Rowan, Duddy, Morrison

The Belfast Telegraph and the Irish News both feature articles on the hunger strike issue – more on those later today or tomorrow, time permitting. A comment by Dixie Elliott in the “and ‘Soon’ would have known this” thread is worth highlighting in regards the debate over Danny Morrison’s new claims that he brought nothing from the British into the prison (As he told Rowan, “At the time of my visit to the prison on the afternoon of Sunday July 5, 1981, the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal’.”). It’s a YouTube of Brian Rowan interviewing Brendan Duddy at a Feile debate in West Belfast in August, 2009. Dixie has transcribed the discussion in the comments, you can watch the video embedded below.

From Dixie’s comment:

In an interview with Barney Rowan at Belfast Feile, Brendan Duddy said “that although a document didn’t exist the RM had the detail of an offer, there’s no argument about that. And at that particular point that offer was available to go into the prison and..and whatever.
And what was not available at that time was the document.”

When Rowan asked him did he ‘scribble’ the offer, Duddy replied that he wrote it very carefully.

Earlier Rowan had said to Duddy..‘I think your sort of test which is to get someone into the prison on the Sunday?’

Duddy took a drink of water and pointed to Danny Morrison in the audience and replied…‘Him!’

Duddy went on to say “that the person he wanted to get in with respect to you, Mr Morrison, was Gerry Adams and they said..‘No way is Adams going in’. Right!”

And [he pointed at Danny] “so do not be offended, you were second choice.”

“So I considered a positive way forward to get Danny Morrison in and I was also totally happy that you were well aware of what was being said and what was on offer, so forth. So getting Danny Morrison in was, in my book, a major, major, step forward.”

He went on to say at that particular point of time the real difficulty was that this [meaning a document] particular written piece of paper…[he didn’t finish]

He then said he would like to know when the British deposited it.

So Danny sat and listened while Duddy said that he had an offer of which he was well aware what was being said and what was on offer to take into the prison.

Duddy goes on to say, “Danny Morrison went in..”
Rowan: “You outlined the offer?… to the Republican leadership?”
Duddy: “The Republican leadership had the detail of the offer, there’s no argument about that …”
Rowan: “You gave it to Martin McGuinness…”
Duddy: “That doesn’t matter, I’m telling you that the Republican leadership had the detail of that offer and at that particular point, that offer was available to go into the prison…”

Dixie also points out a quote from Morrison in a BBC Talkback interview in 2009:

‘he explained to them [the hunger strikers] what was on offer’, adding ‘by the way, the offer that we were being offered through the Mountain Climber was a bigger and better offer than what the ICJP thought they had.’ He went on: ‘After I had seen the hunger strikers, we all agreed that this [the M/C offer] could be a resolution, but we wanted it guaranteed.’

Danny Morrison tells Rowan now, however,

“At the time of my visit to the prison on the afternoon of Sunday July 5, 1981, the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal’.”

  • Mary Anna

    Bless Brenden Duddy and every day he helped to bring the truth out! am i still barred lol

  • Dixie Elliott

    Well would you believe that the video has been removed from Youtube…

    I wonder why and by whom?

  • Margit

    The whole thing is baffling! So why did he go there?! I just re-read the passage in “Blanketmen”. Why is he now saying the Brits hadn’t made an offer?

  • kateyo

    I removed it Dixie. I haven’t watched that video in a long time so can’t say if your comment is exact but at this stage in the discussion there was no question and answer session. Even if Danny Morrison had objected to what was being said he would not have intervened at this point it would have been at the end of the discussion when the q+ a session started. Also Mr Duddy is an aged man, even when I asked a question Barney Rowan had to tell him what I said, Danny may have intervened and it not taken up by my camera. I wasn’t sitting near him. In the interests of fairness I made the video private.

  • Dixie Elliott

    This is crazy what was said was taken down exactly to the word and posted here.

    Everyone in that room including Brian Rowan knows thats what was said so why remove the tape?

    As of two mins ago the first part still remains on Youtube.

  • Into the west

    the youtube user is NIchannel1
    part 1 is still available
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6hhcTd6aPU
    someone who knows about “cache”
    might be able to get the private one copied .

    I hate this , just adds to suspicion
    put all the facts in the public domain folks !

  • Dixie Elliott

    kateyo

    Strange that you do so now and that the 1st part remains the last time I looked 2 mins ago.

    You said..

    “Even if Danny Morrison had objected to what was being said he would not have intervened at this point it would have been at the end of the discussion when the q+ a session started.”

    Yet he had plenty of time to retract in the press afterwards. Instead as I posted yesterday, Jim Gibney wrote an article on that debate barely referring to Duddy’s mention of the Hunger Strike but talking about Duddy himself in glowing terms.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Also kateyo, I would like to know what happened to the Gasyard debate at which Duddy was also on the panel?

    These tapes were also removed from Youtube…There seems to be some attempt to remove Brendan Duddy’s recorded contribution which doesn’t suit from the internet.

  • Alias

    kateyo, Mr Duddy was “an aged man” when you uploaded the video and was just as aged in Part 1 of the video which you have not hidden from view, so it looks like you are covering up for Mr Mossison and the Shinners.

    You should put the video back up and allow the viewers to determine if Mr Duddy’s ‘age’ is a factor or not.

  • Into the west

    oops alias a morrison and mossad freudian slip
    its all coming out now ..hang on t’ yer hats !

  • Alias

    It’s the Anglicized spelling…

  • ranger1640

    Not that same old trick of, I Ran Away, when under pressure Kateyo?

  • Rory Carr

    An offer is not an offer until it is offered.

    Duddy was an intermediary, a sounding board, a channel through which both sides could feel out each others’ position at a remove. But Duddy was in no position to make an offer, nor has he ever claimed that he held such a plenipotentiary role which, all things considered, is quite unthinkable.

