———————————————————————-
We are on the eve of a momentous year, writes Gerry Adams. This time a
hundred years ago republican men and women were planning the overthrow
of the British Empire in Ireland. (For Leargas).
———————————————————————-
For those of you who have never heard her name Molly O’Reilly was a
young teenage girl who marched with the Citizen Army to the GPO on
Easter Monday April 24th 1916. Molly was born around 1900 in Gardner
Street in Dublin. At the age of 11 she joined Clann na nGaedheal the
republican girl scouts movement. Two years later she was so appalled by
the living conditions in the Dublin tenements that she volunteered to
support the workers and their families during the Lock-out. At the age
of 13 Molly helped organise a soup kitchen in Liberty Hall.
And it was there one week before the Easter Rising she raised the Irish
flag (the gold harp on green) for James Connolly.
Molly was hugely influenced by Connolly and was an active member of the
Citizen Army. In July 1914, after hundreds of rifles were landed by the
Asgard at Howth, she brought dozens of the rifles to her home in Gardner
Street where they stayed until they could be distributed throughout
Dublin.
During Easter week and in the midst of heavy rifle and machine gun fire
and the artillery shelling of Dublin City centre she fearlessly carried
dispatches for the leaders out of and into the GPO.
Later during the Tan War she was a member of the Cumann na mBan and as a
worker in the United Services Club in St. Stephens Green – a club for
British soldiers – she gathered intelligence for Michael Collins.
Molly opposed the Treaty. During the Civil War she was held in prison by
the Treaty side and went on hunger strike. As a result she and 50 other
women were released in November 1923. Molly remained a stalwart of the
republican struggle until her death in October 1950.
Molly O’Reilly was an exceptional woman; a courageous woman; a strong
woman.
I give you this short account of her exceptional life experience because
the Sinn Fein exhibition to celebrate the Easter Rising – REVOLUTION
1916 – which will open on Saturday February 27th 2016 – is largely
centred around Molly’s story. The visitor will experience the Rising
through Molly’s eyes.
The exhibition promises to be one of the highlights of the centenary
celebrations. It will be held in the historic Ambassador Theatre on O
Connell Street. It is part of the Rotunda complex which saw the founding
of Sinn Fein in 1905 and the Irish Volunteers in 1913. Over seven
thousand joined the Volunteers at that inaugural meeting and on the same
night a special section set aside for women was also full.
The organisers of the exhibition are going to extraordinary lengths to
make REVOLUTION 1916 an event not to be missed or forgotten.
It will host the Irish Volunteers Commemorative Organisation (I.V.C.O.)
collection of artefacts covering 1916 and afterwards. It will also
include an original 1916 Proclamation – one of only 50 known to exist.
This week another of the original Proclamations sold in London for
#300,000.
The exhibition will also have on display three Single Shot Mausers which
were part of the consignment of 900 brought in as part of the Howth
gunrunning episode. These were used during the Rising. One of the single
shot Mausers is a “Black” one – a one off rifle – that was said to have
been given to the veteran Fenian and 1916 signatory Tom Clarke. It was
only recently identified and the brass trigger guard has 20 notches
carved on it. It also has a British sappers serrated bayonet attached.
Only 12 of these Mausers are known to still exist.
Other artefacts include Luger and C96 Mauser machine pistols, original
uniforms of Irish Volunteers, Cumann na mBan and na Fianna Eireann.
There will be over 500 artefacts on display, many of which have never
been seen before. Also included are other items from after 1916
including Michael Collin’s revolver, the first I.R.A. Thompson machine
guns brought to Ireland, and the Tricolour that flew over the G.P.O. in
1966 on the 50th anniversary of the Rising.
A significant part of the exhibition will involve lifting part of the
floor of the Ambassador so that visitors can look down into the network
of tunnels underneath. These were used by Michael Collins’s, ‘The Squad’
to carry out attacks on the British military. It is also believed by
some that the leaders who abandoned the GPO as it burned on the evening
of 28 April 1916 were trying to make their way to these tunnels.
Also on display are a wide range of artistic pieces from framed
portraits to stylised garrisons, large charcoal prints to life size
sculptures. Artist Robert Ballagh has created a set of iconic images of
the 1981 Hunger Strikers which will be on exhibition for the first time
to mark the 35th anniversary in 2016. And master mural artist Danny
Devenny is completing two 1916 murals in the lobby of the Ambassador.
