Further to Morrison’s attempted revisionism
While Danny Morrison is now claiming that the British had not formulated a position nor proposed a deal at the time of his specially arranged July 5 visit to the hunger strikers and Bik McFarlane, both Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, in the Irish News in 2009, wrote of Morrison going into the prison to deliver the British offer to the prisoners.
“This was the prisoners’ mindset on 5 July, 1981, after four of their comrades had already died and when Danny Morrison visited the IRA and INLA Hunger Strikers to tell them that contact had been re-established and that the British were making an offer.” – Gerry Adams
“According to our critics, the hunger strikers, on whose behalf we were acting, should have accepted an ‘offer’ which came to the prisoners and us, via a phone-call from a British official in London, through the intermediary (since identified as Brendan Duddy – an honourable man), to myself, to a phone-call to Gerry Adams, and in a verbal message to Danny Morrison to the prisoners.” – Martin McGuinness
Both men place Danny Morrison in the prison on the 5th of July specifically to deliver the British offer. Obviously, a position had been formulated and a deal proposed. In regards to the document detailing the phone conversations between the Mountain Climber/SOON and the British, the paragraph being referred to, paragraph 22 (page 19), describes McGuinness arriving around 2:30 pm to see Brendan Duddy. He asked what the current British position was. The British explained that it was ‘important before drafting any documents for consideration by Ministers’ that the British should ‘possess the Provisionals view’. Their view, of course, could not be known until after Morrison returned from delivering the offer to the prisoners and was debriefed. McGuinness told Duddy their views would be relayed to the British ‘after discussion in light of Morrison’s visit’.
It wasn’t until 1am on the 6th of July that the Provisionals’ view was relayed. No ‘final position’ could be obtained from the British because the Adams committee had attached the condition that they see the draft proposal before it went public. In the event, Adams was on the phone with the British making changes to the language of the draft when Joe McDonnell died. (see John Blelloch, and Gerry Adams, Before the Dawn, page 299) A final position would never be forthcoming.
This is an issue that will never be resolved, I believe. The two opposing views are too entrenched to change. I just hope that people can find peace in their hearts.
But it is crystal clear that SF has repeatedly lied and misrepresented and changed position- so in choosing between the two views I have little doubt who to believe. Five men died for nothing and died not knowing that they had the offer
Getting desperate now Rusty, now that you’ve been rumbled? Time to give it up as your tortuous twisting of events becomes ever more blatantly dishonest.
Take the above where you rewrite a simple statement as this:
“…Danny Morrison visited the IRA and INLA Hunger Strikers to tell them that contact had been re-established and that the British were making an offer.” which recounts the hopeful understanding that following talks with Duddy the belief and hope was that an offer from the Brits would be forthcoming.
You then twist that to mean that:
“Both men place Danny Morrison in the prison on the 5th of July specifically to deliver the British offer.”
when they do nothing of the sort. Morrison was there to tell the men that a worthwhile British offer seemed imminent but as no offer had as yet been received (as the released papers confirm) then they would just have to wait and hope. The first hunger strike had ruled out any chance that the strike would be ended prior to a public commitment from the Brits and this was not on the table on July 5th – the released papers confirm that – you know that to be true and yet you persist in twisting and spinning the story to suit whatever agenda lies behind your increasingly futile attempts to sully the memory of a collective struggle.
It;s shameful really or, at least, ought to be.
[...] Further to Morrison’s attempted revisionism (sluggerotoole.com) [...]
“Morrison was there to tell the men that a worthwhile British offer seemed imminent but as no offer had as yet been received..”
Rory Carr, it looks like you are the one who is getting desperate in your defense of the Adams committee. Danny, himself, contradicts your spin and is on public record as saying otherwise. Which lies from Morrison/Adams on this whole sad affair are we expected to swallow. They can’t even get their stories straight-a trait that befalls all liars. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they have done to the Hunger Strikers.
“futile attempts to sully the memory of a collective struggle”
Hardly a collective view, Rory; the survivors would beg to differ and the PRM leadership has a sullied record when it comes to truth-telling. The CAIN Sutton Index appears to be out of action but IIRC in 1981 though 10 chose to die for a cause, over 100 didn’t.
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” – George Orwell
PRM apologists have never been short of ink – or it’s leadership of other folk’s blood.
[...] and Gerry Adams, Before the Dawn, page 299) A final position would never be forthcoming. Judge It Further to Morrison’s attempted revisionism Slugger O'Toole [...]