    His role,on the Brits’ behalf was to sound out the IRA, to determine what might be acceptable to them before any offer was made that they then would be obliged to stand over. Everything that both Duddy and Morrison says confirms this. Duddy was broaching an offer which seemed as though it might break the deadlock and it was this news which Morrison conveyed to Bik McFarlane while warning him that this likely offer, if and when forthcoming, would trump any offer that the ICJP might negotiate.

    The language of Morrison’s which Dixie Elliot and Rusty Nail attempt to distort only serves to confirm that this is the case:

    After I had seen the hunger strikers, we all agreed that this [the M/C offer] could be a resolution, but we wanted it guaranteed.’

    There we have it “This [the M/C offer] could be a resolution…” That’s “could be” as in “Could be if and when it was offered” indicating clearly that an offer had not yet been made but only this tentative probing to sound out the acceptability or otherwise of such an offer were it to be made..

    “M/C” was in no position to make an offer. He could only convey what the Brits asked him to convey of their thinking in order to assess the IRA and the hunger strikers’ position if (and it’s a big “if“) such an offer were to be made. The “M/C offer” is not yet real, it is tentative and will only (and only possibly) become real following the Brits’ assessment of the IRA and Hunger strikers’ response to a possible offer filtered through Duddy.

    That the offer had not been actually made is then borne out by how Morrison finishes that sentence, “but, we wanted it guaranteed.” “WE” meaning the hunger strikers would want any offer guaranteed (by public pronouncement or similar acceptable means) before they could publicly back down themselves.

    To do less in their eyes would have been to repeat the errors of the first hunger-strike and would have been seen as a complete betrayal of those men who had already died.

    As Donncha1981 asked of Dixie Elliot in an earlier thread on this matter:

    “Would you not agree that what is mentioned as an ‘offer’ in the British State papers (clothes, a visit and a parcel) would not have been acceptable to the majority of the prisoners after the deaths of four hunger strikers?

    Or is that question too embarrassing to be faced?

  • Decimus

    Well would you believe that the video has been removed from Youtube…

    I wonder why and by whom?

    Dixie,

    It looks like the Sinners have started the forensic clean up, but they have left it a bit late.

  • Decimus

    As Donncha1981 asked of Dixie Elliot in an earlier thread on this matter:

    “Would you not agree that what is mentioned as an ‘offer’ in the British State papers (clothes, a visit and a parcel) would not have been acceptable to the majority of the prisoners after the deaths of four hunger strikers?

    Or is that question too embarrassing to be faced?

    Rory,

    Didn’t Sonncha also point out that after ten deaths that is pretty much what they got.

  • Decimus

    Sorry that should read Donncha.

  • Mary Anna

    Dixie i believe you – god love you. Don’t let the Buggers get you down -keep telling the truth the why it was and what are they hiding from the truth?.

  • Dixie Elliott

    As Donncha1981 asked of Dixie Elliot in an earlier thread on this matter:

    “Would you not agree that what is mentioned as an ‘offer’ in the British State papers (clothes, a visit and a parcel) would not have been acceptable to the majority of the prisoners after the deaths of four hunger strikers?

    Or is that question too embarrassing to be faced?”

    Not at all given that Danny claims there was no offer at all.

    Did or didn’t Bik say it was a huge opportunity with the potential to end it?

    Did or didn’t Danny say that after discussion with the Hunger Strikers we all agreed that this [the M/C offer] could be a resolution, but we wanted it guaranteed.?

    All this about what the majority of prisoners would have accepted is an attempt to muddy the waters.

    They would have accepted what was acceptable by the leadership in order to save more lives. Are you saying that prisoners not willing to go on Hunger Strike should veto those on it or in the leadership?

    Utter Nonsense!!

  • Terry B

    How convenient for Morrison that the YouTube clipping has been removed. Also what a load of rubbish that Morrison wouldn’t have contradicted Duddy when he made those claims after pointing him out in the audience. However, we still can see Danny’s own words written on his personal blog about the offer on July 5th, unless he has these comments removed as well.

    “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

  • Dixie Elliott

    “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”

    Danny Morrison

    Regarding the claims that the Brits reneged on promised offers after the 1st Hunger Strike…

    Such was the proof that the Brits promised nothing only ‘Civilian type clothing’ to be worn during the working week’ contained in a document given to Adams by Fr Meagher, that Danny recently changed his opinion on that…

    “Although it is now well-known that Brendan Hughes ended the hunger strike unilaterally, without consulting his O/C Bobby Sands, we on the outside finessed the sequence of events for the sake of morale and at a midnight press conference merged the secret arrival of a British government document (promising a more enlightened prison regime: falsely, as it turned out) with the ending of the hunger strike.

    It was either that or admit – which to the republican base was inconceivable – that Brendan had ended the strike without getting a thing…”

    Danny Morrison Andytown News 2011

  • sherdy

    Sounds like MI5, who would have the powers to have input to the Govt papers, have succeeded in winding up a lot of people, hoping that some new info may fall out in the recriminations. Haven’t we seen these tactics before?

  • Decimus

    Sounds like MI5, who would have the powers to have input to the Govt papers, have succeeded in winding up a lot of people, hoping that some new info may fall out in the recriminations. Haven’t we seen these tactics before?

    Sherdy,

    Those straws you are grasping at are not very strong.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Does Richard O’Rawe, Dixie and Mick Fealty accept that there was an offer from the British on Monday night and the detail is what is now published for the first time in the state papers?

    If they accept that this was the offer (and part of the original has amendments in Thatcher’s handwriting) or an offer, then how do they explain that it differs so much from the offer that O’Rawe describes in his book?

    This is what Richard says Morrison brought in on the Sunday regarding education: “Most importantly, education was to be recognised as work…This was a major shift for the regime… What was really significant was that prison work, such as compulsory attendance at workshops, was off the agenda.”

    This is what the offer in the state papers says about work: “On work, the Prison authorities must retain the right to decide what work shall be done.”

    Again, in ‘Blanketmen’ this is what Richard says Morrison brought in on the Sunday regarding remission: “Half-remission was to be given back on the ending of the hunger strike.”