Each day at midday a uniformed P.H. Pearse will read aloud the
Proclamation outside the Ambassador.
The exhibition is scheduled to run for at least 33 weeks.
International Women’s Day on March 6th will see the ‘Women of the
Revolution’ honoured by an event at the GPO.
Other events will include a parade of the Irish Citizen Army that will
take place from Liberty Hall to St. Stephen’s Green on March 26th.
Dawn Vigils will be held outside Kilmainham Gaol on the dates the
leaders were executed and in Cork on 9th May and Pentonville on August
3rd 2016.
And on Sunday April 24th 2016 the Citizens’ Initiative will be holding a
national march and rally to ‘Reclaim the Vision of 2016’.
So, a lot of hard work and planning is going into REVOLUTION 1916.
Whatever else you are thinking of doing next year as your contribution
to the centenary celebrations take the time to come to Dublin for a once
in a life time opportunity to see a unique exhibition of artefacts of
that period. See you there.
Relatives of some of those killed and wounded on Bloody Sunday have said
they are not surprised by a High Court ruling in London that those
involved in the massacre will not be taken to Ireland for questioning.
The seven former paratroopers who brought the legal challenge have still
not been questioned by any police force over the events of January 30,
1972, in which 14 civil rights demonstrators in Derry were killed and a
further 15 were injured.
The basis for the former Paratrooper’s lodging their objections at the
High Court began in early November after the arrest of the soldier known
as ‘Lance Corporal J’, who lives in Ireland. He was arrested at his home
in Antrim and questioned at a police station in Belfast before being
released.
The High Court in London granted the seven former British soldiers an
order prohibiting the PSNI from arresting them on their undertaking
“that they will attend for an interview under caution… to be carried
out by the PSNI at a police station in England and Wales, or other
acceptable location”.
The three judges agreed with the former soldiers that their lives would
be put at risk by being questioned in Ireland, and that there was little
point in the questioning.
They said: “The present position of the claimants is that each will
exercise their right to silence in the interviews. It is, in our view,
almost impossible to foresee that any will depart from that position.
The interviews are therefore likely to be short and straightforward.”
Mickey McKinney, whose brother William was shot dead on Bloody Sunday,
said it was simply a continuation of what went on at the Saville Inquiry
some ten years ago.
He questioned the supposed threat to their security. “If the Queen on
Prince Charles can come to northern Ireland and receive protection from
the PSNI, then why can’t they?”
Kate Nash, whose brother William was shot dead on Bloody Sunday and
whose father Alex was seriously wounded, also said she expected them to
“continuously move the goalposts”.
“The next move we expect will be an insistence on anonymity, then it
will be that they will have to be tried in England and then it will
proceed to attempting to stop in on national security grounds,” she
said.
“What they need to know however is that we will continue to fight this
and seek justice. We are not prepared to give up on this, it is too
important.”
Both Mickey McKinney and Kate Nash said that the PSNI needed to initiate
the arrest procedures straight away.
“What needs to happen now is that we need to get on with it and get
these guys interviewed and get files sent to the Public Prosecution
Service. Let’s get this moving,” said Mr McKinney.
DARK HAND OF PRINCE CHARLES
Kate Nash also queried whether the commander-in-chief of the Parachute
Regiment had sight of secret military and government documents relating
to Bloody Sunday.
It was revealed this week through the Freedom of Information Act that
Prince Charles has been receiving Cabinet papers on a range of subjects
for decades and writing his thoughts on them to various Ministers.
It has been revealed that both Charles Windsor and his mother, Queen
Elizabeth, receive all cabinet memoranda, including highly classified
discussion documents that are only publicly released after 30 years. The
revelation has renewed allegations that the English royals retains
significant powers over the day-to-day lives of those living under their
jurisdiction.
Kate Nash says the affair also raises serious questions as to influence
of the Prince in the Bloody Sunday cover-up.
“It is outrageous that he is given preference over victims,” she said.
“Not only does Charles see the documents but he isn’t slow to tell
Ministers what he thinks of them and what should be done.
