one more dead republican ya mean? A cause for celebration lol i think

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  12. Dec says:

    Yeah, it’ll be the boiler suit that caused the army to shoot Anthony Hughes fifteen times and his brother Oliver 14 times as they desperately tried to reverse away. Oliver recently passed away still waiting for an apology from the British Army for the death of his brother. As you say, nothing to be ashamed of.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  13. Neil (profile) says:

    If any linen is to be washed in public then the scarcely soiled linen of any relationship between the forces of the state and loyalists must be set beside that of the foul and putrid linen of assorted other organisations and republican terrorists.

    LOL it’s like reading a parody of a Loyalist. Basically your point above is that while the independent police ombudsman has openly stated in various areas where Loyalists were helped to commit murder and provided with weapons this is nothing compared to the rumour and speculation you heard one time about them dirty fenians. P.S. we’re Loyalists, God’s own people and therefore can do no wrong.

    Face it Turgon, prior to the ombudsman Loyalists refused to accept any suggestion that the cops were involved. It was a good 95% protestant force, and they always acted with grace, kindness and dignity. Except we now know beyond a shadow of doubt that that’s bullshit, thanks to the ombudsman.

    So you change your claim to say that some cops might have done something this one time but the fenians dammit – they’re the evil ones not us good decent prods. Wise up and face facts, the world now knows that the RUC actively assisted in the murder of Catholics. Time for you to catch up.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  14. Michael says:

    I disagree, there’s no way the state ever colluded in the murder of anyone.

    Except poor Billy Wright ofc, god bless his poor, ‘should never have been in gaol in the first place’ soul.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  15. Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit (profile) says:

    For obvious reasons the truth of this matter is very difficult to establish. I personally view the ‘troubles’ as largely a guerrilla war between the PIRA and the British and it would be naive for Unionists such as Turgon to believe that the British would not employ Loyalsits in that war and it is bit hypocrical for PIRA and Republicans (I include myself in the second category) to complain when your enemy (the British) use your own techniques against you.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  16. sdelaneys says:

    Donnelly’s bar in Silverbridge, men and boys murdered, and all the actions of the Glennane gang, just for starters were examples of ‘loyal’ collusion.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  17. Michael says:

    Your suggestion doesn’t take into account a central tenet of christian belief.
    That one day we all stand infront of our maker and be asked to waffle on for eternity about how bad the other guy is.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  18. Argosjohn says:

    Loughall: Irish patriots were going allong cleansing a small and localised area of unwanted, occupation barracks. So, Britain’s equivalent of the SS just waited at one of them and caught the patruiots “fair and square”. Then, in blood lust, they riddled them (almost countless) times. This was murder, just like Gibralter, the Grew boy and some others.

    Turgon is fascinated by Republicans and ignores, for whatever reason, the fact that Loyalist terror gangs were part and parcel of the British war manchine. They were auxilliary units. Why deny it? Ashamed of something?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  19. Argosjohn says:

    “and now having swoped their balaclavas for Armani suites seek to rewrite history with themselves as something other than the murderers and cheerleaders they were..”

    You are not even trying to rewrite history. Rather, your demons have the upper hand in you. Before writing another two part essay, read key primary and secondary sources, Don’t just rattle off a few badly researched facts to shoe horn into your own sectaarian agenda. Frank Kidson would be a good place to start. The work of the late Fr Denis Faul might make a good follow up.

    TYhe Orange State was set up and maintained by the bomb and the bullet. People like Robin Jackson, King Rat, Stobie and the rest of them kept in that way.
    Of course, infiltrating the Provos was a key goal. If you looked into the why and the where, it might help. But that would not suit your agenda. Or that of Wllie Frazer’s.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  20. st etienne says:

    it should probably be pointed out that when you have a serious terrorist threat on the streets there will always be civilian damage. Human nature. Whether you chose to accept reality or not isn’t really the issue at hand – that if the terrorists weren’t engaged in acts of violence the military wouldn’t be on the streets.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  21. st etienne says:

    those who pull the trigger are the people who do the time.

    sticks and stones…

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  22. JoeJoe says:

    Hi Turgon,
    You are always worth reading as an insight into unionism.