    This is what the offer in the state papers says about remission: “On remission, the Government’s position will be as set out in the SoS’s statement of 30 June” (that is, only one fifth remission would be available to protesting prisoners who now conformed).

    Another telling part of the discrepancies is what Richard says Morrison brought in on the Sunday regarding association: “On free association, there was little movement.”

    In fact, the British offer in the state papers states the opposite: “On association, very wide advance is possible on the present position, i.e. statement of the 30th June.”

    Now, when you compare Richard’s claims side-by-side with the published offer of Monday 6th June (which no one, as far as I know, claims to be a forgery) it is clear that what Richard thinks Bik wrote to him on Sunday 5th June could not have happened. If the Brits made an offer on Saturday to Morrison and Morrison brought it into Bik and Bik wrote the details to Richard, then surely Richard’s account and the British account should tally?

    Can Richard, or Dixie or Mick Fealty answer these glaring discrepancies or did the British on the night of Monday 6th June resile from what Richard claims Morrison was told on the Saturday? Isn’t the real and most logical explanation that paragraph 22, Phone Call no 4 is recording the truth – that on Sunday the British had yet to formulate their response?

  • Decimus

    I see Morrison is now flatly contradicting what he had blogged in 2009 as set out in Terry B’s post above.

    29th December. Interviewed by Barney Rowan for Saturday’s Belfast Telegraph on revelations contained in the state papers from 1981 concerning the hunger strike. The transcripts of telephone calls between Brendan Duddy of the ‘back channel’ and London show that, contrary to Richard O’Rawe’s allegations, the British hadn’t even formulated their position when I visited the hunger strikers in the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th.

    http://www.dannymorrison.com/?p=2164

  • Terry B

    “I see Morrison is now flatly contradicting what he had blogged in 2009 as set out in Terry B’s post above.”

    Classic case of Alzheimer’s perhaps.

  • Decimus

    Terry B,

    There are a limited number of reasons for why Morrison is flatly contradicting his own words and Alzheimers is certainly one of them. The other two that I can think of are that he was lying then, or that he is lying now. Since there is clearly a serious push being made by Sinn fein to pass the buck and muddy the waters on this issue my money is on the latter, but I’m all ears if anyone else has a more plausible explanation.

  • sonofstrongbow

    This is all weird stuff. It reads like the Soviet Union in the 60s. I expect will start to see Brendan Duffy being airbrushed out of old photographs as a non-person in Republican circles.

    I always knew Republicans were into rewriting history but feck me this is spectacular.

  • Terry B

    kateyo (profile) 3 January 2012 at 3:14 pm
    I removed it Dixie. I haven’t watched that video in a long time so can’t say if your comment is exact but at this stage in the discussion there was no question and answer session. Even if Danny Morrison had objected to what was being said he would not have intervened at this point it would have been at the end of the discussion when the q+ a session started. Also Mr Duddy is an aged man, even when I asked a question Barney Rowan had to tell him what I said, Danny may have intervened and it not taken up by my camera. I wasn’t sitting near him. In the interests of fairness I made the video private.

    “Danny may have intervened and it not taken up by my camera.” Now wouldn’t that be convenient.

  • Decimus

    “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”
    ― Adolf Hitler

  • Mick Fealty

    Can I just point out that Kate, to my knowledge is a complete independent. So far as I know, her actions have nothing to with either party in this dispute.

  • ranger1640

    Kateyo, as they say nothing to hide nothing to fear. Seems like you and the Sinn Fein project have everything to hide and everything to fear.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Ah Pat..Pat. Still clutching at straws. Dannys now saying there was no offer whereas before he said that the offer only needed guaranteeing. Therefore acceptable.

    No amount of twists and turns will change that. He used the 1st Hunger Strike as an example of why it needed guaranteeing then recently admitted that they themselves had ‘on the outside finessed the sequence of events for the sake of morale’

    The fact is Richard said the Brits had made an offer, they accepted it and outside rejected it.

    The documents and Duddys notes back this up.

  • ranger1640

    Kateyo, show us that confidence the Sinn Fein project keep telling us about, and put the interview video up for all to scrutinise.

    Oh, I forgot, that’s the last thing the Sinn Fein project want, open scrutiny of their actions and decisions.

    Why not let the Sinn Fein voter make their own minds up, as to what happened and when. Oh I forgot, the Sinn Fein mother brain in Sinn Fein HQ, at Connolly House doesn’t approve of independent thought form their drone voters.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Pat…

    Brendan Duddy’s Mountain Climber notes:

    Freedom of Movement would be permitted within each wing. Prison officer would maintain the total control of supervision during these periods:

    Prison work will vary between Cell and Block maintenance, educational, cultural subjects ie Open University, toy making for charities. Building projects, ie New Church.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Garret Fitzgerald [1991 autobigography, All in a Life, 1991; pages 367 – 371.]…

    “On Tuesday afternoon, Gerry Adams rang to say that the British had now made an offer but that it was not enough. Three members of the commission then met Adams and Morrison, who produced their version of the offer that they said had been made to them. The commission saw this as almost a replica of their own proposals but with an additional provision about access to Open University courses.”

    Again the Mountain Climber notes…

    “Prison work will vary between Cell and Block maintenance, educational, cultural subjects ie Open University, toy making for charities. Building projects, ie New Church.”

    FOI Document 1: “Extract from a letter dated 8 July 1981 from 10 Downing Street to the Northern Ireland Office”

    “Your Secretary of State said that the message which the Prime Minister had approved the previous evening had been communicated to the PIRA. Their response indicated that they did not regard it as satisfactory and that they wanted a good deal more.”

    “That appeared to mark the end of the development, and we had made this clear to the PIRA during the afternoon.”

  • Munsterview

    Dixie : still in the hills and due to bad internet connection, I cannot consistently contribute. I am also not as keyed in to this period as I should have been, as during most of the strike I was in recovery from an industrial accident and only became active in the campaign in the final weeks.

    However I did closely follow the debate then, since and I am doing so now.

