Fresh evidence from the archives: When did Martin McGuinness actually leave the PIRA?

A previously unseen archival document compiled on behalf of the Conservative Party Northern Ireland Committee, dated 3 July 1975, and located in the Julian Amery Papers, Churchill Archives Centre, University of Cambridge, reveals that despite Martin McGuinness’s repeated assurances that he left the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) in 1974, senior members of the British Conservative Party and British Army believed that McGuinness was still a prominent ‘I. R. A. leader’ in Derry by the summer of 1975, to quote the aforementioned memorandum.

McGuinness’s decision in January of this year to retire from active politics, due to health issues, has witnessed a plethora of journalists, politicians and historians, fall over one another to assess McGuinness legacy.

From PIRA commander on the streets of Derry during the early 1970s to deputy first-minister of Northern Ireland from 2007 to 2017, McGuinness’s transition from Republican terrorist to respected (and in many quarters admired) politician is extraordinary.

Yet, in the rush to applaud McGuinness’s transition from terrorist to peacemaker one niggling question remains answered: precisely when did McGuinness officially leave the PIRA? Despite McGuinness’s insistence that he left the movement in 1974, this claim has long been disputed by some of his former Republican comrades, who allege that he rose up the organisation’s ranks to become the PIRAs’ chief of staff in the late 1970s (1).

McGuinness jointed the Official IRA, first, when the Troubles erupted in his native city of Derry in the summer of 1969. But when the movement failed to take decisive action against the British Army and police force, he jumped ship to the then embryonic PIRA. Following the disastrous British government policy of internment in 1971 the fortunes of the PIRA were transformed. The Derry PIRA quickly took over the Official IRA in size and capacity for violence (2).

In 2001, during the Saville Inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings of January 1972, McGuinness admitted that he was second in command of the Derry PIRA during the early 1970s (3). In recognition of his growing status and influence with the PIRA, in July 1972, alongside Gerry Adams and Ivor Bell, McGuinness held secret talks regarding a possible PIRA ceasefire with secretary of state for Northern Ireland William Whitelaw.

The following year, in 1973, McGuinness was arrested in a car carrying 113kg of explosives. He was convicted at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin, which sentenced him to six months.  McGuinness was rearrested in 1974, charged with PIRA membership, convicted and once more imprisoned (4). These facts are already well known.

However, can we believe McGuinness when he continually informs us that he left the PIRA in 1974; an assertion that he repeatedly made during Ireland’s Presidential Campaign of 2011, in which he unsuccessfully stood as a Sinn Féin candidate.

If we are to believe the testimonies of Airey Neave and John Biggs-Davison there is compelling new evidence to suggest, at the very least, that McGuinness was a leading figure within the PIRA up to and including the summer of 1975.

During this period Neave, Conservative MP for Abingdon and Biggs-Davison, Conservative MP Epping Forest, were Margaret Thatcher’s most trusted confidants in relation to the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland policy.

By the standards of day Neave was a remarkable figure. On the one hand, he was a public figure: writer, barrister and politician. He was the author of five semi-autobiographical books; established a practice at the bar; and was Conservative MP for Abington from 1953 to 1979.

On the other hand, however, he was an elusive and secretive individual. During the Second World War he was recruited by MI9, a subsidiary of MI6, to work for the British Secret Intelligence Service. After the war had ended in Europe he joined the British War Crimes Executive to collect evidence against prominent Nazis and served the indictments on Nazi war criminals in Nuremberg (5).

Following Thatcher’s election as Conservative Party leader, in February 1975, on his own request, Neave was appointed shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland; Neave had helped to mastermind Thatcher’s bid for the Conservative Party leadership acting as her campaign manager. As a result of his hard-line stance on Northern Ireland, on 30 March 1979, Neave was assassinated by the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA).

Biggs-Davison was Neave’s deputy shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland from 1976 to 1978. A right-wing Conservative, he also served as chairman of the Conservative party’s parliamentary Northern Ireland committee and was a member of the Foreign Affairs Research Institute. Described by Patrick Cosgrave as ‘an argumentative and committed Catholic Ulster Unionist’ he had an Ulster Presbyterian background (6).

