Is Sinn Fein right? (The Stack Issue)

osmiumartist

bubblypop wrote: »

When did the British army murder people in the Republic of Ireland?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

atticu

weldoninhio wrote: »

Would you have hanged Nelson Mandela??

Nelson Mandela was tried for his crimes, and put in prison.
If I remember correctly, he was in prison for 27 years.

Can we put the IRA members on tried for what they did?

Or are they exempt?

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

Francie this is just Rambo fantasy stuff , how you can post the above and expect to be taken seriously !

'overrun by enraged southern civilians ' - seriously .

Nice bit of self deprecation there.
The danger of it was serious enough for the British government to mention it.
I lived through the time and while young I remember the anger and tinder box atmosphere.

What if it had happened, a few thousand southern men and women( not that many really) marching in to Derry?
The British faced with a further escalation if they act violently against civilians, or alternatively an uncontrollable civil war.

Would soften your macho cough a bit trying to play that one, I think. Especially as papers show that like Thatcher later on, the British would easily have opted out of NI altogether.

We will never know, what we do know, is the Irish state ignored it's constitutional responsibility and did nothing and stood idly by while it all went up in flames anyway.

osmiumartist

bubblypop wrote: »

The British army didn't plant those bombs.
While there may be some evidence of collusion, the British army did not kill people in southern Ireland.

Laughable. So if a bomb was made in the Republic and sent to NI then nobody in the south can possibly be blamed for it?

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

The British army didn't plant those bombs.
While there may be some evidence of collusion, the British army did not kill people in southern Ireland.

If Charlie Haughey and Neil Blaney or the Irish cabinet (whoever you believe) had successfully armed those under siege in Derry would you hold them responsible for what happened as a result?

The British seem to be getting a pass from you there if it turns out they colluded

atticu

atticu wrote: »

Nelson Mandela was tried for his crimes, and put in prison.
If I remember correctly, he was in prison for 27 years.

Can we put the IRA members on tried for what they did?

Or are they exempt?

Adampower78 wrote: »

They are exempt except for a maximum 2 year prison sentence for all crimes pre 1998.

I am sorry, but I don't understand.

Nelson Mandela was tried for what he did. He went to prison. In prison he reformed, and later went on to lead a nation.

Professor Moriarty

atticu wrote: »

Nelson Mandela was tried for his crimes, and put in prison.
If I remember correctly, he was in prison for 27 years.

Can we put the IRA members on tried for what they did?

Or are they exempt?

Drawing comparisons between Mandela and McGuinness? Martin will be pleased.

osmiumartist

atticu wrote: »

Nelson Mandela was tried for what he did. He went to prison. In prison he reformed, and later went on to lead a nation.

What?!?! More like his country reformed.

osmiumartist

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Drawing comparisons between Mandela and McGuinness? Martin will be pleased.

So would Nelson!

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

I am sorry, but I don't understand.

Nelson Mandela was tried for what he did. He went to prison. In prison he reformed, and later went on to lead a nation.

Mandela was tried and imprisoned by the apartheid state he was fighting.

Like south Africa the conflict is over here. When you voted for the GFA you recognised that there was a conflict on this island that involved us all and that arrangements over acts committed during it and prisoners had been made.

Kinda silly if you were not aware that there was a possibility that prisoners north and south would be released.

osmiumartist

osmiumartist wrote: »

Laughable. So if a bomb was made in the Republic and sent to NI then nobody in the south can possibly be blamed for it?

Do you know how many bombs were made in the south and planted in the north?
Probably most of them.
Do I think the Irish government or the Irish army or even the Irish people are to blame for them?
No
The IRA & INLA were to blame.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If Charlie Haughey and Neil Blaney or the Irish cabinet (whoever you believe) had successfully armed those under siege in Derry would you hold them responsible for what happened as a result?

The British seem to be getting a pass from you there if it turns out they colluded

Obviously if they were to blame for arming provos then those people were absolutely to blame.
Each individual should be held accountable for their actions

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you know how many bombs were made in the south and planted in the north?
Probably most of them.
Do I think the Irish government or the Irish army or even the Irish people are to blame for them?
No
The IRA & INLA were to blame.

Smithwick tribunal?
What else were the gardai up to?

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

Obviously if they were to blame for arming provos then those people were absolutely to blame.
Each individual should be held accountable for their actions

Well either the Government tried to do it or two cabinet ministers tried to do it.

But we were not involved eh?

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mandela was tried and imprisoned by the apartheid state he was fighting.

