David Simpson calls for investigation into RoI involvement in Troubles

David Simpson is reported in Saturday’s News Letter calling for a Saville style commission to look into the role of the RoI in the Troubles and specifically the arming, training, sheltering etc. of the IRA. Simpson points out that:

“The claim has always been made that since it was the state that was involved in the events of Bloody Sunday that made it different and necessitated the obtaining of the truth and justified the massive expenditure.”

He draws the parallel that the RoI state is accused of involvement and as such a there is a similar imperative to investigate it.

“UK citizens were tortured by the Provisional IRA,” he said. “The Provisional IRA shot and wounded, and blew up and injured many UK citizens. They murdered many, many hundreds of UK citizens.

“The Provisional IRA were assisted in their creation and arming by elements in the southern government. The southern government also served as a safe haven from which the PIRA operated and repeatedly dragged its heels over extradition.”

“UK citizens deserve the protection of their own government and deserve to know the truth,”

The problem is that as he rightly says the British government has “looked the other way” over this issue. Furthermore it would be difficult for the British government to investigate the RoI government and it would certainly raise howls of protest from the RoI. The alternative might be for the RoI government to investigate the allegations. However, the arms trial showed the problems with that and the Smithwick tribunal looking at one case of potential collusion between the Garda and the IRA (over the murders of Harry Breen and Bob Buchannan) has achieved very little.

This may be a nine day wonder as a reaction to Saville and it may soon be back to the likes of Willie Frazer trying to sue McGuinness as the only significant attempts by unionists to make an issue over the innumerable unanswered questions from the IRA’s terror campaign. However, if these issues continue to be pursued, Sinn Fein and the RoI government may have to address the issue rather than in SF’s case come out with the following:

“Willie Frazer is irrelevant and a serial failed political figure. His views have been rejected by the people in the Westminster election and Sinn Fein has better things to worry about.”

If such dismissive remarks had been made about the relative of a Bloody Sunday victim Sinn Fein would (rightly) have been up in arms. However, Willie Frazer (no matter how odd or mad he may seem to be) as one of the few unionists to continue a very public campaign about the murder of his relatives has been serially vilified by republicans and ignored by most unionists and others. The inequity of that situation suggests most eloquently the hierarchy of victimhood in Northern Ireland.

, , ,

  • Jeff

    You think the British Goverment are going to put a strain on relations with the Irish Goverment in this current economic climate?

    Also, with the current state of the RoI I think this would be the last thing they have to worry about.

  • Dec

    “The alternative might be for the RoI government to investigate the allegations. However, the arms trial showed the problems with that and the Smithwick tribunal looking at one case of potential collusion between the Garda and the IRA (over the murders of Harry Breen and Bob Buchannan) has achieved very little.”

    Sorry, from that statement it appears the Irish Government has investigated allegations when they arise. Are there any specific other allegations apart from the usual generalising nonsense of ‘safe havens’, ‘operating with impunity’, etc- allegations that would be more accurately levelled at the Northern state given the amount of attacks launched and planned by loyalists and Republicans here.

    “The problem is that as he rightly says the British government has “looked the other way” over this issue.”

    Can’t think why…it’s not like they’ve anything to hide. Eh, duh!

    All in all just more sour whataboutery from the usual sources. Just what is it about innocent victims finally being vindicated that so enrages a certain shade of Unionism?

  • Jean Meslier

    “..However, Willie Frazer (no matter how odd or mad he may seem to be) as one of the few unionists to continue a very public campaign about the murder of his relatives has been serially vilified by republicans and ignored by most unionists and others. The inequity of that situation suggests most eloquently the hierarchy of victimhood in Northern Ireland…”

    The hierarchy of victimhood, like the hierarchy of perpetrator merits investigation, and I welcome discussion on this.