    Is there violent action by Gaels against invasion over the past few hundred years, that you would see as anything other than terrorism?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  23. RepublicanStones (profile) says:

    st etienne I think a converstaion I had with Turgon and Drumlin about a week ago may have provided some of the impetus for this thread of Turgon’s ( I may be wrong). Now during that converstaion i pointed out that the few bad apples routine was null and void. Collusion, false flag ops etc have long been a staple of British armed forces policy, throughtout the decades of the armed conflicts it has engaged in. One need only peruse through the unsavoury writings of Frank Kitson (who served in the north), or look at the history of the british elsewhere (e.g Kenya) to understand this very simple point. You seem to be toeing the same line of thinking which I corrected DR on. It shouldn’t just be the triggermen, it should be the suits who advocated and oversaw the policy who should be held to account.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  24. RepublicanStones (profile) says:

    Sammy my complaint is not the use of such tactics, its the incessant denials that such tactics were used. The British were using such tactics far and wide long before the Provisionals burst on the scene here. But for some reason Turgon is of the opinion that policies which the british deemed to have been successful elsewhere were not employed for the fight for God and Ulster. Strange logic I think you’ll agree.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  25. Turgon (profile) says:

    RS,
    You flatter yourself. I had been thinking of doing this blog for some time.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  26. RepublicanStones (profile) says:

    And just to add, until unionists call for full disclosure, and the british drop the pretence of having been a neutral party in the conflict, this pretence of ‘Our shit don’t stink’ will be sen for the hypocrisy it so blatantly is.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  27. st etienne says:

    I have yet to be convinced of the negatives as regarding playing one guerilla force off against the other RepublicanStones.

    Irregular yes, illegal? I’m not convinced.

    Who I’m referring to when I state those who pull the trigger doing the time are those in the community who crossed over the line of hate speech and took innocent people’s lives.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  28. IRIA says:

    Were the Hughes brothers wearing boiler suits or overalls? I thought it was overalls. Big difference.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  29. MonkDeWallyDeHonk says:

    Turgon

    When I started reading this, I had hopes of an even-handed insight into collusion. What a pity!

    It’s a one-sided rant and your pathetic assertion that so-called “Loyalists” hold the moral high ground is a joke.

    I myself have never voted for SF but I know an awful lot of Catholics who only did so after the IRA ceasefire – I think you’ll find that the SDLP were by far the biggest Nationalist party prior to that.

    As someone has already pointed out – the “Loyalist” community supported the 99.9% Protestant B-Specials, the RUC and the UDR with it’s well documented links with “Loyalist terrorists”.

    There are plenty of Protestants who were happy to turn a blind eye to sectarian murder aided by the so-called security forces.

    Your own party leader was noted for his even-handed criticism of all terrorism – sorry my mistake – he was known in the Catholic community for his vicious condemnation of IRA terrorism but for having nothing to say about “Loyalist” terrorism – ditto for McCrea, Campbell, Calvert (TUV) and quite a few high profile Unionist politicians. What about your party colleague and Torren Knight then?

    As the late David Irvine said – UVF leaders could tell you the colour of the wallpaper in the living rooms of most prominent Unionist politicians.

    You are truly at home in that washed up joke of a party – the TUV.

    I am aware that you personally (like myself) have no time for any terrorism.

    However, your attempt to label the Catholic community as immoral supporters of terrorism while “your community” had the moral high ground is simply transparent sectarian drivel and anyone with any intelligence (and an open mind -so that rules out 99% of the TUV) will see it as such.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  30. Turgon says:

    MonkDeWallyDeHonk,
    I do not accuse the Catholic community of involvement in terrorism. I accuse some of it and indeed some in the Protestant community of it.

    The first part of the first blog states: the “clear high moral ground which unionists (and constitutional nationalists) hold over republicanism (and loyalism)”

    Now maybe try retracting the lie you have just told about me.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  31. Dec says:

    St etienne

    I’m sure you’d be equally stoical if Anthony Hughes had been your brother.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  32. Brasco says:

    its sad that slugger is stooping to these levels….this thread wouldn`t be out of place on a loyalist site..

    sad.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  33. haha Brasco, you should read what he actually posts on unionist/loyalist sites, reat assured Turgies PC was flecked with saliva in trying to restrain himself to make this blog passable for slugger.

    without desending into whataboutry I would have thought that 2 incidents of collusion were more usable for yout Turgon
    1) Torrens Knight £50k a year + the clean up of the murder scene by the RUC afterwards (ps how is the TUV campaign going to have him released)

    2) Brian Nelson, his killing area was quite local to your adopted home, wasn’t it?