Like south Africa the conflict is over here. When you voted for the GFA you recognised that there was a conflict on this island that involved us all and that arrangements over acts committed during it and prisoners had been made.

Kinda silly if you were not aware that there was a possibility that prisoners north and south would be released.

First, you need to read up a little bit more of why Nelson Mandela was arrested and later put on trial.

Second, there was no war/conflict in South Africa when Nelson Mandela was arrested. There was political unrest.

Third, I never voted for the a Good Friday Agreement.

Fourth, kinda silly assumptions you made.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mandela was tried and imprisoned by the apartheid state he was fighting.

Like south Africa the conflict is over here. When you voted for the GFA you recognised that there was a conflict on this island that involved us all and that arrangements over acts committed during it and prisoners had been made.

Kinda silly if you were not aware that there was a possibility that prisoners north and south would be released.

No, while it may have 'affected' us all, it didn't 'involve' us all....

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nice bit of self deprecation there.
The danger of it was serious enough for the British government to mention it.
I lived through the time and while young I remember the anger and tinder box atmosphere.

What if it had happened, a few thousand southern men and women( not that many really) marching in to Derry?
The British faced with a further escalation if they act violently against civilians, or alternatively an uncontrollable civil war.

Would soften your macho cough a bit trying to play that one, I think. Especially as papers show that like Thatcher later on, the British would easily have opted out of NI altogether.

We will never know, what we do know, is the Irish state ignored it's constitutional responsibility and did nothing and stood idly by while it all went up in flames anyway.

Loads of us were alive back then , doesn't give us any greater credibility .

Are you so unaware of the willingness of the British Empire to go to war at the drop of a hat ? And not care about the proportionality of the damage inflicted ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_involving_the_United_Kingdom

The Irish state didn't ignore anything , it analysed the situation and acted as best it could which was diplomatically . which is the lot of the reason of why we are where we are today. Such is the plight of small nations , spare me this blood sacfifice bs.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mandela was tried and imprisoned by the apartheid state he was fighting.

Like south Africa the conflict is over here. When you voted for the GFA you recognised that there was a conflict on this island that involved us all and that arrangements over acts committed during it and prisoners had been made.

Kinda silly if you were not aware that there was a possibility that prisoners north and south would be released.

Yes in the north eastern part of it known as northern island. The whole island of Ireland didn't have a conflict. In one way I admire you sticking staunchly to the position you've taken but also you can't surely belief all you're typing.

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

First, you need to read up a little bit more of why Nelson Mandela was arrested and later put on trial.

Second, there was no war/conflict in South Africa when Nelson Mandela was arrested. There was political unrest.

Third, I never voted for the a Good Friday Agreement.

Fourth, kinda silly assumptions you made.

I assume you are a democrat (maybe you are not) WE voted for the GFA regardless of what you thought of it.

Mandela was imprisoned by the state he was fighting just like the members of the IRA were in NI.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Smithwick tribunal?
What else were the gardai up to?

What does the smithwick tribunal have to do with it?

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

No, while it may have 'affected' us all, it didn't 'involve' us all....

Whether you were interested, concerned, angered, or chose to ignore it, it involved us all. When your security forces act, they act on our behalf.
WE as a country are 'involved' wherever they are involved as peacekeepers, reactionary forces, invasion forces etc

You can wash your hands, but they act in YOUR name.

Last word on this, if you cannot grasp the point then I cannot help any further.

atticu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I assume you are a democrat (maybe you are not) WE voted for the GFA regardless of what you thought of it.

Mandela was imprisoned by the state he was fighting just like the members of the IRA were in NI.

Please read up a little bit more about Nelson Mandela.

I am not sure you understand what he was fighting, or 'who' he was fighting, he was not fighting a 'state'.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Whether you were interested, concerned, angered, or chose to ignore it, it involved us all. When your security forces act, they act on our behalf.
WE as a country are 'involved' wherever they are involved as peacekeepers, reactionary forces, invasion forces etc

You can wash your hands, but they act in YOUR name.

Last word on this, if you cannot grasp the point then I cannot help any further.

What did our security forces do ?

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

What does the smithwick tribunal have to do with it?

Garda collusion in the deaths of RUC officers.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Garda collusion in the deaths of RUC officers.

And any individuals in the republic who were involved in criminal offences, no matter where they happened, should be held accountable under law.

atticu

osmiumartist wrote: »

What?!?! More like his country reformed.

When Nelson Mandela was arrested, he had decided that violence was the only way forward for the ANC.