    Willie Frazer’s drawback as an ” innocent victims campaigner” is the association of many close to him who were involved with the “Glenanne gang”

  • Darrell Monteith

    While there is no doubt that a lot of people including the ROI should be made accountable for their support and collusion with the IRA over the last 40 yrs, it is unlikely that such accountability will actually come to fruition. We all know that the IRA could not have sustained their sectarian ethnic cleansing campaign without the support of an awful lot of people who would like to think of themselves as being completely opposed to violence, the truth will for them be very uncomfortable indeed. Given however the saville report was always going to be what it has turned to be (I have always felt that the outcome was agreed by the British government with the IRA when the enquiry was established), anyone who beleives that is not the likeliest scenario suffers from a rose tinted view of each of those two organisations. I feel that more enquiries for will in fact achieve nothing except cost a lot of money and achieve nothing more than Saville which is of course “sweet nothing” – republicans always believed their “heros” were completely innocent and most unionists believed the same individuals were “up to their neck in it” to one extent or another. Nothing has changed that view on either party if we are honest with ourselves.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    Personally I think it is a reasonable request, as there clearly was support for PIRA amongst the public in Ireland it would be strange if it was not reflected in the police force.

    I think it would be useful if all sides but especially the government in the south and in Britain agreed to reveal the extent and detail of the various operations that were carried out in their name by cooperating with any enquiries.

    PIRA could share with us their thinking for example regarding the Eniskillen bomb (and the other bomb nearby allagedly to blow up school children) and the British would get to share the the unsemly details of their symbiotic relationship with Loyalist paramilitaries.

    Needs to happen.

  • Mack

    Would this investigation include how the Gardai investigated the IRA? Ran double agents at the highest level? Regularly busted arms dumps (dodgy Donegal planting not withstanding)? How the Irish Navy intercepted the Marita Ann?
    How Irish Politicains risked their own personal safety in defence of the state in opposing the IRA?

  • fin

    surely the victims of BS and members of the IRA are also UK citizens, they may not want to be, but they are.

    Yet the Paras apparently killed people while the IRA murdered UK citizens.

    Possibly its time for the government and unionists to front up and state just what the nationalist population are deemed to be, otherwise, we might be led to think that they are a lesser community, 2nd class so to speak

  • Oracle

    It’s not an unreasonable request at all.. however if people are old enough (should be easy on this site just look at Fealty) to cast their minds back to the days before the “Celtic Tiger” the R.O.I were spending £100,000,000 a year protecting the border.
    A hundred million pounds that it did not have or at that time could afford to divert from other sources… but it did.

    If there has been aid it has been on an idividual capacity only but I wouldn’t argue against discloseure through investigation, though I personally think it’s just the DUP sound biting for their rank and file

  • EyeontheNorth

    State collusion with terrorists eh? Surely David doesn’t need to look as far as over the border for that kind of carry-on.

  • Jeff

    Nicely put. No matter how far Nationalists make it in politics they are still seen as 2nd class to the Unionist politicans and British Goverment.

  • bigchiefally

    Whats the point?

    Will it tell us, and the victims families, anything they dont already know or suspect? No.

    Is anyone going to go to jail over it? No.

    Is it going to bring back the loved ones lost? No.

    Is it going to bring closure, whatever that exactly is, to the bereaved relatives? In most cases I doubt it.

  • Republic of Connaught

    The harsh truth for David Simpson and bitter DUP men like him is the Irish state would come out looking like choir boys compared to British state involvement with Loyalist terrorists. The Irish attempts at ‘collusion’, like Charlie Haughey, were probably laughable to the British authorities. Was it 1798 muskets Haughey supplied to the PIRA?

    Nobody knows this better than the British government themselves, whose intelligence agencies probably had better details about what the Irish state did during the troubles than the Irish government knew themselves.

    That’s why there will be no inquiries. Because the British state know THEY will be the ones shamed if all the truth came out.

  • Alan N/ARDS


    What exactly is Wiilie Fraziers connection with “the Glenanne gang”? I don’t know the man but I admire his determination to get the truth for many people murdered by republican killer gangs. Just like the families of BS.

    Last week the BS families embraced a number of men who had been campaigning for the innocent victims of BS. They were former leaders of the republican killer gang known as the provos. It seems that there is a smear campaign going against Willie Frazier. As far as I know he has never broken the law and has not been invovled in terrorism. Or do you believe the families he represents are not entitled to the same level of truth the BS families deserved?

  • Alan N/ARDS

    Republic of connaught

    Are you saying the ROI has clean hands regarding the troubles? Do you have proof of that?

    Just because senior members of the goverment were set free after a sham trial doesn’t mean the goverments hands are clean. Unionists along the border believe otherwise.