“Everyone who has campaigned for truth and justice regarding Bloody
Sunday should speak out and demand the details of the material Charles
has been allowed to examine and details of any conversations he may have
had afterwards with Ministers, army chiefs of members of the security
services.
“For example, was the Colonel-in-Chief of the Parachute Regiment allow
to express a view in advance on how the report of the Bloody Sunday
Inquiry should be dealt with? We know the report was discussed by the
cabinet. Did they also have Charles’ opinions in front of them? Did
these opinions influence Ministers?”
“The Saville report let every senior Para off the hook. It exonerated
every politician involved.
“It gave MI5 a clean bill of health. It pointed the finger at individual
paratroopers, but whitewashed everybody higher up the scale.
“Was this a result of establishment pressure and did Prince Charles
contribute to that pressure? How many other secret documents relating to
the North have been shown to him over the years?
“The fact that it has now come out is a victory. But, there is a great
deal of information about Bloody Sunday and about the North generally
which is still being kept from the public. Let’s have it all out in the
open. Charles Windsor has no more right than the rest of us. Answers
about this should be the very least demanded by elected representatives,
particularly from Derry.”
Constitutional authority resides with the Irish people alone
The British Government Veto on Irish Unity is without legitimacy
Dáil Éireann should be restored as the National Parliament of All Ireland
We contend the will of the people is for change in this country – for a National Republic in line with our democratic rights. We believe our flagship ‘One Ireland One Vote’ initiative – our demand for a single-constituency All-Ireland Referendum on Irish Unity – can realise that end.
Britain’s partition of Ireland and ongoing presence in the North is based on conquest, without mandate and usurps the will of the people. External interference in the democratic process violates Irish sovereignty and should be rejected.
‘One Ireland Vote’ is a means to resolve the constitutional conflict in Ireland. It seeks to end partition, establish a Government of National Unity and rebuild the Sovereign All-Ireland Republic.
Join 1916 Societies:
Membership of 1916 Societies shall be open to any Irish or Irish-American republican regardless of race, age, gender, sexual orientation, religion or ability, with the exception of those who endorse the legitimacy of British rule and the forces of British occupation in Ireland’.r ability, with the exception of those who endorse the legitimacy of British rule and the forces of British occupation in Ireland’.
The 1916 Societies are an Irish Separatist Movement and believe that the Irish Republic should be a Sovereign Independent State.
The 1916 Societies are committed to fostering and promoting Irish unity as set out in the 1916 Proclamation.
The 1916 Societies believe in the right of the Irish people to national self-determination. We demand that this right is recognised in the form of a 32 county referendum on Irish Unity.
The 1916 Societies believe the proposed Referendums under the 1998 Act do not constitute National Self-Determination, and would in effect be merely an internal six County border poll. Schedule 1 of the 1998 Act gives the British Secretary of State a supreme veto over the Self-Determination of the Irish people and guarantees Unionists gerrymandering of the island of Ireland. Under this act, the British Government through the Secretary of State, claims that they and they alone may or may not call a Referendum, and claims the right to decide who and who will not have the right to vote, decide on the wording of the Referendum and will only call one when they are satisfied as to its outcome.
The 1916 Societies believe it is for the citizens of Ireland who have the absolute and sovereign right to decide the future of this island. It is for them and they alone, free from external impediment, to choose their own destiny.
The 1916 Societies believe National self-determination expressed through an all-Ireland referendum will give every Irish citizen the equal right to vote on the issue of the partition of Ireland and the formation of sovereign independent unitary state.
The 1916 Societies are committed to organising a campaign for Irish Unity.
The 1916 societies believe that a party political strategy will not unite Ireland. They have no intention of engaging in an electoral strategy to partitions institutions.
The 1916 societies are committed to putting the issues of the partition of Ireland and Irish unity at the top of the political agenda.
The 1916 societies are committed to honouring Ireland’s patriot dead.
The 1916 societies will work with other organisations and individuals, at home and abroad, to promote Irish unity.
The 1916 societies’ are committed at a local level to the following
Britain’s most decorated reporter set out to write a Famine novel to restore England’s reputation but the facts confounded him. He tells how Trevelyan earned his scorn
Michael Nicholson
Michael Nicholson: Almost all I have written happened in real life. I have exaggerated nothing. There was no need. The truth is appalling enough and if the reader finds the descriptions of people, events and their outcome hard to believe, then go to the history books and be convinced
“A million dead. A million fled.” It was those few words that had such an impact on me. Think of it. Try to visualise. Try putting it into a modern context, something happening today, something you are watching on television news, an apocalyptic disaster on an unheard-of scale, something that dwarfs Hiroshima.