In the summer of 1975 Neave and Biggs-Davison went on a fact-finding missing to Northern Ireland. At this time, they were charged by Thatcher with re-examining the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland policy.

Following the failure of the Northern Ireland Convention to reinstate some form of devolved government in Northern Ireland (this followed the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive in 1974) Neave was determined to breathe new life into Northern Ireland politics in the hope of ending Direct Rule from London.

More importantly for Neave, however, was his determination to defeat Republican terrorism, and in particular to smash the PIRA.

According to the aforementioned memorandum prepared by the Conservative Research Department, under the sub-heading ‘Londonderry visit’, Neave and Biggs-Davison ‘reported on their visit to Londonderry’, where they visited the British Army stationed in the vicinity of the Bogside (Republican enclave and McGuinness’s homestead).

The British Army was reportedly ‘concerned about the continued release of detainees but the situation in Londonderry was quiet and regular contact between Army officers and Martin Maguinness [sic], the I. R. A. leader was being maintained on a daily basis’ (7).

Here, in black and white, British Army intelligence confirmed what many have previously already believed: Martin McGuinness did not cut his ties with the PIRA in 1974, as he previously maintained. In fact, if we are to believe Ed Moloney, in 1977 McGuinness was made the first northern commander of the PIRA, rising to the post of chief of staff of the movement in 1978, following Gerry Adams’s arrest. Thus, in the words of Moloney, ‘Only eight years after joining the [P]IRA’, McGuinness was its leader (8).

McGuinness, himself, speaking in 2010, admitted that if new evidence came to light that he was an active member of the PIRA beyond 1974, this might ‘… leave him open to prosecution …’, as it would go against what he told the Saville Inquiry during the early 2000s (9).

What this new archival information demonstrates, above everything else, is that we should not take McGuinness at his word when assessing his involvement with the PIRA. At a time when we speak of ‘alternative facts’ in the light of Donald Trump’s inauguration as President of the United States, it is imperative that we do not allow McGuinness and his Sinn Féin comrades to write their own version of the past.

The mentioned archival file is available from the University of Cambridge, Churchill Archives Centre, Julian Amery Papers 2/1/73, file 2 of 3.

Dr Stephen Kelly is Senior Lecturer in Modern History, Liverpool Hope University and is currently Archival By-Fellow at Churchill College, University of Cambridge. His new book, ‘A failed political entity’: Charles Haughey and the Northern Ireland question, 1945-1992 (Merrion Press, 2016), is available from Amazon.

Footnotes:

  1. See The Guardian, 19 Jan. 2016.
  2. See Irish Times. Ed Moloney, ‘Martin McGuinness: past and presidency’, 24 Sept. 2011.
  3. http://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0502/14789-bloodysunday/ (retrieved, 22 Feb. 2016).
  4. See Irish Times. Ed Moloney, ‘Martin McGuinness: past and presidency’, 24 Sept. 2011.
  5. For biographical information on Airey Neave see Brian Harrison’s entry, ‘Airey Neave’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Available from www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/31488.
  6. See Patrick Cosgrave’s entry, ‘Sir John Biggs-Davison’, in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Available from www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/70374.
  7. Record of Conservative Party Northern Ireland committee meeting, 3 July 1975. Church Archives Centre (CAC) University of Cambridge (UC) Julian Amery Papers (AMEJ) 2/1/73, file 2 of 3.
  8. See Irish Times. Ed Moloney, ‘Martin McGuinness: past and presidency’, 24 Sept. 2011.
  9. Quoted in Irish Times, 20 Sept. 2011.

, , , ,

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Just sick then

  • johnny lately

    “I can tell you that i saved lives. Protect innocent people from being murdered.”

    Sounds like you were an agent of the state, and how many died as a result of your saving lives ?

  • MainlandUlsterman

    The equivalence fallacy again – please, I’m not a 16 year old.