    However, collusion is a secondary issue, first there is the issue of murders committed directly by the RUC and BA, secondly the dual role of unionists terrorists who where also in the RUC, UDA, etc

    Then you reach the lesser issue of the RUC and BA employing and assisting unionist terrorists

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  34. Michael says:

    Turgon, at what point would a state lose the moral highground when it comes to colluding with paramilitaries in murder?

    After one murder?
    Two?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  35. fitzjameshorse1745 (profile) says:

    A Collusion Thread is not particuarly useful generating a lot of WHATABOUTERY.
    It is as Mark Urban wrote “Big Boys Rules” and if you arent prepared to understand that…..state murder, collusion, black propaganda, cover-up and all the rest.then you probably know little of how the real world works.
    On the specifics of Francie Molloy …frankly just not credible.
    But sooner or later all controversy including Collusion slips into History.
    Events like Pat Finnucane and Omagh routinely covered up denied. Then “not in the public interest” raises its head.
    More investigation. More “leaks”. Enquiry held in private.
    Delay….cases might appear in court. Sub judice. Lack of evidence (too many years have elapsed). Witnesses die. …occasionally violently.
    Public Enquiry.
    Oops something went wrong….back then……..NOT now.
    After all our very public enquiry eventually got the truth.
    “I told you so” if thats your “side”
    “Still refuse to believe it and anyway WHATABOUT…….no public enquiry about…… if thats your “side”
    Or simply say well yes of course Bloody Sunday was murder…….but didnt we all know that at the time. And whatabout the lawyers getting rich?

    Sorry folks but no amount of politicking really changes a historical fact. Its in the interests of some to keep the smokescreen……….but eventually the smoke clears.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  36. Eire32 says:

    JoeJoe said.. “Is there violent action by Gaels against invasion over the past few hundred years, that you would see as anything other than terrorism?”

    Great point lad.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  37. RepublicanStones says:

    Turgon I may flatter myself (though the tone and timing of this suggests otherwise) but your efforts at a Pointus Pilate have been laid bare.

    Quite colonial of you st etienne to suggest murder by the state could be legal. Paul Bremmer’s on the phone.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  38. RepublicanStones says:

    Turgon Unionism holds the moral highground over nobody. State terrorism has been a feature of British rule all over the globe. British armed forces have always enjoyed unqualified support from unionism. Show me where any unionist has called for full disclosure? And just look at what you wrote- ‘nobody credible’? The british govt would (and have) smear any whistleblower. Your post is laughable in the extreme.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  39. kevin moran says:

    My question is simple, if the republican wet-dream of collusion is a fact why the hell were the Brits so bad at it?

    Thousands upon thousands of police and army on the streets with names and photographs of the terrorists in their back pockets, many many years to get the job done and all the guns they could ever need.

    Maybe, just maybe it’s all a pile of poo and the ‘dirty war’ was simply a touch grey in places.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  40. Blue Hammer says:

    I wasn’t aware that any Gaelic area had BEEN invaded over the past few hundred years, with us Loyal Prods having been here since at least the early 17th century.

    So violent action by Gaels is obviously terrorism.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  41. Procrasnow (profile) says:

    One thing I would like revealed is the reason why John Stalker was removed from his investigation.

    and as far as I can recall from his book, he (Stalker) was about to return to the province to Interview the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable probably under Criminal Caution, was the evidence he had passed on to his successor and were these men ever interviewed in relation to that evidence?

    As far as I am aware a police officer does not interview under caution unless he has evidence affording him reasonable suspicion that the person being interviewed has committed the offence under investigation.

    just my thoughts on the issue

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  42. Reader (profile) says:

    Argosjohn: Loughall: Irish patriots were going allong cleansing a small and localised area of unwanted, occupation barracks. So, Britain’s equivalent of the SS just waited at one of them and caught the patruiots “fair and square”. Then, in blood lust, they riddled them (almost countless) times.
    Since you seem to believe in the armed struggle as a war, then this wasn’t murder. It was an ambush, of the sort that republicans typically celebrate in song.
    The situation is more complicated for people like myself who feel that there was not a war, and that the army should have been acting under the local rules of engagement. For us, then, there is just the recognition that the incident had a number of possible outcomes, right up until the instant that the IRA jumped out of the van and opened fire on the police station. From that point on, there was only one possible result.
    As for what happened to the Hughes brothers – yes, I think the SAS should have been answerable for what happened to them. The tactical situation was utterly different.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  43. anne warren says:

    Some Scots came to Ulster with the Earl of Antrim as early as the late 16th century. 400+ years ago.