A million dying because a foreign blight had turned a potato crop into rotten, stinking, putrefying mush. Try to picture families of living skeletons whispering their last prayer in the shelter of a ditch as they watch others turning black with the fever that spread like a summer fire across bracken from Skibbereen to Donegal, from Wicklow to Clare. Imagine another million, still untouched by it, desperately fleeing their motherland to find safety and sanctuary anywhere and with anyone who would take them. This was Ireland in the Famine years.
As a foreign correspondent for ITN, travelling the globe for more than 30 years, I reckon I have seen more than my fair share of man’s inhumanity to man. It is said that we reporters suffer from an overdose of everything, saturated as we are in the world’s woes. In places like Bangladesh, Sudan, Ethiopia, Rwanda, I became used to dealing in numbers; the dead and dying in their hundreds, or in their thousands, even their tens of thousands. But a million corpses in a forgotten corner of what was then the world’s greatest and wealthiest Empire is inconceivable.
Dark Rosaleen is the story of murder and betrayal, of a starving people held captive, of a failed rebellion and a love that grew out of it during those years of the Great Hunger. In 1845, when the potato crop failed yet again, the British government sent a commissioner to Ireland to oversee the distribution of food aid. In my story his spoilt, overprivileged young daughter Kate is obliged to go with him to what, in her tantrums, she calls “this hateful land of saints and savages”. In her first few months, isolated in her father mansion overlooking Cork, she cares nothing for the suffering outside. Then the scale of the disaster gradually overwhelms her and her selfish arrogance turns to pity and anger. Finally, despairingly, she turns against both her father and her country. She is condemned as a traitor when she joins the rebellious Young Irelanders in their fight to end British rule.
You might think this would have been better written by an Irish author rather than an Englishman. I had a reason. At the start, my intention was to defend the government of Prime Minister Peel, to illustrate the immense physical and political problems trying to feed a starving nation across the Irish Sea. My mindset was that we English had been badly judged, that both England and Scotland were also suffering from the ravages of the blight, that communication between London and Dublin was slow and unreliable, that transporting food aid to the hinterland was a massive problem. In short, I thought there was good reason to reduce England’s blame.
I had read the famine novels of Liam O’Flaherty and Walter Macken, and was moved by their simplicity and pathos. I had listened at length to Ireland’s historical grievances in Dublin and Liverpool, in Cork and in Boston, Massachusetts, wherever Irishmen gathered over a pint of porter or a Jamesons. They spoke of a deliberate policy of imposed starvation, of land clearances, of ethnic cleansing, of exporting Irish peasants in coffin ships that might never reach the far shores of the Atlantic, and all this said as if it was proven historical fact.
Given an Irishman’s well-known considerable verbal licence I was happy to persuade myself that much of it was exaggerated blarney. But as I ploughed even deeper in my research, my characters took over and my storyline went into reverse. It was if I was a prosecuting counsel who had his side changed midway. I was a convert and I ended up with a novel I had not intended to write.
Kate is my heroine and Sir Charles Trevelyan, the government’s director of famine relief, is the villain. This is his real name and all that he does and says in my novel is as they appear, word for word, in the historical records of the time. I make this point because so much of what he said and did is barely believable.
“We will do what is necessary but no more. The Irish peasants are perverse and prefer to beg than borrow. They would rather eat free English food than labour for their own. It would be unjust and unwise to pamper them when our own people are pleading for assistance. I do not intend to transfer famine from one country to another.”
Trevelyan was guided not by any agreed government policy because there was none. He was guided by God. A pious, stubborn, uncompromising, devout evangelist, he saw the blight and the suffering as an act of Providence and to deny it was tantamount to blasphemy. The Anglo-Irish landowners, who considered the Irish peasants vermin, were loud and constant in their support and applause.