  • burnboilerburn

    Thanks for your concern but I am perfectly healthy TG.

  • Jollyraj

    No, I cannot see the future.

    But what amazes me is how many of the Republican brethern cannot even seem to see the past.

  • Annie Breensson

    No brethern in The Fellons. You should try the local Orange Lodge.

  • johnny lately

    Caroline Moreland murdered by the British state agent AKA Steaknife but no doubt you wish to brush that fact under the carpet Mary.

  • johnny lately

    Your still talking happy horses …. without a shred of evidence other than your delusional ramblings Mary Ann, if thats really your name, I’d bet my last couple of quid its Orange LIL.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Was that responding to my comment? Struggling to see the connection.

  • Deeman

    Lol. Mary is really Willie Frazer.

  • Katyusha

    Nope, try again. There is no equivalence fallacy; I did not draw any equivalence or comparison.
    I am simply pointing out that your statement perfectly describes those who carried out acts of terrorism while working for the “security services”, and the attitude of the Government towards these people. As you so aptly put it, “ambivalence about horrific acts of violence which fully deserve the name”.

  • Mike the First

    I’m no fan of the DUP to say the least, and the leadership offered by Arlene Foster (you could do her the courtesy of using her name) has been poor, but to say “SF gave her a lesson in democracy” when the DUP won more votes and more seats than they did is a little bit silly.

  • Mike the First

    McGuinness and co didn’t just use “threat”, did they?

  • Charlie Farlie

    Its a serious fact, there is no argument in that.

  • Keith

    I don’t think the British are any more (or less) ambivalent than any one else. Ambivalence is a common trait in human beings, and you can see it in, for example, the Irish. It’s all about perspectives: you see the British as ambivalent about certain activities during the troubles; others see the Irish government as ambivalent to the slaughter in the north. Still others will see terrorists on all sides as ambivalent to the suffering inflicted on many victims.

  • Keith

    By any objective definition of the word, the PIRA were a terrorist organisation. Not just by the British of course, but by the Irish as well. I can understand how supporters and sympathisers with their cause would think otherwise, but that is always going to be a minority view.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Just muddled thinking Katyusha, I’m afraid. The fact that multiple facts are true is kind of obvious; and that some suit some people, other facts suit other people. But you can’t just give up there. The interesting job is making sense of it – and that’s what sociologists, journalists, historians and lawyers all do in their different ways. What doesn’t really work though is throwing up your hands and saying ‘There are no truths here’ on the basis that people disagree how to interpret the facts. It IS possible to establish what is factual and what is not factual, stage 1; then stage 2, it IS possible to develop better or worse explanations and narratives to make sense of it all. It’s implicit that any one with a brain trying to interpret the events of the Troubles needs to not necessarily believe what they hear and dig deeper – that goes with any kind of research. But it is quite possible to get at a working idea of what is true and what isn’t.

    There seems to be a tendency particularly on the Republican side to hide behind fashionable-in-the-80s ideas of all ‘truth’ just being opinion and all opinions being equally valid. As I keep saying, try that one out in a court of law and see how far you get, among people trained to be forensic about distinguishing truth from fiction. It’s ultimately just evasive flakery, designed to avoid uncomfortable facts and uncomfortable truths being faced. The ‘whatever the IRA did, the British government also did’ line of BS. It’s just incoherent and utterly divorced from factual reality. Which does matter.

    Denying the Republican Movement’s responsibility for its “Armed Struggle” is a plate you can only spin for so long. Eventually it comes crashing down.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Liam Clarke and Kathryn Johnston’s book on him was clear they believed he remained on the IRA Army Council until at least 2001. That was also the belief of the intelligence services and police.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    good question … I hope he lies awake at night wondering. It was as big a mistake in judgment as any human can make.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    apparently we have to rely on the generosity of our new hosts after we are deported – wasn’t that your plan?

  • Skibo

    JR is was not the rason d’etre just to kill men women and children, just as it is not that of any military campaign. In the end it is always the innocent civilians that carry the can.
    Your comments suggest that the IRA only existed to kill people. That is just factually untrue.