Yet, Nevin, the released Government papers clearly show that no offer from the Brits was on the table when Danny Morrison went in to see the prisoners on 5th July. What he brought in, as a result of Mountain Climber’s opinion of the Brit position, was the hope that an offer would be forthcoming. Nothing more, nothing less.
Rusty Nail knows this, Anthony McIntyre knows it, Richard O’Rawe knows it, Dixie Elliot knows it and now The World and His Wife knows it as well. Yet still Rusty Nail attempts to twist Adams’s statement in the Irish News recalling Morrison’s visit to the prisoners on 5 July to advise them that an offer was likely to be forthcoming to mean that (in Rusty Nail’s words),
“Both men place Danny Morrison in the prison on the 5th of July specifically to deliver the British offer.” (My emphasis)
A total fabrication and one clearly given the lie by the released papers which confirm that no offer had yet even been drafted at that time.
It is not required that one be an apologist for truth. That speaks for itself.
Your Orwellian dictum certainly seems appropriately applicable to the many, many long-winded efforts by Rusty Nail to confuse weary Slugger readers over the past few years. As eyes glaze over at the sheer length of her posts the hope is that the reader will skip to the last paragraph and assume that all that has gone before must surely support her conclusion for surely no one could be that much of a charlatan. Well, now we know different.
Is the old drum getting harder to beat Rusty- because you will never beat the truth-
Rory Carr
For what reason or purpose did Danny Morrison go into the prison on July 5th?
[...] Further to Morrison’s attempted revisionism (sluggerotoole.com) [...]
I’ve been watching this story from distance, and with some bemusement. There’s little sympathy expended on either side of the argument.
It really depends on how you interpret language as to whether you cleave to one side or the other. That or your political view of each.
It seems to me to be likely that something was brought to the prisoners that day, it matters little at this what you call it. But what happened after that is much more speculative.
Did the SF leadership walk away from doing a deal (that seems to have been remarkably identical to the one which was eventually settled for) because it was all going so swimmingly with the election strategy?
I’ve not seen any clear cut evidence that this was not a consideration. But neither have I seen any evidence anywhere that it was the only consideration.
John Bew in the Irish Times:
“The documents confirm Mrs Thatcher approved a message to the IRA leadership, after four of the 10 hunger-strike deaths had occurred, which laid out the concessions the British were prepared to make. Contrary to British expectations, the Provisionals rejected this offer, although the latter suggested the objection was to the “tone” not substance.
“Documents show the British were prepared to give the IRA an advance text of the arrangement, if they agreed to abide by the terms. The documents neither contradict nor fully corroborate claims by former H-Block inmate Richard O’Rawe that the British offer was acceptable to the prisoners’ leadership but was turned down by the IRA to secure the election of Owen Carron as MP for Fermanagh-South Tyrone in succession to Bobby Sands.”
[...] Further to Morrison’s attempted revisionism (sluggerotoole.com) [...]
“Did the SF leadership walk away from doing a deal…?”
A deal on what, Mick? Agreement (or not) can only been reached when an offer has been made, At the time Morrison went in on Jan 5th, while Mountain Climber, as a result of his talks with the Brits, indicated the strong possibility of an acceptable offer being made, none was as then forthcomimg which presumably is what was conveyed to Bik McFarlane by Danny Morrison.
Is anyone (including “Rusty nail” and her camp-followers) seriously arguing that the IRA leadership ought to have advised calling off the strike on the basis of “It looks like the Brits are ready to do a deal…” given the history of the traechery of theending of the first strike which yhen motivated the second strike? And do they really believe that doing such would have been an act of keeping faith with the sacrifice of those who had already given their lives?
Their is no ambiguity whatsoever in the record provided by the released papers – NO OFFER WAS AVAILABLE ON 5th JULY! To insist that there was in the face of the evidence is bad enough, to then use that lie to attempt to blacken the record of those who politically outflanked them by disillusioned political has-beens is bordering on criminal.
Rory,
That’s word play Rory. The papers confirm Thatcher is directly involved in approving an offering at this time. There is further evidence that this was discussed with the mountain climber from the MC’s contemporary notes.
The rest is conjecture.
I don’t disagree that SF may have had good reasons for distrusting the British. Or that there may have been a dozen other reasons why a deal was delayed for so long, not least wider constituency management.