  • Mack

    A broad and fair enquirey into the “RoI’s involvement in the troubles” would likely, and overwhelmingly in my view, produce the opposite outcome to that sought by David Simpson.

    Here is the thing – had we had an enquiry into the role of the parachute regiment during the troubles – would their have been offsetting acts of moral authority that would have mitigated their actions on Bloody Sunday? Unlikely. Certainly such an enquirey would have had to have been cogniscent of the murder of Paras at Narrow Water Castle.

    Equally – if you investigate the role of the Republic of Ireland during the troubles – you will find many victims (Dublin and Monaghan bombings, the bombing of Dublin bus, the attack on the Miami showband by members of the UDR etc). doubtless you will find a few hot-heads in various walks that aided and abetted the provisionals – but most likely such a report will be heavily laden with sacrifices made by An Garda Síochána, our lawyers and judges, our political class to ensure that the IRA did not subvert or democracy and limited, as far a possible, it’s threat in the north.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    Alan N/ARDS,

    Sham trial it was, the ROI government were quite right to finance some resistance to British/Loyalsit agression in response to attmepts to reform Ulster just as Michael Collins did after partition.

  • martin

    wouldnt hold my breath hoping for any admission of anything from the ROI government considering how they have dragged their feet about investigating the Loyalist/(highly probably assisted by British army elements )bombing of Dublin and Monaghan .

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit


    I’m afraid that is the sort of double-standards-free-statery that we have become accustomed to – many RUC men arrested and detested loyalist paramilitiaries – that does not mean some other RUC and UDR and BA did not collude with them.

    The scale of the problem is much greater in the North as there were far greater violence, but their is absolutely nothing wrong wtih collusion IF the colluders are on your side – as most Irish people view the help given to Michael Collins by his guys in the RIC and the castle.

    We cant have it both ways – but with much of what Unionists wish for it often comes along and bites them on the arse which as you indicate in your later post there are far more unpleasant facts likely to come out about British collsuin than the Irish variety.

  • Mack

    Sammy –

    If collusion was limited to _some_ RUC, UDR and British Army types and did not form part of a comprehensive anti-insurgency strategy, then that doesn’t say anything particularly untoward about the British State dealing with a difficult situation. I suspect, and it’s almost implicit in David Simpsons call here, that most people don’t believe that collusion was isolated and did indeed form part of a counter insurgency strategy. But does anyone seriously believe the British were fighting a proxy war against the Irish state?

    If the point here is that some southerners supported the IRA through actions, well, that’s hardly news. Some brits and northern Protestants did likewise.

    But what’s really going on here, is an attempt to muddy the name of the Irish state as a counter to the damage inflicted on the British state reputation by Bloody Sunday (oblivious to Cameroon’s skillful handling of Saville) and equally oblivious to the impact it has in terms of wooly moral thinking along the lines “sure we’ve all got blood on our hands”, which would likely only benefit your party in this state in the long run (which is probably why you support it).

  • Republic of Connaught


    If an international investigation took place into what the UK and Irish governments did during the troubles the Irish state’s sins would pale in comparison to the British state’s activities. The British government knows this very well, so would never seek such inquiries.

    I don’t know what Irish governments did during the troubles, but I’m positive the British know it was minor stuff compared to their own activities. So why would they want inquiries in which they would come out the loser? They don’t, which is why nobody calls for such inquiries but bitter DUP men.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    Republic of Connaught,

    “They don’t, which is why nobody calls for such inquiries but bitter DUP men.”

    ..and a very good reason for Nationalists to support them as well as the fact that Unionists have as much right to know about the issues that concern them as Nationalists have.

  • Republic of Connaught


    I don’t agree. Digging up the past like that would cause nothing but antagonism between Dublin and London. Neither goverment wants that hassle and it won’t bring back the dead.

    Bloody Sunday was unique but I wouldn’t think too many inquiries into the past are the best way forward. Men like David Simpson belong in the past. His generation like Gregory Campbell have nothing to offer but bitterness.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit


    the fact that Unionists want to inject some balance as they might see it into the direction of all enquires does not mean that they dont have genuine anger at the way the ROI conducted it’s security responce to the North and the way some members of the Irish security forces may have assisted the Provos. And dont forget that security policy was ‘tighted up’ a number of times during in the troubles and there most certainly was a very relaxed view of IRA men on the run not to even mention the difficulty in getting someone extradited (personally I had no problem with that) – where a missing fullstop often resulted in a warrant being thrown in the court bin.