  • Skibo

    Not indoctrinated JR, we lived through it. You are not prepared to look at the conflict and what went before through the eyes of the other side and so you will never understand.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Katyusha, very few people want to defend those few people in the security forces who moonlighted as terrorists. There were some and it’s part of the history of the Troubles. The attitude towards those people has been to disown and prosecute them wherever possible. There is no government ambivalence towards terrorism.

    A small number of state agents did in small episodes for limited periods go off piste and carry out actual counter-terrorism in an attempt to bring the wider terrorist crisis to a conclusion. It was completely wrong in conception, and morally – it went badly wrong. Da Silva has already shed light on a lot of it, while drawing the conclusion that the overall approach of the security forces otherwise was very positive.

    But look, some people want to characterise any use of force by the state in the protection of the public against the terror gangs as morally the same as the terrorism. I can see why they would. But obviously those are just self-serving arguments by people who don’t want the terrorists to face moral judgment, because it reflects on them too. I do understand the motivation, but it is kind of easy to see through.

  • Skibo

    incredible patience to plan the carpet bombing of Dresden to teach the Germans a lesson. They recon around 70,000 were killed in a non-military target. How do you explain that?

  • Skibo

    Keith the first issue is what actually is the definition of terrorism and when is it morally right to use violence for political means?

  • Skibo

    MU there are too many times when a “few” from the security services moonlighted for it to be described as a “few”
    If it is so small then why are the British Government so loathed to open the files and show how little it was?
    I like your use of counter-terrorism. It gives a morality to such actions!
    How many countries round the world would still be controlled by European nations had it not been for terrorists?

  • Skibo

    “Even if the reasons behind Loyalist violence are more coherent than those cited for Republican violence,”
    That statement alone is one reason why you can have no moral right in saying what is right and what is wrong.

  • Skibo

    That is to assume that the cycle of violence would not have happened if the likes of MMcG and others were not there.
    People always have choices. Some can suffer on under discrimination, gerrymandering and abuse of political privilege.
    Others do not.
    Why did the Unionist community sit idly back and allow this to happen to their neighbours? Did they think they were superior?

  • john millar

    Claudy ?

    (If PIRA were not terrorists then neither were the alphabet soup of UDA UVF RHC etc)

  • john millar

    You start a war you have to live with the consequences

  • johnny lately

    Indeed Skibo MU peddles the myth those “Few” so called bad apples were complicit in the murders of hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of innocent citizens. All in the interests of thwarting terrorism and murder of course but you’d have to wonder how allowing loyalist state agents to rape and murder an innocent woman would have to do with thwarting terrorism although most right thinking people would believe they were allowed to get away with rape and murder so as they could be blackmailed by RUC special branch into murdering individuals or innocent people in order to gain political advantage.

  • JOHN TURLEY

    I certainly am not a fan or supporter of Sinn Fein,however,the facts speak for themselves.all you have to do is look at the reacton North and South of the Border
    Arlene looking for one Unionist party. Fine Gael and Fianna Fail tripping over themselves to get attention from the people in the North.Is it any wonder Adams is ..
    looking so happy. His plan looks to be coming together..

  • Granni Trixie

    Arguably. I can accept that some see him differently why can’t you. It’s a matter of opinion not fact.

  • Keith

    Sorry Skibo, but if this is going to turn into a discussion about whether or not what happened in this country over 30 years was morally right, then I’m out.

  • JOHN TURLEY

    It may all be true,however there can be no doubt that he played a major part in bringing Sinn Fein to be such a major player North and South of the border today,

  • Jollyraj

    I agree with you in his helping make SF bigger – just that given their long-term stance as unrepentant cheerleaders for terrorism, and the involvement of many of the leading lights in crimes like murder and rape, I wouldn’t say that’s a good thing.

