Arms Trial 1970…

Interesting clip on the Arms Crisis of 1970 from You Tube. Featuring a younger Charlie Haughey, who was acquited of all charges. The major fall guy at the end of the day was Captain James Kelly, whose family still campaigns to clear his name to this day.

  • By no means refering to the topic of the clip, it’s amazing just how much passion there was in Irish politics in those days, especially in comparison to 2006; you’d be excused for mistaking modern leaders questions and Ard Fhéis’ as meetings of the apathy party… more excitement in a bingo hall to be honest.

  • Keith M

    Haughey may have been acquited but he lied under oath. The ironic thing is that he didn’t need to because the case against Blaney collapsed.

    We are never going to know the full details of this dark period of Irish history. Were Blaney & Haughey acting alone of did others in that government know of and/or approve of the plans to arm the IRA?

    The whole episode led to the collapse of the FF government and caused divisions in the party which have really only been healed in the last few years.

    Adam, “it’s amazing just how much passion there was in Irish politics in those days.” I’m sorry but given me today’s politics anytime, I have no desire to see ministers being dragged out screaming from their party conference, or TDs being phyically attcked and kicked on the ground by “supporters” of the same party. Today’s Ireland may have its faults but we’ve come a long way from Geldof’s “Banana Republic”.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    If the Irish Government of the day were involved in procurring arms for Northen nationalists they had nothing to be ashamed of at all.

  • “Were Blaney & Haughey acting alone of did others in that government know of and/or approve of the plans to arm the IRA? “ in govnt and in opposition as Cosgrave knew what was going on but dithered so as appear blissfully ignorant the therefore allow FG benefit.

    “I have no desire to see ministers being dragged out screaming from their party conference, or TDs being phyically attcked and kicked on the ground by “supporters” of the same party. Today’s Ireland may have its faults but we’ve come a long way from Geldof’s “Banana Republic”.”
    And yet you are a firm supporter of the politics of the sick cos. Where the SF elected members are drowned out by whistles and horns, a recent Assembly meeting these SF members were attacked and defended by Alex Maskey.

    Geldof was a middle class, Blackrock (read elitist) cry baby who went with the punk flow; sang a few song and would have been on the celeb C list until Live Aid came along. You of course would swallow Geldof’s MOPE hook line and sinker to suit your own agenda.

    And yet after the PD’s OMalley was booted from the FF party it was his supporters who caused hooligan demos outside FF HQ shouting Seig Heil (Mr Kitty O’Shea) in the manner of the Engerland football hooligans. Tit for tat, shows your PD’s are just the same in mannerisms (very SF like behaviour) as any in the ROI,

  • Rubicon

    Anonymous – what utter revisionist crap you spout!

    “After the PD’s O’Malley was booted from the FF party”.

    Just who set up the PD’s “anonymous”? He wasn’t kicked anywhere – he walked at great political cost to himself.

    The “hooligans” were those O’Malley was protesting against – as has become more than clear in the years since.

    “Attacked and defended by Maskey” – what fiction have you been reading? I was an eye witness to the “brawl in the hall”. Maskey was himself elbowed and pushed to the point that he almost took a swing. Undoubtedly he was provoked but Maskey was held back frpom retaliating by a Member of the Alliance party who he later thanked.

  • Rubicon

    Anonymous – I just re-read your post, “a recent Assembly meeting these SF members were attacked and defended by Alex Maskey” and have to conclude you couldn’t be refering to the “brawl in the hall” – but I’m most interested to know about this “recent” incident.

    When did Maskey attack and then defend SF MLA’s? Did he hold the party whip for a while?

    Please tell us!

  • Rory

    I am at one with Pat McLarnon on this issue. If Haughey and Blaney were guilty of anything it was “too little, too late” and then pulling back. The beleagured Catholic community of Belfast desperately needed arms to defend themselves against the forces of law and order leading hell bent pogrom squads of loyalists in particular at that time.

    Captain John Kelly never waivered in his assertions that all was done with full governmental sanction. The sea change came when Lynch flinched under British pressure. I spoke to John Kelly and I do not doubt his version of those events.

    Haughey learned from the experience.