    This should have been on the ‘Soon’ thread but since that debate is continuing here, I will now pose it on the current thread.

    Dixie, you quote Brendan Duddy as being asked, “Did he ‘scribble’ the offer” [that is, the offer from the Brits re the hunger strike] and Duddy replied that he “wrote it very carefully.”

    Yet, if you look at examples of Duddy’s notes lodged at Galway University [as posted here – http://www.longkesh.info/2011/11/22/mountain-climber-notes/ ]

    they are actually scribbled and not written very carefully. Indeed, Duddy’s summary of what we can now read in the state papers the British actually sent on Monday 6th July is summarised to the point of illegibility.

    Surely, no republican leader inside or outside the prison could call off a hunger strike, in which four men had already died, on the basis of these scribbles?

    Would you have called it off Dixie on the basis of these notes?

    Also, in all of these discussions on Slugger there is no mention by you Dixie and others of the central role of Thatcher and the British who withdrew political status, inflicted suffering on defenceless prisoners for four years, and could easily have bypassed the Duddy channel and delivered their offer through the ICJP if it was a genuine attempt to resolve the crisis.

    I hope Dixie that your reply will bring some clarity to this debate.This my intent and not any denigration of Brendan Duddy. One can not even begin to imagine the pressure that he was under at that time.

    You, I and others on the Republican side should appreciate the hard decisions that were required of our leadership back then, they were not lightly taken then, nor should details of these decisions taken by a then United Republican Movement be used to score points in the contemporary greater Republican family debate regarding Republicanism.

  • Decimus

    Dixie, you quote Brendan Duddy as being asked, “Did he ‘scribble’ the offer” [that is, the offer from the Brits re the hunger strike] and Duddy replied that he “wrote it very carefully.”

    Yet, if you look at examples of Duddy’s notes lodged at Galway University [as posted here – http://www.longkesh.info/2011/11/22/mountain-climber-notes/ ]

    they are actually scribbled and not written very carefully.

    Munsterview,

    When you were chairing all those highly important and influential meetings during the Troubles did you find that the minutes were delivered in the same scribble that they were taken down in? Or did the secretary go away and right up the notes ‘very carefully’ afterwards?

  • Mary Anna

    We shall over come, the truth some day guys- i love you Mick Fealty- yellow cards -red cards- j black cards- throw the book at me my love for humanity is unconditional!

  • Dixie Elliott

    Of course Munsterview the notes do looked scribbled. Perhaps they were the notes he took while on the phone to Thatcher or whoever? I don’t know.

    However they are certainly not the notes he gave to McGuinness because it was highly unlikely that Martin would say heres your notes back after Gerry Adams had seen them is it? Therefore we can assume the notes he lodged in Galway were taken firstly while speaking to the Brits on the phone.

    Therefore he could have then made careful copies to pass on to PIRA.

    He did say the RM had the detail of an offer and he said directly to Danny in the audience…” I was also totally happy that you were well aware of what was being said and what was on offer.”

    Regarding the notes we can’t be sure if he rewrote them carefully or not but the above is my opinion.

  • Dixie Elliott

    “Surely, no republican leader inside or outside the prison could call off a hunger strike, in which four men had already died, on the basis of these scribbles?

    Would you have called it off Dixie on the basis of these notes?”

    They were the outline of an offer that if accepted would be drafted and released to the press…See Documents M’V.

  • Dixie Elliott

    “Also, in all of these discussions on Slugger there is no mention by you Dixie and others of the central role of Thatcher and the British who withdrew political status, inflicted suffering on defenceless prisoners for four years, and could easily have bypassed the Duddy channel and delivered their offer through the ICJP if it was a genuine attempt to resolve the crisis.”

    MV mo chara I’ve already gone into some detail in another thread regarding the ICJP…..Their attempted removal by Adams at this vital time which also raises questions about the time wasted in trying to get them removed.

    I’ll try and find it mo chara.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Here Munsterview my points regarding ICJP as taken from another thread…[I’ve added to it a bit]

    A couple of things to note. Thatcher didn’t want to be seen to be talking to PIRA but she knew that the leadership itself could directly get it ended. She needed the accepance from them that it would end immediately upon the drafting and release of a statement to the press.

    Nor did she want to be see to be 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 by Adams and Morrison trying to remove the ICJP.

    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 in that interview said he regretted doing so… Keeping his opinions to himself that is.

  • Decimus

    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]

    Did I not read a quote from Adams which stated that he knew nothing about the Mountainclimber link until the hungerstrike was over?

  • Dixie Elliott

    Some more I posted on this M/V…

    From phonecall no. 4…

    [Soon =Duddy/Mountain Climber…]

    “22. Soon [Duddy’s British codename] then indicated that McGuinness had just arrived. He said that time was of the essence and asked what the current HMG position was.”

    Time was of the essence because Joe McDonnell was on the brink of death. Yet why was a lot of this precious time wasted on trying to remove the ICJP?

    They were talking to the NIO and didn’t even know about the Mountain Climber initiative until informed of it by Gerry Adams.

    In a comm to Adams dated 6th July Bik said of the ICJP “they just pushed their line and themselves as guarantors over any settlement.”

    They offered to act as guarantors over any settlement..

    On the same date Adams sent for the ICJP…
    Fr Crilly and Hugh Logue went to a safe house where Adams told them about the contact with the Mountain Climber and what the government had been offering and
    suggested they withdraw because the authorities were using the ICJP as an intelligence feed.

    According to Garret Fitzgerald…

    On July 7th..“At 8:30pm, however, Morrison and a companion had come without warning to the hotel where the commission had its base. Their attitude was threatening. Morrison said their contact had been put in jeopardy as a result of the commission revealing its existence at its meeting with Allison; the officials present with Allison had not known of the contact. Despite this onslaught the commission refused to keep Morrison informed of their actions.”

    Note: ‘Morrison said their contact had been put in jeopardy as a result of the commission revealing its existence at its meeting with Allison;’

    But it was Adams who revealed to the commission the existence of their contact the previous day as we saw above, therefore surely it was he who put the contact/Mountain Climber in jeopardy?