  • Skibo

    Keith it is difficult to analyse any one part of NI history in isolation to any other.
    I accept your right not to discuss the morality of the years of the troubles as immoral actions happened on both sides and I don’t think anyone comes out of it with clean hands.
    Problem will always arise when someone wants to discuss a single item or actions of a single person in isolation to all the background.

  • JOHN TURLEY

    Over 124000 people gave their support to Adams, McGuinness and Sinn Fein a few days ago. I believe those members of the electorate are as good as any Unionist,
    They increased their first preference in the South 12 months ago by over 70000,

  • JOHN TURLEY

    You left out the B-Specials and the sectarian police force.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    well, the reasons are more coherent on the face of it, in that it was supposed to be about stopping the IRA, which is a coherent objective. The IRA’s objectives were rather incoherent in that it was supposed to be about uniting people in Ireland by force. That is not a coherent idea. I’m not saying either bunch of idiots had one shred of a good reason to hurt anybody. They were all utterly wrong to do what they did. So we’re comparing Dumb and Dumber here.

    I don’t believe the reasons terrorist organisations give are the reality of who they are or what they do anyway. The Loyalist campaign wasn’t actually wasn’t just about stopping the IRA, it was about largely murdering and terrorising innocent Catholics and asserting control over working class Protestant areas. The IRA campaign wasn’t simply about “anti-imperialist struggle” or whatever boll*cks they said it was, it was in large part about exacting revenge against groups of people by whom they felt disrespected, and in many cases fairly naked sectarian hatred.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    The opening of the files is problematic because:
    1. the state keeps records and the IRA doesn’t, so it would be a badly asymmetrical process
    2. it would be in direct breach of assurances given to informers
    3. informers revealed may come under threat of their lives, requiring vast spending on protection, re-location etc – and threatening renewed violence as scores are settled between paramilitaries
    4. it would effectively destroy the UK’s future ability to recruit informers and agents within terror groups and criminal gangs. They would not trust state assurances of protection if they turn, so they won’t turn. This is hugely compromising of the state’s ability to protect the British people.
    5. it implies equivalence with the IRA
    6. the IRA could not be trusted to reciprocate anyway.
    Of these by far the most important is No.4. That on its own makes anything like full disclosure impossible. Any government would be crazy to cripple the ability of their intelligence and security services to operate in that way.

    You have to remember, the security forces *hugely* infiltrated the paramilitaries, they were *riddled* with agents. There will be very little that can be safely released without having an implication for one informer or another.

  • chrisjones2

    Those who gave interviews to the Boston Archive and made the allegations while admitting their own parts

  • chrisjones2

    Strange thing is everyone who offers a contrary optinion is:

    1 enemy of pece process
    2 mad
    3 drunk
    4 psychotic

  • scamble

    What’s most bizarre about this is that everyone, including the author, assumes the memo must be ‘truthful’ because it’s in the archives! It’s one perspective, from the Conservative Party in 1975 no less. I thought that this kind of History, written from this ‘top-down’ elitist perspective, with little else it seems to corroborate the source, was dead at this point?

  • Hugh Davison

    Have you ever met a B-Special?

  • Hugh Davison

    You are Dr Stephen Kelly, and I claim my five pound prize.

  • Jimmyz

    As long as you also give parity to the loyalist volunteers who risked life and limb.

    The young volunteers who carried out the Dublin and Monaghan operations, deep behind enemy lines in order to reign in the Dublin government would not be regarded as a “terrorist” by any rational or dispassionate observer.

  • Jimmyz

    So in principle you accept the loyalist cause was just ?

  • Jimmyz

    It’s a pity Hitler committed suicide.
    Had he Negotiated peace with the allies instead, he would be held in the same high esteem as machine gun marty is today.

  • Jollyraj

    No I haven’t. Have you? Do tell us all about it – and before you do please specify whether it’s actually your story or from the past life regression therapeutic sessions that so many Republicans seem to indulge in.

    In your own words…

  • Jollyraj

    Neither of those two old goats were standing in that election. Unless you subscribe to the commonly held view that Michelle is merely a puppet, bit of eye candy to get some of the chaps out of the bookies to vote. Don’t see the appeal myself.