  • “He wasn’t kicked anywhere – he walked at great political cost to himself.” He was summoned to Mount street on the night of 26Feb and hauled before the party’s national exec for ‘conduct unbecoming’ . His wife Pat and a crowd of supporters from Limerick were outside. A roll call vote was taken and the motion to expel OMalley was passed 73 votes to 9. O’Malleys supporters , journos and members of the FF party exec jostled outside. CJH left the building to a few scatteed boos and a chant of Seig Heil from Kevin Loughran the ower of Kitty OShea’s; he also reminded PJMara loudly of his ‘uno duce, uno voce’ remark

    “The “hooligans” were those O’Malley was protesting against – as has become more than clear in the years since. “ WRONG as I just posted from ‘The Haughey File’ by Stephen Collins.

    “Maskey was himself elbowed and pushed to the point that he almost took a swing. Undoubtedly he was provoked but Maskey was held back frpom retaliating by a Member of the Alliance party who he later thanked. “ haven’t you just proved my point – I believe that’s called hari kari

    “I suggest the handle “pig ignorant”. “ isn’t that a case of ball not man or should I just call you a… no I don’t need to Stephen Collins just backed me up re the PDs and you landed on you own grenade re the Shinners being attacked in ‘the failed entity’. You’re not very good at this are you?

    In light of the present thread you can send your apology to me in a brown envelope !??!

  • Mick Fealty

    Rory,

    That’ll be James rather than John. I don’t do pedantry well, as the missing ‘s’ in the title would indicate. But I thought it better coming from a fellow sinner rather the blemish free Mr Baker.

  • again, you’re wrong. I think the Irish News offers a more independant conclusion than a unionist/PD suporter like your self.

    “At first, the angry insults were barely audible in the Great Hall of Parliament Buildings, crowded as it was with reporters and politicians.

    But as David Trimble and Mark Durkan conducted their first official press conference after being elected first and deputy first ministers, there was no mistaking the words “Cheat!” and “Traitor!”

    Trimble, looking flushed, had just left the debating chamber with Durkan beside him.

    As the first minister spoke to the media about stable government, DUP members moved in on the two ministers and their circle of supporters, who included Ulster Unionist, SDLP and Sinn Féin assembly members. The pro-agreement forces stood their ground.

    A few feet away Ian Paisley, his right hand tucked into his double-breasted, navy, pinstriped jacket, was uncharacteristically silent while his son, Ian jnr, in a suit of the same cloth, heckled Trimble: “You’re not credible by your own words!”

    DUP MLA Paul Berry, following Junior’s lead, shouted, “Go and join your Provo friends!”

    Trimble and Durkan did their best to ignore the catcalls, until Joan Carson, an Ulster Unionist matron representing Fermanagh/South Tyrone, let out a rather loud yelp and pitched forwards.

    Someone had pushed her from behind and the domino effect plunged the SDLP’s Alasdair McDonnell and Sinn Féin’s Mitchel McLaughlin into the DUP chorus section. McDonnell, a strapping Glens man, might have crushed Ian jnr had the DUP man not put his hands up to shield himself from the force.

    Scuffles ensued, with a number of rival assembly members hanging onto each other as if playing a rather rough game of tug-o’-war, without the rope.

    As tempers flared, the DUP moved forward calling out, “IRA scumbags”.

    With those words, Sinn Féin’s Alex Maskey was drawn into the fray. His party press officer Ned Cohen, sensing trouble, stepped in with arms outstretched to prevent any serious clashes, aided by colleague McLaughlin, who had recovered his balance.

    McDonnell, still reeling from being shoved, looked around to see who was responsible, but his cool-headed colleagues trailed him away before he could discover who had kicked and pushed him. All the while Paisley jnr shouted with glee about the peace-loving party: “The SDLP is fighting!”

    Amid the turmoil, SDLP advisor Conail McDevitt had a sharp exchange with the DUP member for Lagan valley, Edwin Poots, and Paisley jnr shouted louder: “The SDLP is fighting!”

    Side by side in the Great Hall, the irresistible forces that craved change and the immovable ones that did not clashed.