    Has any other ethnic immigrant group anywhere in the world continued to view the local population as the enemy and refused to integrate for so long?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  44. jim says:

    he was interned

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  45. jim says:

    doesnt really matter wat tatics were used as long as u win.the ira surendered end of

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  46. jim says:

    of course infiltrating the provos was a key goal………..u could ask steaknife or the leadership about that.they were riddled..no pun intended..from top to bottom with informers

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  47. RepublicanStones (profile) says:

    So your a fan of any all tactics jim just so long as you win. We won’t see you whingeing on any La Mon threads in the future then will we?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  48. Brian (profile) says:

    If they collude, they are no longer Unionists but now Loyalists.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  49. Brian (profile) says:

    Refused to integrate? Would they have been allowed to integrate?? So I guess the reason there were all-Protestant factories and shipyards while many Catholics were unemployed was because they were “refusing to integrate”?

    Also, I seem to remember them simply asking for equal rights as citizens of the UK and the Protestant police force beat them senseless.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  50. jim says:

    bet jean mc conville will ba at the gates waiting

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  51. Brian (profile) says:

    Turgon

    Ever heard of Brian Nelson?

    What about the magical fire in secure facility that destroyed evidence during the Stevens Inquiries?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  52. jim says:

    surrender is surrender pira were defeated get over it.

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  53. Gerry Lvs Castro says:

    Excellent point Kevin and one which I’ve wondered about for some time.

    According to one of the ‘who killed who in the troubles’ sites, loyalist terrorists killed a grand total of 13 republican terrorists in a 25 year period. That’s a pretty piss poor showing for a large armed group supposedly well clued in on the ‘enemies of Ulster’ by their handlers.

    As for Loughgall, when you turn up at a police station armed with a bomb and automatic weapons and begin shooting, in a situation you yourself define as a war, it’s really not that surprising that every once in a while your adversary will give you a taste of your own medicine.

    The troubles or whatever you want to call the grubby, senseless little conflict that went on here left both sides with little to be proud of and a lot of skeletons in closets. Do we really want to spend the next 40 years looking back on the last 40?

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  54. RepublicanStones (profile) says:

    Indeed Jim many surrender parties you know get to dictate and agree disbandment of forces they don’t like?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  55. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    The first and most obvious question arising; is this a genuine explorations of the matters raised, or is there some other agenda at work here?
    I believe that there is such an agenda and my responses are predicated on that basis!
    This agenda is, in turgon’s own words, “ unending war by verbal means.”
    I do not intend at this point to address any of the issues raised, even in a general way. I decline, not out of avoidance but since unlike turgon, I do not have one page never mind two at my disposal to put a counter case, I refuse to engage on a non level playing field.
    The political viewpoint I try to generally represent got the 25.5% of the vote in the recent election, the one that turgon represents did not even get a full 4%, just 3.9%, this is indisputable fact.
    Based on election mandate and turgon’s some 250 lines / 3,500 words, a proportionate numerical response should have 1,625 lines / 23,000 words.
    Instead it is ‘back to the future’ and the worst days of the Independent Newspaper rant against the Hume / Adams talks and inter alia; the entire Peace Process. Then we got a five or six colm inches, even if that, to counter four full pages of rant and bile!.
    However, The Independent News paper from it’s howls demanding the execution of James Connoly in particular and dozens more of 1916 Easter Week Rebellion survivors, to current times never made any pretense of balance or fairness where Republicans or The Left were concerned!
    I will not insult the memory of my dead former comrades and their People, the living ones in Sinn Fein, or in the wider Republican community that I also attempt to articulate a viewpoint for, by tolerating, much less accepting anything less than our earned electorally earned due.
    I do not dispute editorial pejorative : I merely refuse to engage on such terms!
    This is especially so in these two pages of content : I believe there is a very sinister and dangerous agenda at work here. It may be presented in a well written style of British English and have what was considered by the author to have a well camouflaged polemic, but polemic it is, transparent to those with eyes to see and for a foul and ignoble purpose!
    The intent is but to sow discord, suspicion, intolerance and to stall co-operation in an already fraught, inter party relations, political situation.
    Lest I be accused of playing the man rather than the ball; I have used turgon’s own words from just three postings in response to Mick Fealty’s page on the subject of “ Human Engagement” in on line communications.
    Since these comments by turgon were made in British English that the author have claimed I do not have a command of, that presented me with somewhat of a problem. Some words are incorrectly spelled, since I cannot allow this on a posting attribute to me, I had to find what I hope is an acceptable solution.
    I have taken turgon’s statements as posted; where I consider words have been misspelled I have allowed such words to stand and for the readers benefit given what I know to be the correct spelling, in brackets and between asterisks. Other than the views are exactly as turgon posted.
    They are, sadly, all too self explanatory!
    The following between the lines of asterisks are all turgon’s views
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    You may want engagement: I want unending war by verbal means.
    In addition I do not regard the function of this site as being to create a meeting of minds.
    The simple fact remains that the majority of unionists in NI regard SF as well, well beyond the Pale of acceptable politics.
    Now they may have accepted that their political parties are in government with them (I demur from that decision but note the veracity of the fact)
    The fact that the DUP and UUP are willing to be in the executive with SF does not mean that they like them: indeed they battle them frequently and I applaud that.
    In debate with such people I seek no “engagement”, (sic) friendship meeting of minds or anything else; I seek to expose, damage and discomfort them and to defeat their arguments.
    I will continue to do that just as I will conduct largely civilised (sic) (*civilized *) debate with non violent nationalists, other unionists, Alliance types, outsiders etc.
    However, to the supporters of terrorism on either side I ask no quarter and will give absolutely none.
    Debate has an aim: not a meeting of minds nor an accomodation (sic) (* accommodation *); it is to expose, intellectually rubbish and destroy the arguments of the supporters of violence.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    There is the agenda; it do not need three thousand, five hundred (3,500 ) words to set out his stall, I have done so using just one hundred and ten (110) or so culled from the three postings referred to.
    Fair minded readers can draw their own conclusions!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  56. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    Lest we forget!