  • Hugh Davison

    The usual sneer.
    FYI I have, and it wasn’t pleasant. The uniformed thug was employed and paid for by the state that you’re so fond of.
    But of course, you weren’t even born then, so you’re absolved.
    But continue to sneer.

  • Jollyraj

    What happened?

  • MainlandUlsterman

    I’m sure as all round people those voters are no better or worse than anyone else. But it’s a bad thing they did, voting for a party that honours the IRA. Good people do bad things sometimes.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Not to mention that the Catholic Church was unequivocal (apart from when Tom Fee was at the helm) at the time that what the IRA did was evil.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    He committed unspeakable acts of cruelty against innocent people. He affected all of our lives, who lived through those decades. It’s still an open wound.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Dresden was a huge mistake. But it happened in the course of total war against a Nazi Germany whose quick defeat would ultimately save millions of lives. These are ‘impossible’ choices and I think Dresden was an error. But in defeating Germany unfortunately the Allies could not realistically avoid large numbers of civilian deaths. I think by that stage of the war some Allied commanders had become vengeful, bitter and angry. It is human in the face of Nazi Germany and the bombing of our cities to feel that way. But we shouldn’t have done it back.

  • eiregain

    Myth

  • Skibo

    MU there are many things done during war that people are not proud of just as many things that happened during the Troubles that Republicans are not proud of either.
    Ireland has had centuries of military resistance. There have been atrocities on all sides.
    When you talk about avoiding civilian deaths during WW2, it could be pointed out that German civilian deaths range between 1.5 and 3 million while the UK civilian deaths were in the region of 62,700.
    Interestingly Germany had between 4.4 and 5.3m military casualties.
    The official figures for all casualties includes those of partisan and resistance fighters as military.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Are you suggesting Germany was hard done to?! They got devastated of course but realistically hard to see any other outcome from what they did to the rest of Europe. Likewise with Republicans – aggressors often cause their own supporters huge suffering as well as their actual targets.

    One of the more disgusting elements of the IRA campaign was their use of uninvolved people in nationalist areas as cover and their readiness to see them as cannon fodder for the greater interests of The Cause. Guess what, using residential areas as bases for terrorist attacks does not protect the people in those areas. Some were willing enough accomplices but others got used by Republicans as meat in the sandwich against the security forces.

  • Skibo

    What I was trying to point out was the civilian deaths for the UK were minimal compared with Germany. Admittedly, Poland suffered more and Russia had the highest level of civilian deaths that any other country.
    A guerrilla war is not like main actions of the armies in WW2 but there were guerrilla actions also. The actions you refer to were similar for the Free French where they worked from civilian areas and their own people died at both German and French hands. Similar things happened in Norway.
    Soviet partisans operated in Poland, Lithuania and Russia. Belgium, Italy, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Greece, Holland among others all had guerrilla operations. Britain even had plans that in the event of an invasion, they would have an underground resistance ready, Section V11. Guerrilla operations are not independent to Ireland and all bring civilian deaths.
    Even Germany had it’s underground. It is believed that there were 16 different groups and around 27 assassination attempts on Hitler’s life.

  • MainlandUlsterman

    You’re not seriously comparing Northern Ireland in the 60s to occupied Europe under the Nazis? The IRA’s French Resistance fantasy is kind of hilarious, no?

  • MainlandUlsterman

    Which part are you dismissing as ‘myth’ – and on what basis?

  • Mary Anna Quigley

    Shameless arrogant disgusting in the name of god not in my name. Thou shall not kill. Evil people

  • SeaanUiNeill

    And what were the Unionists importing arms for, if not to use them? But my point is the example of success through violence is what was being followed through to its logical, if ugly conclusion. While both are culpable, Unionism started the ball rolling.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Myself, one of the two”godless” anarchists in the PD whom Purdie mentions (Politics in the Steets)….

  • woodkerne

    The PD, QUB, now you really are dating yourself, of Bernadette’s vintage (et al). And were you on Burntollet bridge?