    Why go to all this bother to remove a group who didn’t even know that Adams was talking to Thatcher via a contact while they were talking to the NIO?

    Why waste the last precious hours of a mans life that could have been used thrashing out a settlement?

  • Rory Carr

    However they are certainly not the notes he gave to McGuinness because it was highly unlikely that Martin would say heres your notes back after Gerry Adams had seen them is it? Therefore we can assume the notes he lodged in Galway were taken firstly while speaking to the Brits on the phone.

    Therefore he could have then made careful copies to pass on to PIRA. – Dixie Elliot in reply to Munsterview (my emphasis)

    …and this assumption, this first-thing-that-comes-into-his-head is the evidence that Dixie Elliot relies upon to convince himself (and then convince the rest of us) that whatever he feels to be the case must then be the case.

    God help us all ! With such methodology did Dan Brown fascinate the world in The Da Vinci Code.

  • Alias

    What difference does it make if Duddy typed the offer on vellum paper or wrote it in lipstick on the back of napkin?

    The authority of his offer came from who he represented, not from how he presented the offer.

  • Mick Fealty

    Minor point of history MT did not abolish special category status. Tat was done under the direction of Merlyn Rees in 1976 on foot of recommendations from the Gardiner committee.

  • Dixie Elliott

    Rory Carr I was asked my opinion, I gave it and if you had taken the time you’d have seen I said it was my opinion therefore I was not pushing it as fact.

    I posted quite a lot in reply to MV above and is that all you really are capable of digging out?

  • Carrickmoreman

    Who is “Rusty Nail” and why is she so interested in “solving” this?

  • Munsterview

    Rory, good point.

    ‘Alias’ muddying the waters as usual to make anti-Republican propaganda?

    The issue here is not what material the notes were scribbled on or what medium was used to write up ‘the scribble’ what matters here is the content and bloody well you know it!.

    This is but my own personal opinion : a situation of extreme urgency existed, all parties directly involved were keyed up and on ‘stand by’ alert ready to move and respond instantly. I would imagine under these circumstances that Brendan did indeed work from a ‘scribble’ and given our previous experience of Brit duplicity, clarity was indeed needed.

    Without the specifics spelled out and detailed, there could have been a very wide gulf indeed between what Brendan understood the Brits were prepared to give and what they were prepared to actually concede.

    Republicans had every reason to insist on detail, even with the Good Friday Agreement where details were agreed and nailed down in as much as they could be, the ‘shell out’ of the Agreement began almost before the ink on the signatures on the Agreement were dry.

    Same thing happened with the The Treaty Of Limerick and before and after. Republican Leaders were dealing with much more than the immediacies of the lives at stake, they too had the weight of history on their shoulders and Danny, no doubt, had the lessons of history pounding in his head and he would not have accepted ‘a scribble’ or what Brendan thought the British side meant, the devil was on the detail.

    The Republican Leadership were very reluctant to sanction a Hunger Strike, those selected from the prison Volunteers were outstanding leaders whose contributions are missed to this very day. The prison leadership insisted on the strike and no one was in any doubt, inside or out of what would be involved if it was sanctioned.

    Simply stated that is where the front line of the struggle now would be, the point of contact with the enemy, the focus of world attention. Once there was engagement, there could be no retreat, high principles were at stake.

    ( I am also speaking here as someone who did a brief period of a hunger and thirst strike when arrested in the UK under the PTA act. Totally insignificant when compared to Bobby and the rest of those brave souls of the Maze living and dead, but once I had informed the authorities of my decision, it was no longer about me, or my family it was about all who went before and those who would come after. That was and is an awesome responsibility, I am just trying, in some small way here, to convey some of the mentality involved in the Republican side.)

    These Vols were picked for their leadership qualities, strength of character and determination. Neither the internal prison IRA leadership nor the external Republican leadership would have, or could have called off the strike on the basis of a ‘scribble’ done in a high stress situation where the other party to that ‘scribble’ was just a voice on the phone.

    A lot more clarity is needed before any tentative conclusions can be reached, on this specific incident, much less the exact record that certain posters here are unrelistically demanding.

    I would also imagine that ‘cut offs’ were also part of the British methodology in that while some of the reports of what alledgely happened are contained in these ‘Thirty Year Rule’ papers released, the real business and instructions on the British side were done through verbatim instructions and all the specific terms on the British Side never see print at the time, only what they wanted on the record to show in latter years.

    As I pointed out in an earlier post, even this record is culled so why the hell is everyone getting so worked up over ‘detailed notes’ that simply may, and probably not exist.

    At one period in my life I was both a shop steward and a site convener. I took part in quite a few site agreements and strike settlement negocations during this period. The agreements depended on two things, the terms as set out in print and signed off on by all parties……. and the ‘understandings’ reached on contentious issues where a consensus was reached that was for various reasons ( such as bonus payments ‘off the record’ ) that while part of the overall settlement, were never other than verbally agreed.

    This is how the real world worked back then forty years ago, how it worked at the time of the Hunger Strikes and how it still currently operates. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in planet reality!

  • Munsterview

    The identity of ‘Rusty Nail’ is no great secret inside the Northern Republican Community, both herself and her partner have very definite views on what they see as as ‘the betrayal’ of the Movement by the current Sinn Fein leadership.

    Like ‘Alias’ the need to ‘have a go’ and use anything that arise as a stick to attempt to batter the Mainstream Republican Leadership often cloud judgement and take over from the merits or otherwise of the issue under discussion.

    While I do not agree with ‘Rusty Nail’ I also remember consistent comrades who stood the Barna Baol when need and I still respect them for that, even if, given my expressed support for the mainstream Leadership, that respect is probably nowadays a one way street!

  • Brian

    MV

    Don’t usually agree, but insightful post. I think it’s hard to conclude anything, at least for someone on the outside looking in.

