Posted by admin on October 16, 2015
Relatives of those killed in the infamous Bloody Sunday massacre have
denounced a police ‘investigation’ into the murders after it emerged
that 55 British soldiers present that day are refusing to be questioned.
The massacre of civil rights protestors has always had the appearance of
a deliberate colonial strategy to suppress nationalist oppression to
British rule.
Within a period of 30 minutes on January 30, 1972, the British Parachute
Regiment had shot 13 dead and injured almost two dozen. A fourteenth
victim later died of his injuries.
After the massacre, the British military claimed they had been attacked
first and accused the protesters of being ‘terrorists’ and members of
the IRA. This was always rejected as a lie and is now officially
discredited.
But Kate Nash, whose 19-year-old brother William was among those shot
dead when the paratroopers opened fired on January 30, 1972, has said
the British government and PSNI police are engaged in a larger cover-up.
She believes the soldiers were told to fire upon unarmed demonstrators,
rather than the shooting being the result of troops disobeying orders as
the Saville Inquiry claimed in 2010.
No action was taken in response to that inquiry by the PSNI or judicial
authorities for two years, a source of much anger for relatives. In July
2012 a murder investigation was finally launched following intense
public pressure.
Ciaran Shiels from Madden and Finucane solicitors, a lawyer representing
the families, said that the current investigation has been an uphill
battle from the beginning.
“It is important to bear in mind that after the Saville inquiry reported
in 2010, it wasn’t a matter that the PSNI of its own volition took to
investigate — even though Saville had said that these people had been
shot without justification,” he said.
“We had to write both to the Chief Constable and the Public Prosecution
Service saying there is prima facie evidence here of attempted murder on
a grand scale and what are the PSNI going to do about it?”
NO ARRESTS, NO INTERVIEWS
No arrests have been made, and families were told that the military
suspects — the soldiers identified in the Saville report as having
fired the fatal shots — have yet to be interviewed.
In the latest information to emerge, the PSNI’s senior investigative
officer Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Ian Harrison said 34 military
witnesses had been recorded but a further 55 had “declined to engage
with the team.”
For Kate Nash and the other families of the dead, it has felt like
another bitter blow in their long campaign for justice. She criticised
the PSNI, saying the stalling of the police investigations was
“soul-destroyingly frustrating.”
“The police told us that they couldn’t compel them to come forward, but
that is absolute nonsense — because these 55 witnesses to massacre
should be fully aware there is another crime called withholding
evidence, and we know that very well. They could do the right thing now,
but they don’t. In some of the cases, they have the bullet, they have
the gun that leads to the solder and the police agreed this is solid
evidence, so why haven’t they arrested him?”
Shiels, the solicitor, said it didn’t appear to have occurred to the
police that they could and should compel the British Army members to
co-operate, and that they could be charged and jailed for failing to do
so.
“In respect of murder, when one withholds information, it can be
punishable by up to ten years imprisonment,” he said. “It is an
arrestable offence, and the position of the families would be that
soldiers who are suspected of withholding relevant information should be
warned that they are themselves at risk of arrest and prosecution. So it
came as an issue of very serious and immediate concern to the families
that there seemed to be an attitude of the PSNI that is someone doesn’t
want to co-operate with us there is nothing we can do about it. ”
He also said stressed that a great number of civilian witnesses that day
would have been fleeing for their lives or hiding from the barrage of
bullets the soldiers were firing, while those soldiers not firing at the
crowd would have had a privileged and safe view of events.
INQUIRY STOPPED SHORT
Kate Nash believes that the findings of the Saville inquiry, as scathing
as they were, did not reveal the full truth of the events of the day,
and there are political reasons why the police are not investigating the
murders fully. The British government, she says, is afraid of what the
soldiers might say if they were in court.
“It is a terrible blow to us all. They could arrest soldiers right now
and the fact is they are not. The government doesn’t want to take
soldiers to court, and I’ll tell you why — because it went further than
those soldiers,” she said.
“[Saville] concluded that one officer and nine soldiers were responsible
for what happened — [the report] said the officer had disobeyed orders
but the same officer was actually given an OBE at the end of 1972 and
those soldiers were all given medals of honour. If they were given medals
then obviously they had done good work. They were ordered in there, we
know that.”
She recounted how her brother’s dying body was abused by the soldiers.
“When William was shot, my father ran out under a hail of bullets try
and help him, and he was shot and injured in his arm and in his side,”
Nash said. “William’s body was dragged out of his arms by the army and
he was taken into the back of a [military] van. My father never really
got over the way they dragged his body away from him like that.”
Her mother had been in hospital and did not attend the march, and was
only well enough to be told about the death on the day of William’s
funeral.
“She was well sedated when my father and the local priest told her, and
she didn’t react — there was just silence. It was when she got home a
few days later she walked through the front door, she just started
screaming his name, and that screaming lasted for a long time. A very
long time.”
Posted by Jim on
New York attorney and advocate of Irish Republicanism Martin Galvin with a letter that featured in the Irish News on 12th October 2015.