    ..and I have little doubt that Haughey and Co were part instrumental in setting up the Provos (something I dont have a problem with personally) but as mentioned below was thrown out in a sham trial.

    A lot there for Unionists to be genuinley concerned and angry about dont you think?

    Are you suggesting that they didnt?

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit

    Republic of Connaught ,

    “Bloody Sunday was unique but I wouldn’t think too many inquiries into the past are the best way forward. ”

    There is little of the pulling up the ladder after you in that arguement – Unionist may not see it that way.

    …and although sympathectic to the insurgency (apologist if you like Turgon) I dont think SF or the British military should be allowed to get away without answering some very difficult questions.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit


    “There is a little of the pulling up the ladder after you in that arguement – Unionist may not see it that way.

  • Mack

    IIRC there were some enquiries in the south (Dublin and Monaghan bombs, and possible collusion by a small number of border Gardai). You can have another enquiry into the actions of a couple of rougue government ministers and James Kelly if you want. My memory of that is pretty hazy now – the trial was in 1970 – when were the arms imported? 1969 (death toll – 16)? How much was imported (relatively small) ? Wasn’t part of the purpose initially of the Irish states involvement in formenting a split to undermine the socialists / communists who became the Official IRA (wouldn’t that be in line with NATO wishes during the cold war – can you imagine a Russian satellite on Britain’s door step?)

    Irish extradition history is pretty transparent and in accordance with the law of the time. There is hardly a state in the world that hands-over it’s citizens lightly (try extradicting a Chinese). Especially not in an environment where the perception of the defendent recieving a fair trial is incredibly low. Are we to investigate the United States who were even more obsitinate back in the day also?

    If you want a truth and reconcillation process, then fine, I think that’s a good idea. If your going to have an enquirey into Ireland’s role in the troubles, then that enquirey should also include the actions taken by the Irish state in opposing / dealing with the IRA.

    The broad record of the Irish state in opposing the IRA stands (to the extent of illiberally banning supporters from the airwaves, and 9 Garda officers have paid with their lives) much taller than the involvement of some in supporting it.

  • Granni Trixie

    There are so many legit grievances. Where do you start?

    1. The ROI: To read Republcan accounts (say, Voices from the Grave) confirms that the ROI was indeed “a safe haven”, a place where you (Republicans) could train in how to use guns etc and a place to escape from the law.
    As far as I am concerned, the ROI has as much to answer for in sustaining the troubles as others (IRA, loyalists, the Brits).

    2. Willie Frazer: I too admire him. He has a legit cause. But when he org. a march for “Protestant” victims of the Troubles, we depart company as I draw the line at sectarianising the dead.

    However I detest whataboutery in relation to BS. Let it go! For whilst there are many,many Troubles wrongs, I think we should just respect the fact that some justice has been served to some families this time round. End of.

    For the record, until 1972, although living beside Lenadoon, I took the Troubles to be a crime wave which law and order would take care of. I was horrified therefore when I saw that the state stood over BS. I had to do something. So I joined the Alliance Party and have no regrets. It helped me personally and, ultimately, works for the country, ‘punching above its weight’.

  • Itwas SammyMcNally whatdoneit


    A few of your arguements have been light on relevance and “try extradicting a Chinese” is probably near the top of that list.

    But I think I am boadly agreeing with your views on the south and your statement “If you want a truth and reconcillation process, then fine, I think that’s a good idea”

    My issue is that the South and Southerners – like Enda today – are too quick to defend their own without looking at things from the other side of the fence and tend to sound as if they are sporting a large and unhealthy set of double standards.

  • Jean Meslier,
    By that logic is Tony Doherty not an acceptable relative? He is the son of one of those killed on Bloody Sunday and also a convicted IRA terrorist. Does he not deserve his father’s rights to be respected on the grounds that he later became a member of a bigoted criminal murder gang?

    Would unionists be right to vilify him? Should nationalists ignore his father’s death?

    Frazer is repeatedly attacked and I agree has said some things I find pretty unacceptable. The question is does that de legitimise his status as the relative of a victim? Is his father less a victim because he has said pretty extreme things?

    Is Doherty’s father less a victim because his son later became a criminal?