“It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the Hunger Strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands.”
http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/37981
Is Danny getting caught up in his lies Rory? The Adams cabal can’t even get their stories right.
Seems like every-one now agrees that the- not an Iron lady bent to the demands- the argument now goes that the demands were given after 4 hunger strikers died or after 10 died- but thatcher still sold out her hardline stance-
“Around the same time the republican leadership was privately contacted by “Mountain Climber”, codename for a leading Foreign Office figure, by telephone through an intermediary. This method was not satisfactory given that messages could become distorted, but we had no choice if lives were to be saved.
I was given a special visit with the hunger strikers on Sunday, July 5th, and told them we were in contact with the British. The offer was, of course, less than what the men were demanding.
Both in regard to this offer and the separate initiative undertaken by the ICJP the prisoners’ major concern was a mechanism for ensuring the British did not renege.”
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_times/arts2005/mar5_hunger_strikers_wanted_more_than_vague_promises__DMorrison.php#journ
What offer? There was no offer, ever.
Was Morrison lying then or is he lying now?
Lie then or lie now? Is Duddy still an honourable man?
Ten Men Dead describes in detail the offer Danny was tasked with bringing into the prisoners (it can be read online). Lie then or now?
Morrison today says “the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal” – Adams in 2009 said, “Danny Morrison visited the IRA and INLA Hunger Strikers to tell them that contact had been re-established and that the British were making an offer.” How could the British be ‘making an offer’ if as Danny now claims, contrary to what he wrote in 2006 and in 2009, they had yet to even formulate its position or propose a deal? Is Gerry lying or is Danny?
What was the purpose of Danny’s visit to the prison?
Paragraph 16 of the document being discussed explains:
Morrison was chosen because he had ‘a full grasp of the situation including knowledge of the SOON channel’, he had ‘the status enable them to act authoritatively’, and – ‘the key to accepting any agreement’ – he had the knowledge, education and ability to persuade needed.
To suggest that his only purpose in going to the prison was to tell them that the channel had been opened and no more is, especially given the urgency of the negotiations, utterly ridiculous. He went into the prison to explain the offer that had come through the channel and to report back whether it would be accepted or not.
That is what the ‘current position’ of the British was when asked by Martin McGuinness during the 2pm SOON conversation on July 5th, after Morrison had been dispatched to the prison:
As said before, the British explained that it was ‘important before drafting any documents for consideration by Ministers’ that the British should ‘possess the Provisionals view’. Their view, of course, could not be known until after Morrison returned from delivering the offer to the prisoners and was debriefed. McGuinness told Duddy their views would be relayed to the British ‘after discussion in light of Morrison’s visit’.
Reading the link Rusty gave about the transcripts of Duddy’s(soon) telephone calls to HMG, it does appear very cosy, although this may have just been the way he did business, we will never know.
However, it does seem to me if HMG were serious about an agreement and given the international pressure they were under, I feel they might have been at the time. Why did they not then just publish there proposals about clothes, remission, etc. After all it was the regime they eventually introduced in the Maze.
If they had done this, it would have given those within the republican leadership who supported calling off the H/S a peg on which to hang their hat. Instead when the Adams leadership failed to come through by calling the H/S off, HMG withdrew the offer and reverted to a policy of victory at any cost. Which in reality amounted to the deaths of approximately 50 people and more Hunger Strikers.
What ever the fine detail of this matter, and I should say I believe Richard’s book is a fine piece of work and he is an honourable man. If the Adams leadership were to recommend the acceptance of the proposed ‘offer’, and call the H/S off, they had a major hurdle to cross. The misinformation the PRM put out about HMG’s betrayal at the end of the first hunger strike led by Brendan Hughes. Which was believed by both a majority of their members and supporters and made the PRM/INLA and the H/S supporters doubly sensitive about HMG’s true intentions. I doubt it is an exaggeration to suggest paranoia about the latter would have been the group think.
[It seems the British government new this might come in handy one day, it was probably why they never exposed it as a lie.]
I say again, knowing all this, if they were serious about a deal, why did not HMG make their proposals public in the hope of bouncing the Provo leadership into calling the H/S off. We can only guess Thatcher put personal political advantage over the lives of both Hunger strikers and citizens in the north.
I find it a little sad, those who criticise Gerry Adams for allegedly doing the same, concentrate on the lady was for turning, rather that exposing her as the heatless bitch she was.