A chara,
Why should any Republican fear debates, public forums and petitions supporting a united Ireland? D. Moore (“1916 Societies’ accusation about SF rings hollow” September 28) says he “would dearly love to see” a united Ireland and wants Republicans to “work an alternative strategy to bring it about.” When the 1916 Societies work their strategy, Mr. Moore yelps that any opposition to British rule by independent Republicans is somehow against Sinn Fein.
Surely a united Ireland is bigger than any political party. It is more important than any party project or tactics. Surely all Republicans and nationalists benefit from gains for a united Ireland generated through debates, public forums and petitions sponsored by the 1916 Societies.
Mr. Moore is clearly entitled to his unquestioning confidence that current Sinn Fein tactics will deliver a united Ireland, if not as promised by 2003, 2014, or 2016 then someday. Suppose he is wrong. Must those with questions and less confidence stand idly by? Should we attend ceremonial commemorations of 1916, hear the Easter Proclamation read aloud, and then do nothing to achieve the inalienable rights at the heart of 1916?
Recent surveys reveal only one in five in the six counties thinks they will see a united Ireland within 20 years. Double that number polled after the 1998 agreement thought there would be a united Ireland by 2018.Will they still be asking 20 years hence?
The 1916 Societies was formed in response to fears that instead of a ‘countdown to freedom’, the British intend a knockout punch which sees hope of ending their rule counted out for another generation. ‘One Ireland One Vote’ is simply a political initiative intended to build national momentum for ending British rule. A key component will be the debates, public forums and petition drives reminding those who honor 1916, of the freedom still denied in six counties.
They advocate counting as one the votes of all Irish people to determine the future of their country, rather than gerrymandering the majority into second class status, null and void unless the pro-British unionist veto can somehow be overcome. Do unionist antics at Stormont indicate they are being won over by sorry initiatives or uncomfortable conversations with those scorned as “rogue Sinn Fein or renegade SDLP ministers?”
Mr. Moore seems to be trying to articulate Sinn Fein thinking. It is understandable that the British and unionists should want to quell Irish discussions and debates about British rule. If we have come down to the point where Sinn Fein is against public debates supporting a united Ireland, it is time for those who do the party thinking to think again.
Slan
Martin Galvin
Posted by Jim on
On October 12th the British Secretary of State Theresa Villiers issued a statement on the need to revise proposed legislation on dealing with the past in line w
ith the Stormont House Agreement. This statement came just days after the legislation which was presented to the five main Stormont parties on September 29th was leaked to the public. In advance of the legislation being leaked we had raised a range of concerns in relation to a discussion document we received in August and proposals contained in a policy paper released by the NIO on Sept 23rd.
Unfortunately for many victims the Statement issued by the British Secretary of State has caused further consternation and we feel that it is incumbent on the British Secretary of State to address the concerns of victims and allay their fears.
In her statement the Theresa Villiers acknowledges that for some victims the “suffering is as great today as it was then.” And that “For many victims, their priority is bringing to justice those responsible for the death of their loved ones.” Whereas “Others simply want to know more about what happened.” Whilst this would reflect the feelings of a range of victims, the proposals to date coupled with the Secretary of State’s selective language has left some of us who lost family members during the troubles fearful that after decades of seeking justice we are no further forward. This is compounded by the insistence of the Secretary of State to create a hierarchy of victims, a matter we hope to address.
In her statement the Secretary of State states that 90% of the killings which took place during the troubles were carried out by paramilitaries.
When Ms Villiers states 90% of deaths in the Troubles were caused by paramilitaries will she now publicly state how many of those killings involved agents of the state?
From agents within Republican groups such as ‘Stake-knife’ to Loyalists such as Mark Haddock who as a paid agent of the British State has been alleged to have been involved in multiple murders.
Furthermore how many murders were carried out by paramilitaries who received intelligence and support from the British State or it’s forces?
Will the Secretary of State now reveal to the public the numbers of murders involving state forces or their agents or will she use the National security card in order to avoid national outcry and embarrassment?
The Secretary of State has also said that “this Government will never accept equivalence between those who did their duty protecting people from terrorist attacks, and those who spent thirty years inflicting terrorist attacks. In this the Secretary of State attempts to differentiate between the actions of paramilitary groups, state forces and the British Intelligence services. The “unjustifiable” Bloody Sunday murders were carried out by state forces just months after 11 civilians were murdered in Ballymurphy over a three day period by the same regiment.
The actions of the parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday were in breach of established protocols in that shots were fired at unarmed and fleeing civilians. Under the current definition, Bloody Sunday was a war crime.
Despite this Theresa Villiers goes on to add “As a government we believe in the rule of law, which should be applied without fear or favour.” And yet 43 years after the brutal murders of our loved ones William Nash and Manus Deery and the attempted murder of Alexander Nash who was gunned down as he attempted to rescue his fatally wounded son none of the Bloody Sunday State sanctioned murderers have been arrested and questioned nor has the murderer of 15 year old Manus Deery. It would seem Theresa Villiers’ words are as hollow as State investigations into State murders.
If we as a society are to heal and move forward then the past needs to be addressed in a manner that as far as possible meets the needs of all victims, including where possible, prosecutions. To do this the state needs to acknowledge their role and the fact that Britain was not a neutral party. Furthermore politicians in Stormont whose personal histories compromise any notion of independence need to take a step back.