He later decided to renounce violence for political gain.

marienbad

Adampower78 wrote: »

Exactly, they analyzed the situation looked up north and said ah jaysus lads this is brutal, the 26 counties will do.

You say that as if was an argument ?

But in a nutshell yes , what was the alternative ? 10,00 , 20,00 dead instead of 3000 ? who knows ? Para's in Dublin , loss of sovereignty , no EU , no peace process , who knows .

As I say the plight of small nations - ask Czechoslovakia , Georgia , Grenada

FrancieBrady

atticu wrote: »

Please read up a little bit more about Nelson Mandela.

I am not sure you understand what he was fighting, or 'who' he was fighting, he was not fighting a 'state'.

He wasn't trying to overthrow the apartheid state by engaging in acts of sabotage (which is what he went to jail for in his longest spell) then?

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

You say that as if was an argument ?

But in a nutshell yes , what was the alternative ? 10,00 , 20,00 dead instead of 3000 ? who knows ? Para's in Dublin , loss of sovereignty , no EU , no peace process , who knows .

As I say the plight of small nations - ask Czechoslovakia , Georgia , Grenada

Exactly, who knows what would have happened. That's what was occupying the British at the time.

We do know what did happen. By standing idly by the Irish gov created the vacumn that was filled by the IRA. Who had no interest at that point.
Tragic. And it wasn't that people in government didn't know the possibility of doing that if you read the papers released and contempory accounts.
Even more tragic. Some might say criminally irresponsible.

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

And any individuals in the republic who were involved in criminal offences, no matter where they happened, should be held accountable under law.

And you get to wash your hands of any involvement?

The IRA say exactly the same thing about the killers of Brian Stack BTW. 'It was an unsanctioned act and they were disciplined as they should have been'.

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly, who knows what would have happened. That's what was occupying the British at the time.

We do know what did happen. By standing idly by the Irish gov created the vacumn that was filled by the IRA. Who had no interest at that point.
Tragic. And it wasn't that people in government didn't know the possibility of doing that if you read the papers released and contempory accounts.
Even more tragic. Some might say criminally irresponsible.

I take it you're quoting jack lynch's speech ? He never said Stand idly by. He said stand by.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you get to wash your hands of any involvement?

The IRA say exactly the same thing about the killers of Brian Stack BTW. 'It was an unsanctioned act and they were disciplined as they should have been'.

No, they should be prosecuted in a court of law not 'disciplined' under some sort of Shinner 'Golf Club' rules....

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I take it you're quoting jack lynches speech ? He never said Stand idly by. He said stand by.

True, what he did was 'stand still and do nothing'

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Exactly, who knows what would have happened. That's what was occupying the British at the time.

We do know what did happen. By standing idly by the Irish gov created the vacumn that was filled by the IRA. Who had no interest at that point.
Tragic. And it wasn't that people in government didn't know the possibility of doing that if you read the papers released and contempory accounts.
Even more tragic. Some might say criminally irresponsible.

Again this is just more loaded baloney Francie complete with all the requisite buzzwords , 'idly' ''vacuum' 'tragic; etc .

What do we know is the British Empire had at its disposal massive military power and showed time and again they were prepared to use it . The Irish government did the best it could in the circumstances .

Now as you seem to love counter factual history so much Francie , how about we look at an alternative scenario -

The IRA didn't get involved , the NICRA continued its protests , protestant murder gangs ran amok as the police stood by , lives was lost , many lives .
The world media spotlight kicked in . night after night we had the sight of catholics beaten and murdered in streets , burned out of their houses .

How long could GB have sustained that in the eyes of the world ? How many lives would have been sacrificed - less than 3000 ? How much easier would reconciliation have been ? How long would it have lasted ? less than 30 years ? Would we have undisputed heroes and villains ? No grey areas - a horrible creation would have been exposed for the cesspit it was .

Just like the southern states in the USA .But it was not to be , so will we stick to history as it is and stop trying to what if the Republic into every PIRA fantasy

Itssoeasy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

True, what he did was 'stand still and do nothing'

And what would he have done sending the Irish army over the border ?

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And you get to wash your hands of any involvement?

The IRA say exactly the same thing about the killers of Brian Stack BTW. 'It was an unsanctioned act and they were disciplined as they should have been'.

I absolutely wash my hands of involvement. I had no act or part in any of it.
IRA said they were disciplined? I'm sorry, when did the IRA become the law of this country? It's not now, nor ever was their place to discipline anyone involved in murder, or any other criminal activity in this state.
Who do they think they are? They are not the law in the Republic.
The only ' discipline' that should be given to these offenders are given by the courts of our state.

ancapailldorcha

Posts by and response to rereg troll deleted.