Here I must end this historical explainer for fear you will think my novel is yet another academic heavyweight. But against this background is the sequel, the story of Kate and the man who loved her, based on John Mitchel, leader of the rebellious Young Irelanders, the forefathers of Sein Féin. Kate rode with them as they preached their revolutionary gospel, as they attacked the landlords, set fire to their estates, ambushed the Redcoats and stole from the rich to feed the hungry. She became the legendary Dark Rosaleen, named after a banned nationalist poem by James Clarence Mangan.
“The Erne shall run with blood
The earth will rock beneath our tread
And flames wrap hill and wood
And gun-peal and slogan cry wake many a glen serene
Ere you shall fade, ere you should die
My Dark Rosaleen”
In order to turn history into a novel, an author is obliged to dramatise, to put words into mouths that might never have been spoken, to lay blame that perhaps was not entirely deserved. My heroine and her revolutionary lover may not have existed as I portray them. But some part of them will have lived those times and helped forge those times.
Nothing in my pages, not the people nor the lives they lived, is wholly fictional. Almost all I have written happened in real life. I have exaggerated nothing. There was no need. The truth is appalling enough and if the reader finds the descriptions of people, events and their outcome hard to believe, then go to the history books and be convinced.
A batch of British state files relating to the build-up to a Provisional IRA (PIRA) ceasefire in July, 1972 have revealed the thinking of the British establishment in the countdownto talks between both sides in that summer 43-years ago.
The files have been released in relation to the killing of 19-year-old IRA man Seamus Bradley during Operation Motorman on July 31, 1972. The 40 page-long batch of documents are categorised as containing the conclusions of discussions involving the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the General Officer in Command (GOC) of the British Army and the Chief Constable of the RUC.
Whilst the conclusions of these meetings, ranging from June 12 through to November 22, 1972, have been withheld by the Crown, they do reveal that the British side was anxious to quell propaganda moves by the republican side to continue to gather support for the physical force campaign. There were also heavy discussions to ‘dispel the myth’ that undercover British assassination squads, namely the Military Reaction Force (MRF) were operating at that time. It since of course has been proven that MRF were indeed operating, most notably in Belfast.
What has been established is that on Tuesday, June 20, 1972 a secret meeting took place at Ballyarnett on the outskirts of Derry between representatives of the PIRA and representatives of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, William Whitelaw. Those acting on behalf of Whitelaw were PJ Woodfield and Frank Steele who was an MI6 operative. Both Woodfield and Steele are named in this batch of documents as having participated in the listed discussions at various times, held at Stormont Castle.
As ever in this period the primary location of concern for the British in the wake of Bloody Sunday was Derry. On June 5, a discussion between William Whitelaw, GOC Sir Harry Tuzo and RUC Chief Constable, Sir Graham Shillington, it was noted that: “The scope for increased activity by the security forces on the Border near Londonderry was limited but would be considered by the GOC: The area of IRA influence in Londonderry was spreading. The Londonderry traders whom the Secretary of State was meeting this afternoon were becoming increasingly concerned:The possibility should be considered of “sealing off” the ‘No Go’ areas in Londonderry.”
At the Secretary of State’s daily meeting on June 14, 1972 the papers claim that the approach for talks came from the PIRA. William Whitelaw appeared to be in favour of rejecting the idea of talks, but instead a Mr Howard Smith was asked to “enquire through such people as Mr (John) Hume and Mr (Frank) Laggan (head of the RUC in Derry) the reactions of the people in Londonderry to the latest developments. Mr Smith also agreed to look into the possibility that the request for talks by the IRA without preconditions about internment might be made towards some formal talks with the SDLP.”
The papers also state: “The Secretary of State referred to the growing necessity to consider further firm action in relation to Londonderry ‘No Go’ areas. It was possible that a decision to mount a new containment operation in Londonderry might take place within the next couple of weeks. This was to be discussed later in the day with the Army and the effects of such an operation in the Bogside and Creggan would have to be carefully examined.”
A long-term appraisal of the overall situation by the British showed that the military at least, were treating the situation in Northern Ireland no differently than any other ‘colonial difficulties’ they had faced be
The papers state: “In the present period the GOC said that the Army was suffering casualties which compared unfavourably with other internal security operations as those in Borneo and Kenya but without the special processes of law which had enabled effective action to be taken against terrorists in those theatres. Accurate sniper fire was particularly worrying as his troops felt that they were presenting sitting targets without the will on the part of the authorities to retaliate against the known enemy.”