    I have to ask this: Would you still have been willing to risking leaving your family without a breadwinner to go on hunger and strike thirst if you had known the ‘movement’ would surrender its arms, lie to its soldiers, agree to partition, and now administrate British rule from Stormont?

  • Brian

    risk*

  • Alias

    “The issue here is not what material the notes were scribbled on or what medium was used to write up ‘the scribble’ what matters here is the content and bloody well you know it!” – MV

    What are you arguing with? That is what I said.

    “What difference does it make if Duddy typed the offer on vellum paper or wrote it in lipstick on the back of [a] napkin?

    The authority of his offer came from who he represented, not from how he presented the offer.”

    The content is the offer, and the authority is that it represented the working position of the British government in regard to a possible resolution.

    Since the public position of the British government was that it would not negotiate with terrorists, there was no possibility of any ‘guarantee’ of what was offered being provided in any format that could have satisfied those not willing to be satisfied with Duddy’s ‘scribbles.’

    “‘Alias’ muddying the waters as usual to make anti-Republican propaganda?” – MV

    You are confusing Provoism with Republicanism. They’re very different entities. The latter holds national self-determination as its guiding principle, and the former has no principles.

  • Munsterview

    Brian, hindsight vision is always 20/20 vision and hopefully we all learn that extra bit of wisdom with age and grey hair.

    The short answer to that is yes I would for the cause of unconditional Irish Freedom is greater than the Republican Movement and I never regarded the Republican Movement as the sole custodian of the ‘Freedom Struggle’ The I.C.A. for instance probably did as much for the social emancipation of Irish Women in their own quite way as the Cuman Na mBan did in their revolutionary day and way.

    One I had taken my stand, it was no longer about me as a member of The Republican Movement, it was about all that had gone before in my IRB family and all others making a stand.

    In my case I identified myself to the British Authorities on driving ashore in the UK. They had me on a list send from Ireland anyway, as I suspected and as it later transpired. Once the Securocrat’ ‘cleared’ me, I had ‘played the game’ by their rules, we exchanged salutes and I was free to go provided while in the UK I also acted within the parameters as agreed.

    I did, I had given my word and they broke theirs, something had happened, as the arresting officer said ” Something big is after happening mate, we need bodies and you are it” While there were personal issues involved, the abiding one was they knew in just what capacity I approached their security and if I as representative of ‘that capacity’ had allowed myself to be pushed around, then I was also giving them an indication that all at my level were a pushover.

    These things do register : in the relatively recent past when leaving the UK I was tapped on the shoulder and asked to join some others so selected. Once they ran a personal security check I was invited to come into the monitor room where the senior officer showed me how their ‘screening system’ worked, and that I was indeed a random choice.

    “So can I take I take it you do not want another hunger and thirst strike on hands then”? There was a burst of laughter all round ” Yes sir” he said “you can definately take that”

    I took the piss and began to plead with him to hold me for at least 24 hours as it would do wonders for my reputation and cultural CV when next attending Northern events. He was equally mock serious that I was getting on the boat even if it meant that he had to travel back with me hand cuffed to himself.

    Behind the banter however was the reality of my stand all those years before. ‘Officialdom’ do not pick on ‘cases’ with the capacity to cause the system problems, they prefer their ‘ Hostages for the Nation’ to come from unfortunates such as the Guildford Four and the Bermingham Six.

    A lot happened in that intense period, but my primary memory is of two elderly bobbies in the fingerprint section, one of who stood guard at my cell door and faced down a half dozen CID ‘hard boys’ who wanted to give me a ‘going over’ while his companion brought back a senior uniformed Officer.

    They too insisted that a doctor be called and I was then scheduled for a hospital watch and the process that led to my release got underway. Had they not conducted themselves in the best traditions of the British Police, my story could have been far different.

    The natural dignity and decency of those two elderly bobbies have been one of the biggest impressions of my life experiences. However that is one for the book and who knows, that may come this current year!

    ( want to place an advance order ? )

  • Munsterview

    Alias : too late for another detailed posting even if I were so inclined, which I am not in your regard.

    Your diatribe of condemnation is rich indeed coming from an individual who not so very long ago described the Palestinians as a peoples without a country, a nation, a culture or, the most priceless one of all, ‘a science’!

    That post even got up the noses of decent Unionists if I correctly recall.

    However I will consider the merits of what you have said as when it comes to matters of ‘no principles’ I bow to your unchallenged expertise in this particular sphere !

  • Lionel Hutz

    I am sure like many, I have been sitting here fascinated by the arguments on these threads. I wasn’t there at the time and its difficult to get your head around the whole chronology of events. The strange thing is that both sides of this argument are getting hung up on whether what the other side has stated in the past and present to the extent that the overall point is gettin lost.

    Does it really matter if Richard O’Rawe was accurate in every detail of the allegations he made? I personally dont think so. To get so bogged down on whether O’Rawe’s account exactly matches up to these papers is ludicrous. For he start, he was relaying what he was told by McFarland on the basis of what he was told by Morrision on the basis of what he was told Duddy on the basis of what he in turn was told by the British. And his account was written a considerable time later. Its hardly unlikely that minutae could get chaned a little.

    As far as I am aware, I never heard of this whole controversy, certainly nothing specific, until he made his allegations in his book. The underlying factual basis of the allegations is clear and that in itself would suggest to me that O’Rawe is basically being honest even if there are details that may be wrong. There was clearly a flurry of activity that weekend following the prisoner’s statement of the 4th July 1981.

    To argue over whether Morrison or O’Rawe’s account of the 5th of July is accurate is besides the point.

    There was an offer by the 6th of July at the latest. That much is very clear. It was rejected by the Provo’s. The Provo’s didn’t like the tone and so they rejected it. This is even though the fifth hunger striker didn’t die until the 8th July. The Provo’s let him die because they didn’t like the tone – not the substance. End of Story surely

  • Terry B

    Lionel Hutz said, “To argue over whether Morrison or O’Rawe’s account of the 5th of July is accurate is besides the point.”