    “Gentlemen, please,” Stormont’s security men shouted as they moved in alongside a policeman, who sported a poppy in his cap and looked woefully outnumbered.

    More than a score of door-keepers were involved in calming the incident, which became known as the ‘brawl in the hall’, although a perhaps more apt description came from the Sinn Féin member for Mid-Ulster, John Kelly, who dismissed the episode as a case of “hold me back, let me at him”.

    Lord Alderdice later recalled that he had feared just such an interruption given the strength of feeling in the chamber and had worked hard to prevent scenes similar to those that typified previous administrations: “We managed to do that and then the doors opened. It was almost like a valve opened with people shooting out.”

    The trouble was defused when Trimble and Durkan headed off for a teabreak, leaving the DUP at the microphones.

    The refreshments started with a photo-call as the two ministers settled into leather chairs. Trimble seemed a little shaken as he took his cup and saucer, his face still beetroot red. As he settled back in his armchair, crunching a chocolate biscuit, the photographer asked him to lean forward as he looked a little too comfortable.

    Trimble made a face as if to appear astonished by the suggestion after his ordeal in the Great Hall and Durkan joked: “We are meant to look comfortable after that?”

    The photographer took his shot and, temporarily blinded by the flashbulb, the first minister leaned over to Durkan and jested that the first thing he would do when he got justice powers would be to alter the definition of assault to include the discharge of camera flashes within three metres of a person without their permission.”

    http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/irish_news/arts2005/nov9_when_push_came_to_shove__MPurdy.php

    Not much mention of the Alliance.

  • Keith M

    Context is everything. O’Malley may have been expelled, but the reason why is key.

    Check wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Des_O'Malley

    O’Malley defied Haughey and would not oppose legislation legalising the public sale of condoms, at a time with AIDS was the #1 health issue in the world.

    Given the later legislation (further liberalising the sale of condoms) was supported by FF, O’Malley was clearly ahead of his time.

    Haughey may not have been “the last of the Gombeen men” (that “honour” belongs to Albert Reynolds), but by opposing every move to move this country forward (divorce, contraception, gay rights etc etc) he certainly proved that he was the last Toaiseach to blindly accept Catholic church teaching.

    It’s no surprise that when you look at the VoxPo’s, that the only people who have admiration for Haughey are those aged 60+. Theirs is a generation that is used to turning a blind eye, whether it be to corrupt politicians, the abortion boats to the U.K., the children who “disappeared” in church run institutions or the the cries of their own children after they were abused by the local priest.

    Also by trying to compare a bit of harmless chanting which only pointed out Haughey’s dictatorial style (something denied by no one) with the extreme physical violence suffered by Jim Gibbons TD at the hands of Haughey supporters, just shows how empty your arguement is.

  • TL

    This thread got shorter in a big hurry…

  • Betty Boo

    TL

    Let’s get this one up to 18 again.

    Submit word: lost86
    It wasn’t that many.

  • “Context is everything.” I’ve got remember that one when point made has been proved wrong on a word for word basis by an esteemed and respected journo and author. Isn’t that along the same lines of Brian Lenihan’s line of ‘mature recollection’ or the one used by toddlers “…I didn’t lie, it’s just, it’s just… wwhhaaaa”

    “…a bit of harmless chanting …” I must remember that next time there’s a hooligan element around. What was that you were always complaining about regarding the crowds going to Croker. Hypocrite.
    Seig Heil isn’t harmless chanting – shurly a liberal-minded know all is aware of that.

    “…just shows how empty your arguement is. “ no I think it shows there are two sides as opposed to your revisionist view that there is only white hats and black hats.

    “…O’Malley defied Haughey and would not oppose legislation legalising the public sale of condoms, at a time with AIDS was the #1 health issue in the world. “ but doesn’t the following link to Gibbons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Gibbons_(Irish_politician) on your introduced Wikipedia show that Charlie had tried to bring in johnnies earlier and was opposed by Gibbons. As this was back in 1979 doesn’t that make CJH ahead of even the Aids Crisis – a fore thinking TD if ever there was one?!?! I guess your assoc of OMalley with the cure for the plague on the modern days is just a bit of hyperbole or did you mean to award that honour to CJH.