Both Adams and Thatcher were/are pragmatic politicians to the core, who often played the long game and had the patience necessary to see it through. Such politicians rarely consider the lives of others first, but put their cause before all else. It is why people nominate them as their leaders and follow them. For this Thatcher and Adams will have to answer to themselves, or if religious their maker. It is a sad fact of history this type very rarely have to answer to the folk they have misled or abused.
I would also add the release of government documents require a health warning, this is especially true of the UK government. Which is something some of those who are engaged in this debate from both sides, seem to have ignored.
“It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the hunger strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands.
Because the prisoners at the end of the first hunger strike had experience of the British reneging on promised offers, and this reneging had led to the second hunger strike, the hunger strikers told me that they wanted a representative of the British government to come in and stand over what was on offer. Now, what the British were offering fell short of the five demands but whether it would have been enough to end the hunger strike was never put to the test because the British refused to meet the hunger strikers and stand over their offer. So there was never a deal.
http://www.dannymorrison.com/index.php?s=Hunger+strike+July+5th+offer
Of course Danny has since admitted that the Brits didn’t renege on any “deal” which ended the first hunger strike and that he and others made that yarn up for the sake of morale. But the above once again demonstrates that Danny continues to lie, albeit badly, in his latest public position of no offers.
Excellent quotes, Terry.
So, according to Danny on his blog, the issue with the hunger strikers on the 5th July was on not what was on offer but the standing over of the offer he relayed to the hunger strikers that day by a British representative-due to the ‘fact’ that the Brits reneged on their offer at the end of the first hunger strike.
Now he expects us all to believe he didn’t bring in an offer afer all on the 5th July.
What is happening here and emanating from Adams and Morrison is that, if you shout loud and long that this proves we’re right most people won’t even bother to check that we are actually contradicting ourselves…Yet again.
This is why all arguing the Adams line can’t argue outside the six yard box [that phone call].
They cling to it despite the fact that Adams spent most of his blog denouncing other parts of it as nonsense…
Then: ‘Ah here’s a part that proves there was no offer….’
They [SF] remained silent after the publication of Duddy’s notes, then when these documents were released which confirmed Duddy’s notes to be more or less exact they needed to act and act fast..Get something, cling to it and shout this proves us right.
Danny Morrison spoke several times of bringing an offer to the hunger strikers…
No he didn’t; this phone proves he didn’t even if he said different in the past…
Bik said himself he was over-whelmed by something Danny showed him and saw it as having the potential to end it.
No he wasn’t; this phone call proves he wasn’t…
The same documents show that PIRA ‘did not regard it as satisfactory and that they wanted a good deal more.’
And then…
“it was not the content of the message which they had objected to but only its tone.”
Not the content they objected to…
Ah but the phone call in the same documents prove it isn’t true…..
Yes Terry B,
dispite the fact Danny recently admitted that the 1st Hunger Strike ended with nothing and that the ‘they reneged on a deal’ was made up for morale purposes he goes and digs it back up to throw out again…
Standing over/guaranteeing offer is contained in the same documents…
http://www.longkesh….2/HSArchive.pdf
Hunger Strike: Message to be sent through channel
The British Government is prepared if, only if, it would lead to an immediate end to the Hunger Strike and protest
to issue a statement which would include the following points…
[See document P27 for points]
Note the wording; the Brits are saying they would release a statement if it would lead to an end to the Hunger Strike and protest…Not after it ended but if it would lead to an end…
Mickhall…
A couple of things to note. Thatcher didn’t want to be seen to be talking to PIRA.
Nor giving in to the Hunger Strikers. Thus the need for the strike to end immediately.
There were two sets of negotiations going on at the same time…ICJP/NIO…Adams/Soon/Thatcher [the ICJP didn't know about the latter talks until told by Adams]
We saw that the only difference between what the two were being offered was Open University courses…
The ICJP offered to act as guarantors over any settlement according to Bik himself on 6th July.
Then Adams and Morrison set out to remove the ICJP, even telling them about the ‘contact’ which caused an uproar within that group.
Surely the Brits needed a smoke screen, someone or group other than PIRA that would be given credit for ending the Hunger Strike…The ICJP?
The two negotiations. One open, the other secret…..
However precious time was spent trying to remove them.
Which keeps me asking…Why?