    No it’s not, the accuracy of this particular point is of the most important. From O’Rawe’s(and others) point of view an offer was delivered to the prisoners on July 5th by Morrison and the jail leadership accepted it. Morrison is now claiming the opposite as to what he wrote on his blog and his other previous public statements and now claims that no offer went in on July 5th, which if true means the jail leadership couldn’t have accepted an offer on that date as none existed and therefore Adams couldn’t have overruled the prisoners. Morrison’s volte face comes on the back of the latest British documents which stated that the British were still waiting to formulate their position on July 6th but needed the provisional view before doing so. Provisional view of what? It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the British were waiting for the provisionals view on the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners by Morrison in order to formulate their position in writing to be released as a press statement. Morrison/Adams have once again jumped the gun and have misinterpretated that particular line in the released documents in a desperate attempt to cover up their lies.

  • Lionel Hutz

    Terry B,

    Thats fair enough. I accept it is relevant.

    However, I dont think that these papers provide clarity on that point. The papers can be read in two ways:

    1. Your reading that Morrison was sent in to see if the hunger strikers would accept an offer from the British.

    2. That everyone was reading the 4th July statement as an indication that the hunger strikers were ready to end the fast with a compromise and Morrison was sent in to clarify this after which the British would draw up an offer.

    I dont think its conclusive but it does appear to me to suggest that the British and the Provo’s knew what the offer was, particularly as the drafted document of the 6th July does differ from the statement of the 30th of June with no prompting other than the meetings of that weekend.

    Having not be there, its difficult to know. But what is clear is that a deal was offered by the 6th aat the latest and this was rejected by the provos due to its tone

  • Terry B

    Lionel,
    perhaps reading the papers in isolation prevents the clarity you seek. However, placing these recent documents alongside Duddy’s notes, other FOI documents, as well as the previous public positions of those on either side of the debate, does provide the clarity regarding the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners on that date. Even Morrison on his own blog in 2009 clarifies that despite his current retraction as well as the removed YouTube clipping.

  • Terry B

    Lionel,
    sorry, here’s the link to what Morrison said on his blog.

    “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

  • Lionel Hutz

    Thats certainly true Terry,

    Actually I have been trying to download the papers from pre July 3rd but the download from the National Archives is so big that it keeps crashing – which is frustrating.

    The problem is that its very hard to find a source that isn’t compiled by a website with a very obvious bias. Althouh, I’m sure that many will point out the bias with the National Archives, I would still like to work of the contemporaneous notes

  • Lionel Hutz

    “Among the documents still being withheld by the British are the one whose contents were delivered verbally through an intermediary on July 5th and which I delivered verbally to the hunger strikers and Brendan McFarlane; and the one which the British rewrote hours before Joe McDonnell died on July 8th but which neither we nor the hunger strikers were given. They rewrote it, according to the newly released material, to alter its tone in response to a request, they say, by the Republican Movement. Crucially, if we accept this document then it indicates a Republican Movement anxious to settle, not prolong the hunger strike.”

    That is pretty much conclusive I suppose

  • SteadyEddie

    Terry B

    Your reply to Lionel Hutz a few posts above is the heart of the matter ref your statement :-
    It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the British were waiting for the provisionals view on the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners by Morrison in order to formulate their position in writing to be released as a press statement.

    Why is this not obvious to everyone else?

  • Dixie Elliott

    SteadyEddie

    “Why is this not obvious to everyone else?”

    Because everytime it is pointed out, certain people go off in a different direction just like Danny and Gerry so as not to allow us to dwell on it.

    Danny Morrison on Talkback 2009 said that:

    “he explained to them [the hunger strikers] what was on offer’, adding ‘by the way, the offer that we were being offered through the Mountain Climber was a bigger and better offer than what the ICJP thought they had.’ He went on: ‘After I had seen the hunger strikers, we all agreed that this [the M/C offer] could be a resolution, but we wanted it guaranteed.”

    Now I count 4 uses of the word ‘offer’ in that one statement and 1 use of ‘offered’…Thats 5!!

    Danny was the man who went into the prison yet now he is saying, “the British Government had yet to even formulate its position, never mind proposing a ‘deal’.”

    Did this slip not only his, but Gerry and Marty’s mind, all these years when they spoke of offers and was it that one phonecall in a the document that induced total recall. ‘jeepers that’s right now I remember, the Brits hadn’t even formulated it’s position what were we talking about for Petes sake?’

  • Dixie Elliott

    PS; SteadyEddie I hope you’re not a loyalist, bad Unionist, anti-Republican journalist etc? Because according to some I’m not supposed to [get into bed] agree with you.

  • Brian

    MV

    Thanks for your response.

  • Terry B

    SteadyEddie said,

    “Your reply to Lionel Hutz a few posts above is the heart of the matter ref your statement :-
    It doesn’t take an Einstein to work out the British were waiting for the provisionals view on the July 5th offer relayed to the prisoners by Morrison in order to formulate their position in writing to be released as a press statement.

    Why is this not obvious to everyone else?”

    Is it not obvious to you Ed? What do you think was meant by waiting for the provisional view so that the British could formulate their position in writing? Provisional view of what? Perhaps it may be clearer to you if you examine the debate in its totality, thus far, rather that on one particular document in isolation.

  • seamus60

    it appears there is no end to the effort being applied in having people believe there was actually a deal reneged on from the first HS. Derry journal today carries a story with the heading “prison to politics” in which Raymond Mc Cartney tells us that the second hunger strike was a result of bad faith from the brits in relation to promises made. Even though all now with any relevance including his own party admitt this not to be the case. But rather a face saving exercise.
    Obviously another foolish attempt at swaying the opinion in favour of the myth that an offer isn`t an offer till this that or the other.
    Just a pity the consequences of this application to the second HS had an outcome at the expense of six addittional brave republicans lives.