  • Posted by Keith M on Jun 14, 2006 @ 05:49 PM wrote “Haughey may have been acquited but he lied under oath. The ironic thing is that he didn’t need to because the case against Blaney collapsed.”

    EErrr no. Haughey and Gibbons gave opposing testimony at the Arms Trial. Haughey was aquitted. Someone lied but it wasn’t up to CJH to prove his innocence but the court and Gibbons to prove his guilt. Haughey acquitted implied Gibbons lied.

  • Mick we seem to be missing me posting about an elephant and you writing back about S Copeland.

    I then wrote that I don’t post personal attacks altho he took my postings as personal because he sensitive.

    Then KeithM gets vulgar about S. Copeland and I kick it back at him ten fold.

    Can we get it back ? I’d tears of laughter at poor KeithM’s expense and him trying so hard !??!

  • Keith M

    annonymous : I have given the context for O’Malley’s expulsion from FF (which I never disputed). I will let others decide who was in the right between Haughey and O’Malley on the issue of contraception which led to his expulsion, but given the fact that it was FF who changed their stance in the following years, I think the answer is quite obvious.

    “Seig Heil isn’t harmless chanting – shurly a liberal-minded know all is aware of that.” I see you still can’t resist the personal attacks! Again context is key. Given the way Haughey ran the FF party and tried to run the country (until O’Malley stepped in to ensure he’d never get a majority) I think it was totally justified.

    I’m not here to defend Jim Gibbons stance on contraception. I’m simply pointing out that as an elected member of the Dail that he had the right to leave Leinster House wthout being ambushed by Haughey supporters who beat him up and kicked him while he lay on the ground. This is the kind of party that Haughey ran and the resonates to the treatment handed out to the the people who opposed Hitler or Mussolini in the early years (see above).

    As it happens the 1979 legislation introduced by Haughey was the infamous “Irish solution to an Irish proiblem” which meant that a doctor had to give you a perscription and you had to prove to him that you were only using the condoms for “genuine family planning” (meaning in most cases that you had to be married), so to tout this as Haughey liberalising the law is nonsense. The move was forced on the government by an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court and the legislation was the bare minimum required in terms of making condons available.

    “Someone lied but it wasn’t up to CJH to prove his innocence but the court and Gibbons to prove his guilt.” It wasn’t up the Gibbons to prove anything, as he was a witness. It was up to the state prosecutor to prove guilt.

    “Haughey acquitted implied Gibbons lied.” And if he did it was it meant that the government were involved in supplying arms to terrorists and that Blaney and Haughey were not on a solo run. This of course brings the thread back to my original posting; “Were Blaney & Haughey acting alone of did others in that government know of and/or approve of the plans to arm the IRA?”

    Also Haughey’s lies unfder oath were not confined to the dispute with Gibbons, Haughey was a habitual liar under oath, as the later tribunals demonstrated.

  • SlugFest

    Anonymous,

    pssst … read the ‘commenting policy’ to the right of the screen.

  • Keith M

    “Then KeithM gets vulgar about S. Copeland and I kick it back at him ten fold.”

    The funny bone’s connected to brain bone…..

  • Betty Boo

    It seemed to have disappeared as well.

  • In a chronologial context Haughey was first therefore FF didn’t change policy.

    There are few contexts when involking Nazisms is accepted in society. It’s even given us the Godwin context in blogging. I’d be interested in your raising this Godwin Law regardless of the contexts.

    “I’m not here to defend Jim Gibbons stance…” reminds me of Shakespere sarcastic context when he wrote of “I’m not here to praise Caesar…”. CJH didn’t hit Gibbons end of story. You’re trying to include tabloid gory as backing for your claim CJH was akin to Hitler – Godwin Law, you lose.

    “Irish solution to an Irish problem” was perfect in the context of the times.

    “…involved in supplying arms to terrorists ..” but are they terrorists as pointed out by yourself things must be viewed in context. What context might they be terroriss when arms where attempted to be shipped to defenseless citizens being burnt out by your BSpecials and UVF cutthroats. These arms were possibly being imported by the soverign govnt in coordination with the Army and known by oppositoin Fine Gael. So I’d love to see your opinion of terrorists in the context of 1970’ish.