On entering Northern Ireland in August 1969, the British military were insistent that they were there to act as neutrals between sectarian factions. By late 1972 however, the ‘honeymoon period’ was well and truly over and the following summation by GOC Sir Harry Tuzo is quite astonishing.
In expressing his disgust at the discrediting of the Army by the IRA he employs a quote from Honor Tracy, a British novelist who for a period was a lover of Seán Ó Faoláin. Tuzo quoted her as saying: “The charitable might say that the Irish tend not to minimise their sufferings; the candid that they are shocking old cry babies. If anyone lays a finger on them the world must hear of it with embellishment. And like children they believe in their own fantasies….Furthermore, nothing that happens, no action of troops or police, relates in anyway to anything done by themselves. Nothing is ever their fault, nor do they ever do wrong.”
Tuzo said: “The discrediting of the Army, along with the RUC and all concerned in maintaining law and order, has been a prime aim of Republican propaganda since about mid-1971. We refer loosely to such a campaign as ‘IRA propaganda’ because the only people who stand to gain by it are the IRA.
“Because the world at large is unaccustomed to this style of behaviour, complaints and allegations by Irishmen against the Army are apt to shock and disturb and even the most outrageous stories such as the activities of ‘Army assassination squads’ create doubts and unease amongst those brought up in the belief that ‘there is no smoke without fire’.
These words from Sir Harry Tuzo were written in November, 1972. It has long since been established that the MRF was formed in the summer of 1971. is is feasible to expect that the General Officer in Command in Northern Ireland knew nothing of their existence over a year later?
In 1972, MRF teams carried out a number of drive-by shootings in Catholic and Irish nationalist areas of Belfast, some of which had been attributed to Ulster loyalist paramilitaries.
At least fifteen civilians were shot. MRF members have affirmed the unit’s involvement in most of these attacks. There are also allegations that the unit helped loyalists to carry out attacks.
Another part of the long-term appraisal of the situation was recorded in these minutes and said: “The meeting went on to consider the embarrassment caused by Magistrates who granted bail against police advice-indeed a case was cited from that day’s local paper of bail being granted to a resident of the Republic-and discussions centred round ways and means of ensuring a more realistic approach by Resident Magistrates without prejudice to their independence. Mr Trevelyn was to let the Lord Chancellor’s department know that the Secretary of State wanted to speak personally to the Lord Chancellor on this matter in the course of the next few days.”
Tuzo’s notes of November, 1972 continue: “The IRA are aware that their stock is low, even amongst their erstwhile supporters, and propaganda overtly supporting terrorism or directly attributable to the organisation has small impact.
“Consequently they attach greater importance to front organisations like Sinn Fein and Republican clubs, whose statements on news events are, however, mainly directed at Republican audiences and fuel Catholic grievances. The greatest importance is attached to organisations which claim to be fighting for justice and civil rights. The Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) and the Association for Legal Justice are particularly active, the latter being a propaganda/pressure group that has made effective use of its ‘justice’ cover to inject stories alleging brutality, etc into the British and foreign media.
“Throughout the three months following Operation Motorman-August, September and October-the IRA’s attempts to generate public pressure for the removal of the Army from West Belfast achieved little. People in these areas had remembered too vividly how unpleasant life was under Provisional IRA domination; they appreciated the reduction in the level of violence; and as our intelligence improved and we arrested many of the men who intimidated and bullied, they acknowledged that our methods were evidently effective. Three factors seem to have combined during November to resurrect the full-scale campaign of anti-Army propaganda rule that has been muted since the introduction of Direct Rule.
“The first factor is the law of diminishing returns, which dictates that once the Security Forces have picked up the worst and the majority of the terrorists, the effort necessary to arrest the remainder increases, with fewer successes to show for it. The second is the instinctive fear amongst many Catholics of seeing the IRA decisively beaten, a fear that effects many who were glad to have them off their backs after Motorman. The third is the near desperate attempt by the IRA and their supporters to find ways of applying pressure on authority for the ending of effective counter-terrorist tactics; as the efforts of NICRA, PD (People’s Democracy)and other committed groups had failed, the need arose to find uncommitted and influential people who might convince that the Army was misbehaving.”