    Pro power sharing, SF / DUP vote ( 1% = *)
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * *
    Anti power sharing, TUC vote * * * *

    All Votes Cast,
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    TUV share * * * *

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  57. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    Health warning :-

    to all Catholic, Nationalist and Republicans in particular; please ensure that you are seated on a low chair, that all four legs and your own are firmly on the ground as you read the following.

    Under no circumstances should this be read while in a vertical position or while seated on a high breakfast stool. Neither should it be read while holding infants, small children or pets. Falls to the ground can be most painful, even if hilariously laughing at the time.

    Prolonged, convulsive laughter can cause painful after effects. Also bear in mind babies and infants cannot tell the difference between tears of laughter and other tears, if they are easily upset, you should ensure that they are in a separate room.

    When, having read this and you next encounter your Unionist neighbours, please restrain yourselves, outbursts of sudden and uncrontoled laughter may, and indeed in all probability, will be miss understood. Remember the Peace Process!

    This is the the abreviated Orange Order history of Ireland as given in 1912 and posted in the Masonic website that can be accessed at the following site address.

    Please also note history did not start on this island in 1199 ad., just civilisation !

    Enjoy!

    http://www.masonicdictionary.com/orange.html

     

    By Bro. J.L. Carson, Virginia
    The history of Ireland since the days when King John of England (1199 to 1216) “built several forts and settled the English Colony and Civil Government” there, has been one of turmoil and trouble. Always the Celt against the Saxon, the Roman Catholic against his Protestant fellow countryman.

    From 1150 to 1550 no Irish were admitted subjects of, or received benefit of, the English Colony or Courts, “Because !” says Butler in his history of Ireland, “upon all occasions they declared their malice and hatred against the English Colonists . . . whom they mortally hated.”

    During the reign of Edward III it was declared high treason for any of the English colonists to intermarry with the Irish, or to have any dealings with them.

    Thus for four centuries until the reign of Queen Elizabeth, “Ireland had perpetual trouble and was overrun with misery,” Protestant and Roman Catholic suffering alike. The rebellion headed by the Earl of Tyrone was only subdued after the expenditure of “nearly a million of money and much bloodshed” as also was the second rebellion of the same Earl, during the reign of James I. After these rebellions English and Scotch families settled on the confiscated lands in Ulster, where they “Built good towns, cultivated the land, and the country began to flourish.” The very Irish seemed to be satisfied. Roman Catholics and Protestants alike enjoyed the free exercise of their rights, their religious convictions and observances.