    Too easy…getting boring !

  • SlugFest on Jun 14, 2006 @ 09:27 PM wrote “pssst … read the ‘commenting policy’ to the right of the screen. ”

    pssstt, I was very aware of the policy I just wanted Mick to acknowledge me being insulted by a very cross Rubicon and then S Copeland being insulted by KeithM. I wanted to high light that I hadn’t responded in kind.

    As there were no yellow or red cards given I decided to return KeithM’s insults ten fold (I’ve still tearsof laughter in my eyes). I then wanted to highlight that then posts were removed.

    Fair? But in what c.o.n.t.e.x.t ?

  • Brenda

    Brilliantly presented thread mick. Marvellous little clip there, I really enjoyed watching that little piece of nostalgia.

  • Keith M

    “In a chronologial context Haughey was first therefore FF didn’t change policy.”.

    Are you even bothering to read the other posts on this thread? There is a HUGE difference between FF policy on contraception in 1979 and their stance today. However in 1986 (under Haughey) FF opposed the legislation which made condoms more easily available.

    “I’d be interested in your raising this Godwin Law regardless of the contexts.” Again read back on the thread, it was you who introduced the “Seig Heil” element in the first place not I.

    “CJH didn’t hit Gibbons end of story.” Hitler also got others to do his dirty work.

    “You’re trying to include tabloid gory” (are you trying to deny history? True or false Haughey’s supporters attacked a FF TD (and foprmer minister) causing him actual bodily harm, on the steps of Leinster House?

    “your claim CJH was akin to Hitler”. Stop creating straw men, I gave an example where the behaviour of Haughey’s supporters to their political rivals was similar to that which the supporters of Hitler used in the early 1930s.

    “but are they terrorists as pointed out by yourself things must be viewed in context. What context might they be terroriss when arms where attempted to be shipped to defenseless citizens being burnt out by your BSpecials and UVF cutthroats.” The IRA had been running a “border campaign” ever since the IFS left the U.K., only taking intermitant breaks. The campaign involved cold blooded murder. For an Irish government to put arms into these people’s hands would have been a disgrace of the highest order.

    What and when Cosgrave knew of the gun running is conjecture, the one thing we do know is that he stopped this suicidal idea which would most likely have dragged this country into open war with the U.K. We owe Cosgrave a huge debt of gratitude and of course the Irish public rewarded him at the next available opportunity.

  • Brian Boru

    They were acquitted. I would also add that at a time when Loyalist pogroms against the Catholic community were flashing all over our TV screens, going from house to house and burning people out, I can understand while there might have been some who believed that the Nationalist people had an entitlement to defend themselves. The Unionist community were and remain armed to the teeth after all, and the Loyalist terror groups were often legal e.g. the UDA was legal until 1993 (why?). Now in that situation, if there had been a plan to import arms, I can understand why some sympathy would have existed for it in some sections of Irish society. Remember that tens of thousands of Northern Catholics were drive from NI to the South. The British govt was abrogating its responsibility to put a stop to this. Someone had to protect the Nationalist people. That in no way justifies the Provo campaign, but it helped start it.

  • Mick Fealty

    Sorry guys, I had duties to attend to.

    The policy is clear. The rules are simple. Keep kicking the ball and it stays in. Kicking the man it goes out. Persistent kicking the man and you go out. Oh, and apologies to those of you trying to make sense of what’s left of the thread. I’ve only cut to try and keep the thing focused on real issues, rather than issues posters have with each other.

    Just be civil, and stick to the argument. And try, but try to enjoy the ‘game’. I don’t want to loose either of you. Please remember, I cannot adjudicate on every fracas that arises. Sort yourselves out please ‘girls’. And put the handbags down!!

    My own attitude in the face of incivility in remarks addressed to me is to ignore that aspect, but make every attempt to answer the point (if I can find it)… I note you took a long time to take umbrage to half a sentence, and yet chose to ignore Rubicon’s question. BTW, the original incivility has been removed.