  • Alias

    “There was an offer by the 6th of July at the latest. That much is very clear. It was rejected by the Provo’s. The Provo’s didn’t like the tone and so they rejected it. This is even though the fifth hunger striker didn’t die until the 8th July. The Provo’s let him die because they didn’t like the tone – not the substance. End of Story surely”

    There’s a bit more to the story.

    A hunger strike is first and foremost a tool in a propaganda war. Since these prisoners were prevented from causing mayhem outside of the prison by their preferred means, the only means left to them was whatever mayhem they could cause inside of the prison, calculating that it would lead to mayhem and murder outside of it – which, of course, it did.

    The death of Bobby Sands was a propaganda ‘spectacular’ for the Provos, leading to a huge increase in financial and political support and recruitment for them. It allowed them to present themselves as being willing to die for a cause rather than to just murder for it – even if the ’cause’ was actually a trivial one involving clothing and a refusal to work.

    The Provos propaganda department played a central role in the affair, and were well aware that it was a great ‘victory’ for them (if not for the Sands family and the families of others murdered in the resultant, Provo-organised ‘spontaneous’ riots).

    Just as the Provos were aware that the hunger strikes were a propaganda victory for them, the British government were aware that such victory could only come at society’s expense. That placed the British government in the position where they wanted an end to the strikes, and the Provos in a position where they wanted them to continue.

    Obviously, the Provos couldn’t tell the prisoners that they would rather like a few more of them to die as their propaganda war was progressing splendidly with funding, recruitment, popular support, etc, on the up as some of the prisoners might have felt that those issues had nothing to do with their demands and would mean that they were no longer in control of whether they lived or died.

    That meant that the Provos would have to prolong the hunger strikes without being seen to do so – and that is exactly what they did. Just the right number died: any less and popular support could not have been fully exploited, any more and popular support would seriously question if it is unwittingly prolonging the event (which, of course, it did).

    The odd aspect is why any of these prisoners trusted an organisation that regarded human life as utterly worthless – presumably they thought it only regarded the lives of non-Provos as worthless.

  • Dixie Elliott

    seamus60 said…

    “Derry journal today carries a story with the heading “prison to politics” in which Raymond Mc Cartney tells us that the second hunger strike was a result of bad faith from the brits in relation to promises made. Even though all now with any relevance including his own party admitt this not to be the case. But rather a face saving exercise.”

    Raymond seems not to know that Dannys now saying different regarding the 1st Hunger Strike. Thats the SF problem, they aren’t being updated on the next spin.

    Late 2010, on RTE’s Miriam O’Callaghan programme Raymond sat beside Pat Sheenan and listened while he gave a list of the initiatives that attempted to end the Hunger Strike.

    Pat mentioned, The Red Cross, the Popes envoy, Cardinal O’Fiaich, the ICJP…

    Yet somehow Pat left out the most important one of the lot…The Mountain Climber Contact.

    How could he forget The Mountain Climber? I thought to myself…

  • SteadyEddie

    Terry b

    I have been following the debate and for a long time. I read and reread DM’s claims that there was an offer and then there was no offer etc etc Most things in life have a kernal and your point about Morrison being allowed in to and and actually going into the jail is the kernal of this story if I could call it that. Morrison had to be going into the jail with something and if so, it had to be with the view of obtaining the views of the HS’s and Bik in turn. Whether it was a verbal message or a physical message as in the form of a document can come later. First we could ask Morrison or some of supporters what actually was the purpose of his visit to the prison on July 5th and what he actually said to the HS’s and Bik and what they said in response

  • seamus60

    I`m sure its in there deliberately Dixie.
    For all those faithfull who depend on that paper as their main source of whats actually going on in the world.
    Surely the journo would have notified him of the well publisiced discrepency before going to press.
    Its not like you get a chance to highlight mistakes of this nature, with the expectation of it being put right in the interests of truth.
    Not in their paper anyway.

  • seamus60

    Steady eddie it was Duddy who got Danny access to the prison in the first place so he is well aware why.
    If it wasn`t as Duddy claimed to be taking in an offer what was the urgency.

  • Decimus

    The PSF tactics on this issue have been fairly predictable given their previous experience on the Liam Adams scandal. Basically they fire out loads of conflicting information combined with attacks on the people who are pointing out their lies. This creates confusion on the part of their supporters who, when in doubt, will inevitably side with them.

    Throw in a few accusations of dissidents, unionists and MI5 involvement in denigrating their leadership, with all the implications that can be grouped with them, and the confusion is complete. Then simply sit back and hope to ride it out.

    Above all never allow the facts to get in the way of the myth.

  • Munsterview

    Back on air after more than a few exchanges with ‘the powers that be’

    I have a fundmental disagreement with Mick regarding how issues are dealt with here on slugger, but the bottom line is that it is Mik’s site and his rules apply.

    In rebuttal of an argument or openion, be it in law, in politics or in any other walk of life, there are, in my view, two principle issues, first the facts of the rebuttal per se and sencond, the credibility and status of the characters making the claims and counter claims so an impartial observer can asses for themselvers the quality and authority of the rubutting source.

    Under Micks rules only the first can be detailed and engaged with, any referal to the second is regarded as ‘man play’

    This is a very restricted form of debate and while I will operate within the parameters of the first response, it is as far as I am concerned very much a case of ‘half a loaf being better than no bread’

    Separating issues and policies from collective, individual and personal beliefs cannot but give a very incomplete picture of events, especially in dealing with spheres of activity, as in The Six Counties, where such information as is in the public domain about the conflict, is already severly curtailed.

    Anyway ‘them’s the rules’ so all parties as may be interested, please note, if my ongoing engagements are less than ‘full and frank’ with punches pulled, it is not because I am attempting to avoid a robust engagement with the issues raised but rather I will be attempting to avoid red cards !

  • Decimus

    Munsterview,

    I trust this will not prevent you from regaling us with your tales of derring do?

  • Jimmy Sands

    Under Micks rules only the first can be detailed and engaged with, any referal to the second is regarded as ‘man play’

    Truth be told it’s a rule that probably protects you more than anyone.

  • Munsterview

    Pass !