    Unfortunately, this tranquility was not to last forever; in 1641 the Irish Roman Catholics suddenly rose in rebellion again; this rising was “accompanied by horrid cruelties and abominable murders,” so much so that “three hundred thousand Protestants were destroyed,” sparing “neither sex, age or condition.”

    Oliver Cromwell with a firm and heavy hand crushed out this rebellion, twenty-seven thousand Roman Catholics departed from the shores of Ireland, and a new plantation of Scotch and English families arrived in Ulster. These planters and their descendants prospered exceedingly.

    Although the conditions of peace seemed once again established, the feeling between these Protestant and Roman Catholic peoples was bitter in the extreme; therefore when the Earl of Tyrconnell became Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, reinstated Roman Catholics, evicting the Protestants from the holdings they had received by grant or purchase, things were ripe for a great upheaval. Led by that notorious Jesuit Priest, Father Peters, the Roman Catholics declared for James II. King of England, who had openly espoused the Catholic Faith, and made treaties with the Pope and the King of France.

    The various histories of England tell of the events leading up to the establishment of William III and Mary on the throne. The final struggle for the crown took place on Irish soil. The Protestants of the Ulster Plantation flocked to the standard of William, whose party represented all we as Protestants hold sacred– Civil and Religious Liberty.
    With the closing of the gates of Derry in the face of the Jacobite army by the small Protestant garrison, who held the city under the most trying conditions until relieved by the Williamite forces, with the defeat of James’ Army at Enniskillen and the Boyne, the aspirations of the Jacobite party were forever overthrown.

    The effect of these battles fought on the shores of the Erne, the banks of the Boyne, and in the village of Aughrum, will be felt for all time: representing the eternal struggle between Liberty and Tyranny, the closing of the Gates of Derry by the Apprentice Boys of the city, when the older inhabitants feared to take the initiative, meant the closing forever in Great Britain of the possibilities of Papal Supremacy in that Kingdom.

    The Williamite triumph proclaimed to the world the principles of Liberty in the life of a nation rather than the supremacy of Protestantism, and the battle cry NO SURRENDER, raised in 1688 by our loyal forbears, will ring throughout eternity.

    For a hundred years the old feeling between the two religions remained deep and bitter, as indeed it does today. They feel that “Home Rule” means “Rome Rule,” and Ulster that has always been England’s best friend and most loyal possession, refuses to be alienated from the Empire, and handed over to an Irish majority, dominated by Rome and governed by her prelates. “Rome never forgives, never forgets.” It was therefore felt by the Protestants of Ireland that it was necessary to band themselves together for “Mutual defence and safety.” The organization of the ORANGE INSTITUTION in the year 1795 was the result.

    Mv…… look up the rest for your selves, it is worth it!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  58. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    Note : In a hurry, uncorrected post version of post submitted by mistake. posting too long to bother re posting. Please excuse!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  59. dmcoop (profile) says:

    “When, having read this and you next encounter your Unionist neighbours, please restrain yourselves, outbursts of sudden and uncrontoled laughter may, and indeed in all probability, will be miss understood. Remember the Peace Process!”

    So what are you saying? That this piece, written by someone in Virginia in 1912 is what Unionists today really think?

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  60. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    ( Please note: reposted with double ph. spacing for easier reading…….. Bring back preview!
    Editor, please remove first version.)

    The first and most obvious question arising; is this a genuine explorations of the matters raised, or is there some other agenda at work here?

    I believe that there is such an agenda and my responses are predicated on that basis!

    This agenda is, in turgon’s own words, “ unending war by verbal means.”

    I do not intend at this point to address any of the issues raised, even in a general way. I decline, not out of avoidance but since unlike turgon, I do not have one page never mind two at my disposal to put a counter case, I refuse to engage on a non level playing field.

    The political viewpoint I try to generally represent got the 25.5% of the vote in the recent election, the one that turgon represents did not even get a full 4%, just 3.9%, this is indisputable fact.

    Based on election mandate and turgon’s some 250 lines / 3,500 words, a proportionate numerical response should have 1,625 lines / 23,000 words.

    Instead it is ‘back to the future’ and the worst days of the Independent Newspaper rant against the Hume / Adams talks and inter alia; the entire Peace Process. Then we got a five or six colm inches, even if that, to counter the usual four full pages of rant and bile!.

    However, The Independent News paper from it’s howls demanding the execution of James Connoly in particular and dozens more of 1916 Easter Week Rebellion survivors, to current times never made any pretense of balance or fairness where Republicans or The Left were concerned!