  • Pete Baker

    The girls don’t seem to be the problem, Mick.

    btw.. I’m letting your earlier comment slide ;p

  • you can’t even see that my last postings were almost in jest as everything you write is in c.o.n.t.e.x.t.

    you want to open the debate on contracep? CJH brought the issue to the Dail first. In an earlier post you spoke of how Aids was the world wide scare. Therefore CJH was trying to solve a pandemic by being first – you choose to debate the merits of either bill. I’ve already posted that Charlie was first.

    I brought Seig Heill first as the SF style of behaviour on that night was by the PeeDee’s but you then speak of context.

    Gibbon was assulted – I never said he wasn’t. I highlight the c.o.n.t.e.x.t in which he was assulted.

    Charlie brought the IRA to ceasefire when Min of Justice in the ’60’s – credit where credit is due.

    Cosgrave did nothing. It was Berry who did everything and Cossers sat back even tho’ he’d been kept informed by Berry & co.

    Brian Boru wrote a good posting. I’m too tired or you not realizing that c.o.n.t.e.x.t. is a escape clause and you can’t see it. You’re blinded. I’m not a Haugheyite nor a SF’er but I won’t have you revisioning without me replying.

  • Mick Fealty on Jun 14, 2006 @ 10:46 PM wrote “I note you took a long time to take umbrage to half a sentence, and yet chose to ignore Rubicon’s question.” I’d like to say … but rather than lower myself to the vulgar level of others I think I should put things in the context in which you wrote them. Ruby made his insult at 6.50 or 7.01
    I posted back at 7.18 after writing a long posting and doing some research including quotes from Stephen Collins book. I addressed all his questions… 1. O’Malley kicked from FF 2. I named the hooligan 3. I posted a third party (Irish News) account of the brawl.
    If Ruby can’t read what I write and he thinks that I imply that Maskey was slapping a SFer then I shouldn’t be blamed for his reading deficiencies.

    Being the subject of the first incivility on this thread is bad enough. Then there’s vulgar postings by others. Lastly, you high light me in your quote above…?!?! (level playing filed please – may I suggest that we take this off line)

    Anything to say…? Apology will be accepted on receipt of the fore mentioned bulging brown envelope.

  • Rory

    Thank you for correcting my error, Mick. Captain James Kelly of course, a fine Cavan man. John Kelly, a fine Belfast man, served well the same need. I do not expect that either will take offence at my lapse, for (a wee bit)like “the Colonel’s lady and Rosie O’Grady” – they were sisters (comrades) under the skin.

  • Rory: Why were Cavan’s great GAA achievements of the 1050s blocked out? Down was not the first Ulster team to lift Sam. Cavan’s half acre men were.
    O’Malley: a nothing who got in on the name of his uncle.
    Paddy Hillery should never have been allowed to hold public office again after his attacks on Charlie Haughey and Neil Blaney at that Ard Fheis.
    Jack lynch: should have stuck to hurling and whoring (not saying he did but..). And his law practice. Look what happened to FF in Cork after he went. And all those French sailors he killed.
    Whatever happened to the Irish secret service after Kelly?
    How many Fine Gale TDs were MI5 agents? Garret Fitzg for definite, Conor Cruise O’Brien in Labour also. But how many more?
    Maybe Childers was MI5 too?
    One thing is sure: the Arms Trial fiasco and, later, burining the Embassy, gave the Bigots of Belfast the green light. Without that, there would have been no Robin Jackson, no Billy Wright etc.

  • Rubicon

    To pick up on anonymous’ points. He/she writes, “I addressed all his questions… 1. O’Malley kicked from FF 2. I named the hooligan 3. I posted a third party (Irish News) account of the brawl. If Ruby can’t read what I write and he thinks that I imply that Maskey was slapping a SFer then I shouldn’t be blamed for his reading deficiencies.

    On point 1, you answer a question not put. I asked, “Just who set up the PD’s “anonymous”?”. Yes, O’Malley was kicked out of FF – he took a principled stance against Haughey with inevitable consequences at political cost to himself; i.e., his loss of position in the FF party. O’Malley then set up the PD’s. You linked the PD’s to O’Malley being “booted from the FF party”. Enough said?