  • johno

    Can anyone point me to the thread discussing the attempted murder of the Catholic schoolgirl yesterday? You know, the attack where the schoolgirl had her face smashed with a brick and then her attackers bit her and jumped on her in attempt to break her wrists as she lay unconscious on the ground?

    I’m sure someone has started a thread on this, yes? I mean, Slugger is the place to discuss to discuss all the relevant issues of the day, isn’t it?

    Or is it just a forum for a load of sad bigots who want to attack nationalsims at every opportunity and to ignore what’s really happening?


  • aquifer

    Charlie Haughey backed and armed the traditionalist Provos rather than the socialist and anti-sectarian Officials who might have brought down his own national capitalist gang. The Irish army gave arms training to men from Derry just over the border. But Paisleyites laid the first bombs and loyalists did the first shooting. That much I know. It was not so much the amount of backing given the Provos, or how long it lasted, that sent the conflict on such a disasterous divisive and bloody course, but that it was given early. Militant irish separatism was the answer because it kinda worked before. Yeah.

    The european revolution of 68 hijacked at rusty pistol point, driven down the road and burned out.

    Great craic

  • jim

    david doesnt need to look as far over the border…………………….just a couple of mile to omeath were some of the torture houses were or the sand dunes were mrs mc conville was dumped that il be far enough to start with

  • Michael

    You’ve got an uphill struggle with Frazer.

    Willie really only wants to see ‘justice’ for protestant victims, he openly thinks loyalist killers shouldn’t have been jailed, UDR men were right to collude with loyalist death squads and that “pakis from india” would get a hand shake from him if they killed IRA men (my personal favourite)

    If Willie has a mirror image in the catholic community, then yes, protestants would be perfectly within their rights to vilify him/her.

    But I doubt the KKK would accept invites from irish catholics so it would be hard to mirror Willie in that respect.

  • Michael,
    You are right, Willie Frazer seems to be a difficult character with a whole raft of utterly unacceptable views: but that is the problem. If one believes in justice they need to believe in it for everyone: for the Bloody Sunday families including the ones who themselves became terrorists and also for the likes of Willie Frazer.

    In addition although it does not make Frazer’s views acceptable there seems little evidence he has actually acted on any of his remarks: Doherty for example acted out his hatred by joining a sectarian murder gang and helping in its sectarian campaign.

  • Michael

    “If one believes in justice they need to believe in it for everyone”

    Not just for your own tribe.
    Again, thats where Willie falls down.

    I’m not going to condone Doherty’s behaviour, and if too he feels that his tribe’s killers should have never been in gaol in the first place etc, then he is also wrong.

    Too many of Willies actions, from love ulster marches/gun running recreations/KKK flirtations have nothing to do with victims rights. If he isn’t taken seriously he needs to stop, breathe and ask himself why. The rest of us already know the answer.

  • Michael

    I should probably say that Willie obviously has many reasons to be the way he is, he and his family have suffered terribly as many families have. I no more berudge him closure/justice than I would anyone else.
    But it won’t however stop me thinking that the man is basically a myopic arse and I wouldn’t want him ‘campaigning’ for any of my relatives, as it’s all too much about ‘oor Wullie’ if you catch my meaning.

  • Mick Fealty

    This is a cross posting from at least two other threads. Johno, keep up the filibustering and you’re on a Yellow old son.

  • MonkdeWallydeHonk

    Alan N/ARDS

    Willie Frazer openly stated (on Radio Ulster I believe) that the “loyalist” terrorists freed under the GFA should never have been jailed in the first place.

    To my knowledge, he has never retracted or corrected that statement.

    When he applied for a gun licence, he was refused. When he appealed the judge turned his appeal down as the PSNI had provided “irrefutable” evidence of Frazers contacts with known “loyalist” terrorists.

    He also said that he was a friend of Billy Wright who he described as a good man.

    His organisation is only interested in Protestant victims. His “Love Ulster” rallies have had known UDA/UVF men in attendance as well as people associated with extreme right wing and racist groups.

    I’m sorry for what happened to Frazer as I am for all relatives of terrorist victims (except in my case I mean both Catholic and Protestant).

    However, there are many examples on both sides of victims relatives who have borne their loss with grace and dignity.

    Frazer has not – he is a bitter and hypocritical man whose attempts at getting elected have met with derision even in the Protestant community.