    I will not insult the memory of my dead former comrades and their People, the living ones in Sinn Fein, or in the wider Republican community that I also attempt to articulate a viewpoint for, by tolerating, much less accepting anything less than our electorally earned due.

    I do not dispute editorial pejorative : I merely refuse to engage on such terms!

    This is especially so in these two pages of content : I believe there is a very sinister and dangerous agenda at work here. It may be presented in a well written style of British English and have what was considered by the author to have a well camouflaged polemic, but polemic it is, transparent to those with eyes to see and for a foul and ignoble purpose!

    The intent is but to sow discord, suspicion, intolerance and to stall co-operation in an already fraught, inter party relations, political situation.

    Lest I be accused of playing the man rather than the ball; I have used turgon’s own words from just three postings in response to Mick Fealty’s page on the subject of “ Human Engagement” in on line communications
    .
    Since these comments by turgon were made in British English that the author have claimed I do not have a command of, that presented me with somewhat of a problem. Some words are incorrectly spelled, since I cannot allow these on this posting attribute to me, I had to find what I hope is an acceptable solution.

    I have taken turgon’s statements as posted; where I consider words have been misspelled I have allowed such words to stand and for the readers benefit given what I know to be the correct spelling, in brackets and between asterisks. Other than the views are exactly as turgon posted.

    They are, sadly, all too self explanatory!

    The following between the lines of asterisks are all turgon’s views.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    You may want engagement: I want unending war by verbal means.

    In addition I do not regard the function of this site as being to create a meeting of minds.

    The simple fact remains that the majority of unionists in NI regard SF as well, well beyond the Pale of acceptable politics.

    Now they may have accepted that their political parties are in government with them (I demur from that decision but note the veracity of the fact)

    The fact that the DUP and UUP are willing to be in the executive with SF does not mean that they like them: indeed they battle them frequently and I applaud that.

    In debate with such people I seek no “engagement”, (sic) friendship meeting of minds or anything else; I seek to expose, damage and discomfort them and to defeat their arguments.

    I will continue to do that just as I will conduct largely civilised (sic) (*civilized *) debate with non violent nationalists, other unionists, Alliance types, outsiders etc.

    However, to the supporters of terrorism on either side I ask no quarter and will give absolutely none.

    Debate has an aim: not a meeting of minds nor an accomodation (sic) (* accommodation *); it is to expose, intellectually rubbish and destroy the arguments of the supporters of violence.

    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    There is the agenda; it do not need three thousand, five hundred (3,500 ) words to set out his stall, I have done so using just one hundred and ten (110) or so culled from the three postings referred to.

    Fair minded readers can draw their own conclusions!

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  61. Munsterview (profile) black spot says:

    Not all Unionists!.

    However until such Unionists who are not in agreement with this 1912 version of history disassociate themselves from micro-Unionists groups who appear to embrace it and purporting to speak in their name, as clearly and explicitly as those on our side did with small Republican groupings claiming to speak for mainstream Republicans, then I do not know widespread that support is.

    However, any Unionist so disassociating, I will take at their word.

    I have tried to debate political issues as they are seen and taught in all university and polytechnics, in terms of their Colonial origin and post colonial resolution

    Again somewhat wearily I will allow turgon to speak for himself (and how many more?)

    ‘ The reason I do not bother to “engage” much with you is, I am afraid, because all you do is post the same nonsense about colonies and semi racist analysis of the issues in Northern Ireland.’

    If the reality that we all share a Colonized and a Post Colonization history in this island is denied where is reality?

    If it is conceded that this is in fact the case, then Ireland situation is no different to any of the Commonwealth ex-Colonial countries, it is only aspects of the circumstances that differ.

    When these factors are isolated in these these terms, then certain Unionist voices are not all that unique to what they refer to as ‘Ulster’, the same unrepresentative shrill voices are encountered delivered from the same high horses for the past fifty years all across the political wreckage of what was the British Empire.

    What do you think?
    (Log in or register to judge or mark as offensive)
    Commend 0
  62. [...] I have said previously, however, the republican movement is not interested in anything other than quarter truth process.Both of these responses may be understandable: however, the first one is essentially minimisation [...]

    What do you think?
    Judge it
    (Log in or register to mark as offensive)
    Commend 0

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2003 - 2014 Slugger O'Toole Ltd. All rights reserved.
Powered by WordPress; produced by Puffbox.
249 queries. 0.868 seconds.