  • woodkerne

    Marcuse, out of WR Mysteries of Organism (1971)?

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Oh yes…and as my grandfather had served in the forces with Bunting Sr I was both “known and noted” across all PD activity in these years by his people

  • woodkerne

    Eccentric family, the Buntings, SNR & JR both … mad as box of frogs

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Alas, I knew both, and as you say……..

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Good grief, I saw Makavejev’s film when it came out!

    Yes, but of “One Dimensional Man” primarily, one of the classic analysis of modernity….

  • woodkerne

    Well, yes, although very much of its time. I’m more of a cultural materialist. If that kind psychosocial field is of interest, if you don’t already know it, I’d recommend Scott Lasch’s ‘Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations’ (Norton, 1979)

  • woodkerne

    Day of reflection in respect of generation of 68

  • SeaanUiNeill

    I’m reasonably familiar with the field. I’m trained in Jungian Psychology (as you may guess, not my only hat!) but read Reich and quite a few others all those decades ago in my teens, but I’d not encountered Lasch before. Thanks!

    My prime interest in Marcuse is in his analysis of how complex societies are manipulated by the control and management of information, and how this encodes quite rapidly established responses in individuals. Another hat, decades of involvement in advertising and film, with some insight in watching the masters in the trade direct how people will think. As the saying goes, “it made me think…”

  • SeaanUiNeill

    There will be a free lecture by Prof. Em. Paul Arthur who wrote the only history of the PD at 1.00pm on 4th April at the Linen Hall Library, with an open forum “NICRA 50th Anniversary” the following day at 1.30pm. See you there, perhaps. There are extracts from his 1974 book “The People’s Democracy 1968-73″on CAIN:

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/pdmarch/arthur74b.htm

  • SeaanUiNeill

    I was at the London Book Fair the other week and I’m told a new modern academic edition with notes and intro is in the offing. Long overdue.

  • woodkerne

    Thanks for the notice. I wasn’t aware. I know Paul Arthur and his work. Unfortunately, on that date, I’ll be in Spain – grandparent duties – and getting a bit of warmth in the bones!

  • Lyndon T Palmer

    Biggs Davidson Monarchist League connection with arms dealer Hervey Marquiss of Bristol is well known.. The question I would like answered is whether Hervey at Ickworth House Suffolk was associate with Lord Henniker whose estate was a couple of miles away in Suffolk.

    The (O) IRA had an asset in Suffolk 1960s and 70s “Acquiring information of use to the Soviet”. His interest in the Sue Ryder charity HQ at Cavendish Suffolk was known and thought to be due to the founding trustee of the charity being Airey Neave.

    The asset interest in Lord Stonham of Earl Stonham Stowmarket Suffolk (Home Office NI Secretary) was assumed.

    The asset interest socialising in Clement Freud scene at Walberswick Suffolk was known. Reason not known to me.

    At the time 1967 Henniker with British Council allegedly armed TARA and Red Hand Commando via his Kincora associates I think Henniker was not resident on his Suffolk Estate.

  • SeaanUiNeill

    Thank you Lyndon, while as an historian I’m particularly concerned about the antecedents of the current problems. its always of interest to see the trajectory of such encoded “habits” as they have played out.

    “The asset interest socialising in Clement Freud scene at Walberswick Suffolk was known. Reason not known to me.”

    Freud was a frequent visitor to NI in the 1960s, an occasional guest of the festival at Queens University. He became Liberal spokesman for Northern Ireland under David Steele from 1976 until moved to the Liberal shadow arts portfolio in 1979. Through his now known vulnerability due to illegal sexual abuse activity during these years he must have been open to possible blackmail. In this context this 1979 interview with a Liberal Party group calling for troops to be withdrawn form Northern Ireland may be of interest to you. Both Freud, and another Liberal personality open to such blackmail, Cyril Smith, are there:

    http://bufvc.ac.uk/tvandradio/lbc/index.php/segment/0000700479002