As a matter of fact Hunger Striker Pat McGeown [RIP] in Rogelio Alonso’s The IRA and Armed Struggle said himself that he asked that question of Bik.
This was when he was told to keep his opinions to himself in case they damaged morale among the others.
Pat later said he regretted doing so. Keeping his opinions to himself that is.
Note; the above should read…
However precious time was spent trying to remove them…
The them being the ICJP.
That quote from Morrison’s blog is a killer. It seems that Margaret Thatcher was absolutely spot on in the assessment she gave at the time.
Mrs Thatcher replied publicly: “The solution does not lie in our hands. It lies with the hunger strikers themselves, their families and advisers.
“More directly, it lies with the leaders of the Provisional IRA, who have taken a cold-blooded decision that the unfortunate men now fasting in prison are of more use to them dead than alive. This seems to me the most immoral and inflexible decision anyone could take.”
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/thatcher-felt-inmates-were-just-showing-virility-178539.html
“Because the prisoners at the end of the first hunger strike had experience of the British reneging on promised offers, and this reneging had led to the second hunger strike, the hunger strikers told me that they wanted a representative of the British government to come in and stand over what was on offer”
http://www.dannymorrison.com/index.php?s=Hunger+strike+July+5th+offer
Danny’s own words above clearly demonstrates that he did indeed bring in a substantial offer. So substantial that the only issue was for “a representative of the British government to come in and stand over what was on offer”.
It’s no surprise that these people don’t want any type of Independent Inquiry into this whole sad affair-they’d get tore apart on their mountain of lies.
Dixie,
Despite what we know, I have never believed this is a tragedy which came about by a treacherous act on the republican side. In the fog of war, due to a host of reasons, people make mistakes and take bad decisions, and most people accept this is the price which is payed for engaging in military conflict. It is the nature of the beast.
So are we now to accept unquestioned the securocrat papers? Or is that misreading what some seem to be saying here. Highly amusing that it is British papers being relied upon to defend position of Adams et al. Then again…
“Danny’s own words above clearly demonstrates that he did indeed bring in a substantial offer.”
No they do not. The prisoners (quite understandably) wanted a British representative to come to them with whatever might be on offer which, it seemed from Mountain Climber’s talks, Morrison advised them might be acceptable. There is a hell of a difference.
But no firm offer had yet been made at the time of his visit as the released documents confirm and which reality you cannot wriggle away from well practiced in wriggling though this little clique may be.
Danny Morrison conveyed to the prisoners the knowledge of Mountain Climber’s assessment of the British position, which indicated that the Brits were on the point of conceding sufficient demands that would allow the strike to be terminated but only if and when such concessions were publicly on offer could a decision be made and that was not the case on July 5th when Morrison spoke to Bik McFarlane.
Contradict that if you can.
It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the hunger strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands.
http://www.dannymorrison.com/index.php?s=Hunger+strike+July+5th+offer
That seems pretty clear cut. He states very clearly that he went in and gave them the details of what the British appeared to be offering.
Rory
“But no firm offer had yet been made ”
When is a firm offer not a firm offer? When the SF Leadership is arguing over the minutae of words while 5 men die!
The point is that there was an offer that ‘might be acceptable’ but they were allowed to die. Why was it not immediately finalised? The Brits wanted a deal. The families wanted a deal. The Clergy wanted a deal. The (real) politicians wanted a deal. Presumably the prisoners wanted a deal.
So why wasn’t there a deal? Who didn’t want a deal yet? And why?
Well, perhaps it was understandable. It was a busy time. All that rioting and mayhem to organise. All those young men to recruit as cannon fodder for the future. You know what its like when the in tray gets a bit full. Sometimes even important things like 5 men lives get put on one side while you ponder the inflexion of a phrase and what verb to use to convey just the right tone
And after all – sure it was only 5 more among 2500. And think of the publicity. And sure weren’t they glad to do it- for Ireland. How Inspirational.
And sure now here we all are in Stormont. As MLAs. Running wee Ulster – well sort of . And all that sacrifice made it possible for us to sit here and sup our tea from the bone china as we gaze across the lawns and polish the seats of our leather chairs. But we will never forget them. Oh no. They are too valuable for that.
I can’t ever forget a quote in An Phoblacht referring to the hunger strikers as “.. our brilliant strategy of a death a week“.