In this instance General Tuzo is directly referring to a press conference called by Catholic priests-Fr Brian Brady, Fr Desmond Wilson and Fr Alex Reid on November 20, 1972.
The top ranking British officer avoids calling the clergymen IRA sympathisers but is clear in his assertion that they were being used for propaganda purposes.
“We do not of course suggest that any of the priests concerned with the press conference intended to assist Republican propaganda, let alone the IRA. What does seem possible is that, in a sincere effort to demonstrate their concern at the plight of people in Catholic areas, the priests allowed themselves to be used by others with more sinister motives.”
He also noted: “Selected journalists only were invited but others who got to hear about and turned up were welcomed.
“Only ten priests besides the three named above were present. At one stage a sheet of paper was waved on which signatures were visible. So far as we are aware, these 65 names (of priests) have not been made public, which may be thought strange.
“Fr Wilson’s views on the Army are not new.”
A further assessment of the statement from the 65 priests, which is marked as ‘secret’, baulked at the decried Army actions and reasserted the Army’s primary objectives. So, despite the publicising of wrong doing by the clergymen it was apparently business as usual for the British Army.
Tuzo stated: “The Army’s agreed primary task was to pursue the IRA, whose activities remained at the root of the violence in the province. Searches for arms, ammunition and explosives were essential if this objective was to be fulfilled.
“Substantial successes had been achieved against IRA leaders, but the approved detention policy did not permit the security forces to reduce the numbers of the lower ranks of the organisation.
“Many of those firing at the security forces and responsible for explosives were in the 15-17 age group: there was little chance of dealing with these young offenders unless they were actually found in possession of weapons and explosives.
“Screening of suspects by identification and questioning was essential if the Army was to carry out its task. Some suspects made matters more difficult by giving false information and by other means.
“There was other evidence that a concerted propaganda campaign was being mounted against the Army. This had happened before when the IRA found it was loosing ground. The incident in which a picture of the Sacred Heart had been placed on a Saladin was evidence of the lengths to which those responsible were prepared to go.
“One object of the campaign was to implant the notion that the Army were initiating violence rather than curbing it.
“While there had been a few accidents, which were greatly regretted, there was no foundation whatsoever for the allegation that the Army were guilty of indiscriminate shooting of civilians.”
“One difficulty which the Army faced was that they could make no comment while complaints were under investigation or while proceedings were pending. This was frequently misunderstood.
“Relations in at unit level with Catholic communities were in many cases good.Priests were sometimes prepared to admit this in private conversations, but it would not say so publicly.
“Obviously there were occasional lapses by soldiers. Many of these were dealt with summarily under the Army Act without publicity. but the general level of the troops behaviour was very good indeed. The officers were generally of a very high calibre.
“All complaints about Army behaviour were carefully investigated.”
In response to Tuzo’s assertions, MI6 officer Frank Steele, whilst welcoming his comments, stipulated that there were more “moderate Catholics, anxious to see the IRA defeated, who were genuinely concerned that there was unjustified harassment in certain areas.”
“Some units, for example the Scots Guards in Londonderry, were highly regarded by most of the local Catholic community, and the problem would be largely solved if all units could win the same degree of confidence,” Steele continued.
It is worth noting at this point that it was members of the Scots Guards who shot dead 19-year-old Seamus Bradley and 15-year-old Daniel Hegarty in Creggan in the early hours of July 31, 1972 as they commenced Operation Motorman.
As the documents proceed to a conclusion more possibilities of countering the Republican propaganda campaign are discussed.
They state: “Allegations were made that Protestant extremists were not pursued with the same vigour. The possibility of interim custody orders and reference to the Commissioners would be borne in mind, but it would be important not to bring cases of Protestants which in event might be rejected.
“Suggestions that complaints were not pursued to a conclusion might be rebutted by reference to figures of cases which had been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions after investigation. There were 46 such cases; in 7 he had directed prosecution, in some of the cases proceedings had been completed and in others were still pending.
“All cases where the was a possibility of criminal proceedings against members of the security forces were referred to the Director for a decision. None were decided by the Chief Constable.
“The GOC was fully conscious of the need to strike a balance between diligent pursuit of those concerned with terrorism and the evidence of actions which might appear to amount to unjustified harassment and possibly be unproductive in security terms.”