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

Again this is just more loaded baloney Francie complete with all the requisite buzzwords , 'idly' ''vacuum' 'tragic; etc .

What do we know is the British Empire had at its disposal massive military power and showed time and again they were prepared to use it . The Irish government did the best it could in the circumstances .

Now as you seem to love counter factual history so much Francie , how about we look at an alternative scenario -

The IRA didn't get involved , the NICRA continued its protests , protestant murder gangs ran amok as the police stood by , lives was lost , many lives .
The world media spotlight kicked in . night after night we had the sight of catholics beaten and murdered in streets , burned out of their houses .

How long could GB have sustained that in the eyes of the world ? How many lives would have been sacrificed - less than 3000 ? How much easier would reconciliation have been ? How long would it have lasted ? less than 30 years ? Would we have undisputed heroes and villains ? No grey areas - a horrible creation would have been exposed for the cesspit it was .

Just like the southern states in the USA .But it was not to be , so will we stick to history as it is and stop trying to what if the Republic into every PIRA fantasy

One sentence pops out there. 'The world media spotlight' kicks in.
But it wouldn't have kickedin and had the same effect on the British, had they wiped out a weaker Irish force and then mowed down masses of angry civilians only interested in protecting their besieged fellow Irish men and women who had put up with years of suppression from a sectarian puppet (of the British government) state and a partisan police force which had already been seen the world over batoning and bludgeoning civil rights marchers of the streets.

If you are gonna think through scenarios apply equal weight to the implications of actions.

marienbad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

One sentence pops out there. 'The world media spotlight' kicks in.
But it wouldn't have kickedin and had the same effect on the British, had they wiped out a weaker Irish force and then mowed down masses of angry civilians only interested in protecting their besieged fellow Irish men and women who had put up with years of suppression from a sectarian puppet (of the British government) state and a partisan police force which had already been seen the world over batoning and bludgeoning civil rights marchers of the streets.

If you are gonna think through scenarios apply equal weight to the

implications of actions.

You are missing the point Francie , YOU don't know what might have happened . And you are favouring the agguments you support . The fact is you just don't know.

That is the point of counter factual history - it is fantasy .


So lets try and deal with what actually happened shall we , more productive all round . The road less travelled and all that

FrancieBrady

bubblypop wrote: »

I absolutely wash my hands of involvement. I had no act or part in any of it.
IRA said they were disciplined? I'm sorry, when did the IRA become the law of this country? It's not now, nor ever was their place to discipline anyone involved in murder, or any other criminal activity in this state.
Who do they think they are? They are not the law in the Republic.
The only ' discipline' that should be given to these offenders are given by the courts of our state.

Which brings us back to the topic.

The only way the Stack family will get a chance at justice is to lobby for a process were there is full disclosure.
SF and the IRA have said that they recognise that in some instances they have to accept that justice has to be administered. I think Adams was referring to this case when he said it.

We have wasted 20 years of victims families lives with the merrygoround of parading selective victims families.
Its not working, and if your real concern is victims somebody in either government has to be brave enough to get the process moving. The one they all agreed is necessary.

FrancieBrady

marienbad wrote: »

You are missing the point Francie , YOU don't know what might have happened . And you are favouring the agguments you support . The fact is you just don't know.

That is the point of counter factual history - it is fantasy .


So lets try and deal with what actually happened shall we , more productive all round . The road less travelled and all that

I did mention what actually happened in all my posts on this.

*'I favour the arguments I support'? Is that not how it should be?

FrancieBrady

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And what would he have done sending the Irish army over the border ?

At the very least he would not have created a vacuum that was filled by the IRA.
And it would have been an issue between two elected governments.
Which it eventually became anyway after nearly 4000 deaths, countless injuries and thousands of traumatised families just one of which is the subject of this thread.

Hindsight is a great thing, but many were aware of what could potentially happen, it should have been no huge surprise that the lid would come off, we had history to guide us.
I find it hard to forgive them for doing nothing. I will never forgive them for eventually taking the British side because they foresaw the possibility that their power base would be eroded (exactly why Enda and Michael are exploiting these families) that was ALSO something Jack Lynch was acutely aware of.
Read the transcript of the phone call between Jack Lynch and Edward Heath just after Bloody Sunday and you can see what his primary concern was. His power.