    On point 2, I’ll let history judge who the hooligan was.

    On point 3, your cut & paste from the Irish News made interesting reading – but in no way makes me doubt what I saw with my own eyes. I saw Maskey being jostled and provoked, he didn’t respond in kind (though he was clearly angered) and if he “defended” anyone it was his own reputation.

    As for me not being able to read what you write let me quote exactly what you WROTE, “Where the SF elected members are drowned out by whistles and horns, a recent Assembly meeting these SF members were attacked and defended by Alex Maskey.” I didn’t “imply” Maskey “was slapping a SFer” – you did.

    My apologies to you and to the thread for the offensive comment I made that Mick rightly removed from my original post.

  • Rory

    I’m sorry, Taigs, I have no idea why the great Cavan team of the 1950’s were ‘blocked out’. I certainly didn’t do any blocking out. I greatly admire that team and once spent a lovely evening with Tom Reilly at his home reminiscing about the team’s exploits and other adventures that Tom was involved in during the Fifties. He showed courage and leadership qualities in other fields than football.

  • darth rumsfeld

    well lads and lasses , I suggest you all go off to indymedia or somewhere if you want to continue discussing the overdue demise of this poisonous little creep and leave slugger for what it says on the strap line- “Notes on Northern ireland politics and culture”.

    And before the usual gurning about speaking ill of the dead ( which I suspect will be forgotten about when Ian Paisley is called home) just remember it wasn’t me wot started it- Mick put up the picture of Il Duce with the caption “You Tube” beside it!

  • Nevin

    Pat, it was hardly surprising that militant republicans should get the pike out – once again.

    Which was the major motivation for facilitating the formation of the ‘Catholic-Ireland’ Provos: protection of northern Nationalists, demolition of the ‘failed political entity’ or protection of the nationalist ‘Church and State’ institutions?

    The ‘commie revolution’ was a threat to the Stormont and Dail administrations but IMO it was unlikely to have united the Unionist and Nationalist working classes.

  • “My apologies to .. ” no problem, no biggie, heat of the moment and all that.

    Anything from the vulgar spouting KeithM ?

  • Rory: Yes, poor old Cavan. And Captn Reilly. And poor Charlie goes into the clay today. The uncrowned king of Ireland. As Liam Cosgrave said, more ability than all his detractors.
    Haughey was a politican. Paisley was a rabble rousing demagogue and many a UVF bomber wished they’d never listen to him.
    As regards unting Catholic and Protestant working class:
    1,. that is a clapped out Marxist idea. The Orangies owe their culture to their sense of supremacy the shipyards etc gave them.
    2. The beginning of the Troubles was very very fishy. This includes the Arms Trial episode. Blaney had good contacts in the six counties and was a genuine guy. Gibbons was in on it. But MI5 won out in the end. Fianna Fail shut up and the Northern Catholics had to out up with paisley and the death squads. The key to the Troubles lie in those early “won’t stand idly by” years

  • Brian Boru

    Nevin the Provos would have been formed anyway. Remember they came about because of a split in the IRA leading to the establishment of the Official IRA also. The IRA’s arsenal came mainly from Libya. There is no evidence (unless you know something I don’t) that the guns in the Arms Trial affair actually reached the North.

  • Garibaldy

    Brian,

    If I remember right, the Belgian arms dealer actually ripped the Dublin government off, and no guns were forthcoming, so they never reached the North. You’re right about the split in the IRA coming, although it was facilitated by elements of FF.

  • Nevin

    Brian, IMO the split may have followed on from the split in the CRM a few days after the march in Derry on October 5, 1968. The Derry Citizens Action Committee AFAIK didn’t affiliate to the IRA initiated NICRA; DCAC appeared to be more in tune with ‘Catholic-Ireland’ nationalism and those who went on to form the Provos represented the militant segment of this nationalism. IMO the protection of the institutions in the south was the paramount consideration of political and religious leaders in the pan-nationalist family.

  • J. Richards

    Read ‘Orders for the Captain’ by James Kelly – a definitive account by one who knew.