As we go into a new year I am struck that whatever the truth in all of this…people died needlessly but then all of those who died in this ‘war’ died needlessly
It’s worth checking out Gerry Adams’ blog which singles out the mountain climber for the purpose of suggesting the state papers cannot be trusted, then uses the same papers (including verbatim from the MC) to prove there was no offer, just as Rory argues above.
It’s strange he should work so hard to try and undermine a witness, then use the evidence from that same witness to ‘bust a myth’. Yet some of Adams’ story appears to depart quite radically from the state papers reports, like this one:
NB Soon is code for the Mountain Climber.
The structure of the rebuttal is well worth examing more closely. Adams says that only himself and MMcG dealt with the back channel. The committee does not interface with the British. Adams was not merely the chair, it appears he was their sole conduit for information regarding negotiations with the British.
An awful lot of responsibility lay on Adams’ shoulders to get things right. And he lays an awful lot of blame for getting things mangled on a single element of a back channel only he and McGuinness were in contact with.
Yet the state papers seem clear on a very specific report of a troublesome meeting the Mountain Climber told the British he had attended.
This is not really the kind of thing thats vulnerable to casual misremembrance. Heretofore, no one has raised these kinds of questions over the integrity of the Mountain Climber. Only Adams does, and only now when as the man in the key position he is faced with an account of an internal meeting that implies all was not well in the Republican camp.
So now look again at the structure of the rebuttal. It actually seems to take great care avoid suggesting that such a meeting did not take place, but merely reiterates the structure of the internal comms chain saying there was no interface between the ‘back channel’ and the committee. It does not, in fact, rebut anything specific the Mountain Climber told the British at all.
In fact, if we were to press further with this strange literalist logic, you might want to ask whether or not the Mountain Climber attended this angry and hostile meeting in his role as a key component of the ‘back channel’? If not, who or what was he presented as? And what, if anything, did he say that may have contributed to the tenor of that meeting?
It’s worth clipping this from the British papers of call number two much earlier in the day of 5th July:
“SOON began by restating the Provisionals’ disorganised position. He pointed out that to take a decision of this magnitude required the presence of all 8 members. They would be unwilling to take any decision without a full complement.”
Which raises the question: “What decision?”
As a former Blanket Man who was in Bik’s/Richard O’Rawe’s wing at this time I am shocked each time I think of what Hugh Logue of the ICJP said of the night of July 5th 1981, especially regarding Bik’s attitude. This as far as I know has never been denied by Bik or anyone else.
Also ask yourself why was a bed provided that night for Bik in the Hospital wing?
“Padraig O’Malley, Biting at the Grave, pg 93: “That evening the commissioners met with the prisoners again for about two and a half hours. This time the conversation centred on the question of guarantees – although the hunger strikers had not indicated that they regarded what was being proposed as being fully acceptable. They would, they said, have to consult their colleagues. [...] They wanted a senior official from the NIO to come into the prison and spell out to them what was on offer – they would have to hear it from the British themselves rather than take the Commission’s word for it. Nevertheless the focus on the question of guarantees led the commissioners to believe that what had been put on offer the day before had not been repudiated, even after overnight consideration.”
““On the last night,” says Logue, “they [the hunger strikers] were all saying that we had to square any settlement we had, even if it was acceptable to them, with Bik.” In short, what the prisoners appeared to be saying was that if the terms were acceptable to McFarlane, they were acceptable to them. McFarlane was down the corridor in his bed – he had been brought into the hospital wing that evening and provided with a bed there so he could stay over and be available for consultation with the commissioners if the need arose. O’Mahony and Logue went down to talk to him. “He listened to us for about two minutes,” says Logue, “and turned around and went back to sleep and Joe McDonnell was going to be dead within thirty-six hours and I never forgave him for that. He was not in the business of trying to get a solution.” Nevertheless, the commissioners left in a hopeful state. Before they left, Kieran Doherty spoke briefly in Gaelic to Oliver Crilly. Doherty, Crilly told Logue, had told him that if somebody came in and read the terms out to the hunger strikers, they would accept them.”
”….turned around and went back to sleep and Joe McDonnell was going to be dead within thirty-six hours…”
Shocking stuff.
“He listened to us for about two minutes,” says Logue, “and turned around and went back to sleep and Joe McDonnell was going to be dead within thirty-six hours and I never forgave him for that. He was not in the business of trying to get a solution.”