Read the papers of the time and what you will see is a government considering all sorts of radical reactions to attempt to pressure Britain to do something. You will see Jack Lynch, almost simpering in his meetings and conversations with Heath, his entire almost apologetic reasoning was that he was 'coming under pressure from others' and he was appealing to Heath to help relieve that pressure.
What happened is, nothing effective was done. They dithered all through 1971 about bringing Britain before the ECHR for human rights abuses during internment, and while they eventually won the case in 1978 (the men at the centre of that case are still trying to get it re-opened as there are strong allegations not to mention proof that the British withheld crucial information) it was too little too late, they failed to bring any pressure to bear on an arrogant Heath led Britain (despite having been given advice on how to do that by the man who helped draft the European Human Rights Charter - Sean McBride and others) whose soldiers in the next few months would open fire on a civil rights protest in Derry.
Effectively the Irish government maneuvered themselves out of any effective role and then adopted a policy of effectively assisting the British to continue to suppress civil and human rights for decades.

billy few mates

Had to laugh at this one, with all the ignominy and fall out from this whole episode, Adams shows his complete misunderstanding and disdain of the situation by asking that the Dail record be amended to clarify the fact that he wasn't actually 'driving' the blacked-out van as he was just a passenger in it....:D

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-adams-didnt-drive-blackedout-van-but-he-did-travel-in-it-35295991.html


Almost as classy as the Dessie Ellis outburst in the Dail explaining how he couldn't have been involved in the murder of a prison officer because "I was in jail at the time..."

billy few mates

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Posts by and response to rereg troll deleted.

Glad to see admin move swiftly on the troll, I had him identified in his first five or six posts, the next twenty odd merely confirmed it. It was like a flashback to an earlier time on here when another (since departed) troll went as far as creating an imaginary friend whose sole purpose was to agree with him on a thread he'd started but was rapidly losing control of direction on. Thankfully in that episode the imaginary friend (BonesDeeny) was also identified and banned.
Good to see this one was nailed quickly, sad to see the person behind it is still amongst us.

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

Had to laugh at this one, with all the ignominy and fall out from this whole episode, Adams shows his complete misunderstanding and disdain of the situation by asking that the Dail record be amended to clarify the fact that he wasn't actually 'driving' the blacked-out van as he was just a passenger in it....:D

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/kenny-adams-didnt-drive-blackedout-van-but-he-did-travel-in-it-35295991.html


Almost as classy as the Dessie Ellis outburst in the Dail explaining how he couldn't have been involved in the murder of a prison officer because "I was in jail at the time..."

How is it showing 'disdain'?
The Taoiseach told a porky and he got it corrected. We all know how these details can come back to bite you.

Jawgap

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And what would he have done sending the Irish army over the border ?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

At the very least he would not have created a vacuum that was filled by the IRA.
........

....a seriously out of touch and startling naive response that completely ignores the international political situation at the time and represents ignorance of the military realities.......

......again, consider what the outcome would likely have been of sending light infantry, mostly in buses, to fight in urban and rural terrain eminently suited to defence against a well resourced, experienced and equipped enemy.....as Clausewitz said defence is the superior form of warfare.....and that's why you need at least a 3:1 superiority of numbers to dislodge a defending force.

I don't doubt that the troops would have fought ferociously and courageously, but you'd have been sending in lambs to the slaughter, bearing in mind the resources and experience of the troops the Brits then had in NI - two battalions just off Northern Flank and three decades of fighting insurgencies and small wars during their 'retreat from empire east of Suez.'

The likely outcome would have been the Irish army being surrounded in Newry then pounded into surrender, while the RN blockaded our ports (they still had 5 carrier groups at the time) and the RAF our airspace. Politically we'd have been isolated for decades and we'd never have been accepted for EEC membership.

.....And if you think the international community would have cared, guess again. The US wouldn't have taken sides with us against another NATO member, and the one responsible for securing the GIUK gap, and where the US went the rest of Europe would have followed.

billy few mates

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How is it showing 'disdain'?
The Taoiseach told a porky and he got it corrected. We all know how these details can come back to bite you.

It's all in the detail, if any other political figure in any other western civilised democracy we're within ten miles of a 'blacked out' van in a situation like this they'd be finished politically, Gerry just wants it clarified that technically 'he wasn't actually driving the van.... :rolleyes:

Probably so some minion in SF on the average industrial wage can claim the mileage for it....:D

FrancieBrady

Jawgap wrote: »

....a seriously out of touch and startling naive response that completely ignores the international political situation at the time and represents ignorance of the military realities.......