    Any sensible Unionist would avoid being associated with him and his unacceptable views. He is just so easy to take apart with the many examples of his hypocrisy over “loyalist” terrorism.

  • Granni Trixie

    Alan, you attribute actions and words to WF which, if accurate, clearly puts him in the wrong with inconsisent morality.

    Saying I admire him was focusing on the courage and tenacity it took to draw attention to a sectarian violent campaign around the border area. He saw and experienced the pattern.

    Also, whilst not being as well informed as some, I have noted WF stance adjust over the years – eg he agreed to meet the Ballymurphy relatives group when they challenged him and was more respectful when talking about them.

    As far as I’m concerned they are all victims/survivors.

  • Cormac Mac Art

    As one of the few people here who actually lives in the republic, I have no problem with such an investigation, provided that anyone found guilty of such crimes be given jail terms. You do the crime, you do the time, no matter who you are. What’s so hard to understand about that?

  • Mack

    Well, taking David Simpsons call at face value for an inquiry into how ‘the Irish’ created the Provisional IRA at face value – the Irish ministers and Army captain involved are all dead.

  • Cormac Mac Art

    I’d like to see it anyway, just to show how how little support the IRA recieved from the Irish state. They’ve been a proscribed organisation down here since the Civil War – why on earth would Ireland support an organisation intent on the destruction of the state?

    If nothing else, it goes to show what a disconnect there is between certain communities on the island.

  • Granni Trixie

    Cormac: you seem in denial. So many accounts show that the IRA perceived and experienced the ‘The South’ as a place where a blind eye was turned to arms training or where escapees could move about with impunity,whatever the official line or law states.

  • Michael

    ‘On the run’ usually meant holed up in a caravan in Buncrana when I was young.

  • Mack

    Granni –

    Most of the south is much less densley populated in the north. There is plenty of space where arms training could be done away from the watchful eyes of the Gardai or Army (also bear in mind that the IRA would shoot any informers and what little locals there were weren’t queuing up to provide information) .

  • erasmus

    It must also be pointed out that members of SF and/or the IRA were proscribed from the broadcasting media since circa 1972 in the ROI (the famous ‘Section 31’) – similar legislation was not introduced in the UK until about 1989. Also it was possible for to be convicted for terrorist offences in the south *on the word of a police inspector only* since the seventies – there was nothing similarly draconian in NI or GB. I find myself in rare agreement with Cormac.

  • Cormac Mac Art

    1 – Fair point, BUT the crucial thing is that it is from a northern republican point of view. The view of most people in Ireland, and that of the Irish state itself, is that they were terrorists, and unworthy of support.

    In that regard, I do not believe my country is guilty of supporting and sustaining the IRA. Were individual Irish people gulty? Absolutly! But not the state, nor even half of its citizens.

    But if the only way to prove/disprove this is to hold such an inquiry, then I’m all for it.

  • Cormac Mac Art

    I’m only giving you my view of the matter as a resident of the south during the Troubles. People here DREADED the IRA, who generally stuck out like sore thumbs because of their accents.

    Remember, they refused to reocgnise the legitimacy of our state for decades, and had no compution in killing our people and security forces, doing bank jobs, kidnapping and intimidation.

    That’s not to say there was not support for them down here. Of course there was. But you can guage how much actual support by the amount of support Sinn Fein has had here over the last forty years.

    That is their perception. Accounts given by the Gardai and army would give you very different views. But the southern view of the conflict is not part of the Troubles narrative.

  • Cormac Mac Art

    Erasmus is right on this point. The Irish security services had a well-earned reputation down here as ”total bastards”. Recently released files show their instructor to have been a Manchester D.C.I. named Gene Hunt.

    Seriously though, the IRA were more feared than loved down here. Still are.

  • Michael

    ‘The south’ was no more monolithic in it’s attitudes towards the IRA than the North was.
    Whatever attitudes may have been ‘memorable’ where you grew up fail to paint the whole picture.
    Attitudes varied by individual, and more importantly by location and point in history.

  • vanhelsing


    That’s really interesting to a ‘northern Unionist’ 🙂 This statement intrigued me:

    ‘But the southern view of the conflict is not part of the Troubles narrative’ could you explain that if you can be bothered [not sarcasm]