“Nevertheless, the commissioners left in a hopeful state. Before they left, Kieran Doherty spoke briefly in Gaelic to Oliver Crilly. Doherty, Crilly told Logue, had told him that if somebody came in and read the terms out to the hunger strikers, they would accept them.”
….if somebody came in and read the terms out to the hunger strikers, they would accept them.”
and Bik turned and went to sleep….That fucking haunts me and eats at my bloody guts!!
Faminesque. Obscene.
Has anyone given consideration to the states of mind of everyone involved? The hunger strikers were obviously extremely weak, physically, and did that affect their mental processing? Others were under incredible strain over the possibility of further deaths.
I think that everyone should take a deep breath and consider what this ugly argument is doing to the relatives of the deceased. People should show some consideration for others. Researchers have clearly demonstrated that every time a memory is called up, there are always, sometimes quite significant, differences when they memory is restored and recalled again later, so all recollections have to be somewhat suspect.
joeCanuck
I have to live each day with the nightmare of were they allowed to die so that 3 days after the death of Micky Devine [the last Hunger to die] and the election of Owen Carron SF could announce that they would be standing in all future elections in the North.
When was this put to the PRM?
Do you know whats it like to wish you had answers so you could get on with your life?
Gerry Adams had the chance at Gulladuff Co. Derry to challenge those making these claims in front of the Hunger Strikers families. Instead he had heavies at the doors to keep out awkward questions.
He needed to get the families alone. Why wasn’t he confident enough to challenge those making the accusations where it mattered. Right before the families themselves.
Sure he could have had Bik, Danny, Martin etc at his side against them.
But no he choose to use heavies to keep the awkward questions in the car park which was patrolled by heavies.
http://sluggerotoole.com/2009/06/19/gulladuff-more-heat-than-light/
Danny Morrison backed up by a well known heavy who wasn’t even on the Blanket Protest was keeping a representative of the Devine and O’Hara families, a former Hunger Striker and Jimmy Dempsey, a former prisoner and father of John Dempsey, the 16 year old boy who died in the riots that occurred at the death of Joe McDonnell, and who is buried in the republican plot alongside McDonnell from entering.
In fact the former Hunger Striker was threatened by Morrison’s heavy at the door.
Listen guys – not a word about this from Martin Mc Guinness on this serious matter of death i wonder why? Mc Guinness is from Derry – at that time -(since identified as Brendan Duddy – an honourable man), to myself, to a phone-call to Gerry Adams, and in a verbal message to Danny Morrison to the prisoners.” – Martin Mc Guinness the dogs in the street know what happened our past is our past and the truth is out . Brendan Duddy has done everything in his power to protect people, Duddys shop Strand rd employ two of Mc Guinness daughters for years that is the kind of person he is created jobs for the community! A man of peace and trust respect for life – why would he make any of this up? What have the godfathers done to gain political advantage – apart from selling their granny for a vote.Respect and trust i believe in the truth and Mr Duddy gave his life for peace- now he will carry the flame next year. Wonder why they did not ask the godfathers!
Dixie,
I cannot understand your pain; no one who hasn’t experienced it can truly understand, but I sympathize.. I just hope that you can find some sort of peace eventually.
Dixie
I think that what you went through and the anguish you now feel are clear from your posts and almost from what is between the lines, not just the words.
We are poles apart politically. I too hope you can find a way to reconcile all this within yourself. We ALL need to find a way to move on from this and away from the violence and separation of the past – a separation that many in our political class have a strong vested interest in preserving.
You mention how Gulladuff was ‘managed’. I am sorry – but what you describe is how the organisation worked for over 30 years. I have to ask, what did you really expect?
Those at the top regard the soldiers as just that – people to be told what to do and whose opinions don’t count. They believe that soldiers die in wars and that to die was their duty – a duty they themselves helpfully avoided.
The families are lionised and looked after- provided they don’t think or say anything untoward or, God forbid, ask any awkward questions. The thugs on the door and outside were led by the thugs within – its how they do business and how they have always done business.That was and is the nature of PIRA and SF.
I don’t take pleasure in saying this nor do I want to add to your grief – and I think it is grief – over what is now revealed. The bottom line though is this – while you may have been conned down the years and those who died were misled and used, were you true to your own beliefs? I suspect you were so rest easy. The responsibility does not lie with you but with those who did the wrong and now lie about it. Slowly the truth will out, despite their best efforts
.
Thank you, Cynic,I have not been so moved since last I peeled onions to a background strain of plaintive violins.