......again, consider what the outcome would likely have been of sending light infantry, mostly in buses, to fight in urban and rural terrain eminently suited to defence against a well resourced, experienced and equipped enemy.....as Clausewitz said defence is the superior form of warfare.....and that's why you need at least a 3:1 superiority of numbers to dislodge a defending force.

I don't doubt that the troops would have fought ferociously and courageously, but you'd have been sending in lambs to the slaughter, bearing in mind the resources and experience of the troops the Brits then had in NI - two battalions just off Northern Flank and three decades of fighting insurgencies and small wars during their 'retreat from empire east of Suez.'

The likely outcome would have been the Irish army being surrounded in Newry then pounded into surrender, while the RN blockaded our ports (they still had 5 carrier groups at the time) and the RAF our airspace. Politically we'd have been isolated for decades and we'd never have been accepted for EEC membership.

.....And if you think the international community would have cared, guess again. The US wouldn't have taken sides with us against another NATO member, and the one responsible for securing the GIUK gap, and where the US went the rest of Europe would have followed.

If you only take into account that there was only pressure on the Irish side then you are of course right.
You know from previous debates that I agree with you about the effect of a full on 'invasion'. It would have been the wrong move and was rightly stood down.
However I think that a clearly signalled 'humanitarian mission' was also an option. We will never know what would have happened about that.

We do know that there was also pressure on the British that Lynch failed to capitalise on.
When he heard that Ireland was considering going to the ECHR Heath wrote a letter (below) to Lynch imploring him not to do it.
The subtext of that letter is the pressure Heath was under, Lynch failed to ramp up that pressure on Heath to do something effective and quickly to diffuse the situation.
As Sean McBride, Bernadette Devlin and others at the forefront of the Civil Rights movements said 'IMMEDIATE initiations of an action at the European Court' would have had an immediate effect (Everybody knew there would not be a judgement for years) in that a sub-Commission would have been dispatched to gather evidence which would have put the British under pressure to both clean up their act on torture and mistreatment and to do something about besieged nationalists and to bring in the reforms to dismantle the sectarian statelet. All of which, if you read the letter, Heath knew had to be done to resolve the situation. It took them a further 40 years to achieve their 'aim'

As you know, our aim is still to discuss the way forward with representatives of all the communities. We
are committed to finding a way to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland.

in a negotiated settlement and agreement between the two governments.


Whatever about invasions, the salient point is that they dithered and cowered, while the situation worsened.
When you dither and cower you create vacuums. They knew (Heath, Lynch etc) the likelihood of what was going to fill that vacuum, the evidence was exploding right in front of them by mid 1971.

Ed Heath wrote:

My reason for hoping that these problems will not be brought before the European Commission relates
rather to the danger that my Government and yours would there by ranged on opposite sides in a public
forum on issues which, starting from particular allegations and explanations would be liable to broaden out
into charges and counter-charges concerning the operations of the IRA, the role they have in Northern
Ireland and the support they receive in the Republic. Such a position could hardly fall to result in
acrimonious exchanges between our two Governments. This would to my mind be unfortunate given the
complexity of the Northern Ireland problem and the need for our two Governments to remain in the closest
and friendliest touch about it. This will be particularly necessary if the security situation in the North
develops sufficiently favourably for an early impetus to be given to political moves.
As you know, our aim is still to discuss the way forward with representatives of all the communities. We
are committed to finding a way to give the minority there an active, permanent and guaranteed role in the
life and public affairs of Northern Ireland. As we are making clear in the debate in the House of Commons,
the best method and timing for doing this is very much in the forefront of our minds. It is because of these
considerations that I hope that you will not feel constrained to give way to pressures to take a public stance
against us at Strasbourg. If you do, it will no doubt rejoice the hearts of many people in the Republic and
some of those among the minority in the North. It will however, also please those Protestant extremists who
are always most opposed to the maintenance of a reasoned dialogue both public and private between our
two Governments

FrancieBrady

billy few mates wrote: »

It's all in the detail, if any other political figure in any other western civilised democracy we're within ten miles of a 'blacked out' van in a situation like this they'd be finished politically, Gerry just wants it clarified that technically 'he wasn't actually driving the van.... :rolleyes:

Probably so some minion in SF on the average industrial wage can claim the mileage for it....:D

Or maybe it is because it wasn't true and Gerry knows how some like to use language to create sinister imagery around things like 'blacked' out vans and 'shadowy' IRA men (who neglect to hide their identities after going to the effort of using 'blacked' out vans.) :rolleyes:

The provisional IRA was set up in December 1969.