Monday 9th March 1981
I have left this rather late tonight and it is cold. The priest Fr Murphy was in. I had a discussion with him on the situation. He said he enjoyed our talk and was somewhat enlightened, when he was leaving.
On the subject of priests, I received a small note from a Fr S. C. from Tralee, Kerry, and some holy pictures of Our Lady. The thought touched me. If it is the same man, I recall him giving a lecture to us in Cage 11 some years ago on the right to lift arms in defence of the freedom of one’s occupied and oppressed nation. Preaching to the converted he was, but it all helps.
It is my birthday and the boys are having a sing-song for me, bless their hearts. I braved it to the door, at their request, to make a bit of a speech, for what it was worth. I wrote to several friends today including Bernie and my mother. I feel all right and my weight is 60 kgs.
I always keep thinking of James Connolly, and the great calm and dignity that he showed right to his very end, his courage and resolve. Perhaps I am biased, because there have been thousands like him but Connolly has always been the man that I looked up to.
I always have tremendous feeling for Liam Mellowes as well; and for the present leadership of the Republican Movement, and a confidence in them that they will always remain undaunted and unchanged. And again, dare I forget the Irish people of today, and the risen people of the past, they too hold a special place in my heart.
Well, I have gotten by twenty-seven years, so that is something. I may die, but the Republic of 1916 will never die. Onward to the Republic and liberation of our people.
Bobby Sands
Bobby Sands
THE GREEN BOOK
The recruit is also made aware of the importance of another tenet forced on the I.R.A. by harsh experience: motivation. Mindful of the splits and informers which grew out of both internment and more particularly the I.R.A.'s own blanket style of recruiting, he is warned.
" Life in an underground army is extremely harsh and hard, cruel and disillusioning at times. So before any person decides to join the Army he should think seriously about the whole thing."
_
Green Book
The Army as an organisation claims and expects your total allegiance without reservation. It enters into every aspect of your life. It invades the privacy of your home life, it fragments your family and friends, in other words claims your total allegiance.All potential volunteers must realise that the threat of capture and of long jail sentences are a very real danger and a shadow which hangs over every volunteer. Many in the past joined the Army out of romantic notions, or sheer adventure, but when captured and jailed they had after-thoughts about their allegiance to the Army. They realised at too late a stage that they had no real interest in being volunteers. This causes splits and dissension inside prisons and divided families and neighbours outside. Another important aspect all potential volunteers should think about is their ability to obey orders from a superior officer. All volunteers must obey orders issued to them by a superior officer regardless of whether they like the particular officer or not.This motivation is not merely expected to carry the volunteer through vicissitudes such as capture, interrogation and prison; it is expected to sustain him to the Movement's ultimate political goal - a socialist Republic. It is dinned into him that military action is an extension of political action, therefore the military campaign of the I.R.A. is in effect a political campaign. The recruit is told bluntly: 'people with no political concepts have no place in the Army.' Furthermore, those concepts must be of a particular type: 'All potential volunteers must be socialist in outlook.' The recruit is given a very clear eyed vision of the facts.
Before any potential volunteer decides to join the Irish Republican Army he should understand fully and clearly the issues involved. He should not join the Army because of emotionalism, sensationalism, or adventurism. He should examine fully his own motives, knowing the dangers involved and knowing that he will find no romance within the Movement. Again he should examine his political motives bearing in mind that the Army are intent on creating a Socialist Republic.
_
Green Book
THE FALSE NARRATIVE OF THE PENSIVE QUILL
... only to end up ourselves beneath the blade of a Committee of Public Safety or some Dictator of the Proletariat … Nicos Poulantzas
When Bobby Sands died on hunger strike 32 years ago today, for a short time he pushed republicanism into a moral stratosphere from where it could gaze down on its critics, detractors and opponents. It was a commanding height, attained courtesy of interminable suffering, that was never going to be held for long despite the enormous selflessness of the Sands action. The exigencies of armed conflict, the persistently ebbing support for armed struggle, the relentless attrition and unremitting war fatigue all combined to paint armed republicanism into a corner where strategic versatility was heavily circumscribed. Yet for all of that Bobby Sands and the nine comrades who followed in his wake left a footprint which has never been erased from public consciousness.
Before Richard O’Rawe came along and began his lonely endeavour of chipping away at the block lie, a narrative was set in stone that helped keep the public misinformed. In addition to mediator Brendan Duddy two groups of people knew how fallacious the narrative was and for different reasons these two bodies had little incentive to be forthcoming about the events of 1981. The Committee for Prisoner Safety that ran the hunger strike, to the exclusion of the prisoners on strike, banked all the capital that accrued from ten men dead, using it to promote the political career of its leader to whose wagon it was firmly hitched. It wasn’t going to rain on its own parade. Until lately the British maintained radio silence although it is inconceivable that they did not put their wealth of knowledge to major strategic use even though the public might have to wait a while yet to discover the finer details of whatever nefarious transaction occurred there.
The false narrative depicted the British Prime Minister of the day as the Iron Lady who would neither yield nor turn, her intransigence tactile rather than tactical: despite their best efforts the hunger strikers had failed to break the woman and in the end her malevolence won the physical battle while their victory was a moral one
Since the 2005 publication of Blanketmen, clarity has displaced the manufactured clouds that shielded the false narrative. The Committee has fulminated and fumed against O’Rawe but was possessed of neither the punching power to take him out nor the ring craft to evade his hand speed. Now the ring is his to discourse freely from without any fear of serious challenge. As the late Springhill republican Harriet Kelly was fond of saying, there is a hundred ways to lie but only one way to tell the truth. It has been the one way with O’Rawe since his counter narrative emerged. Assailed by a barrage of lies from the managers of mendacity it has withstood everything hurled at it.
Margaret Thatcher outlived Bobby Sands by almost 32 years. Yet there is a certain irony in that she of all people, the bane of the hunger strikers, has posthumously acknowledged their victory though the release of her archive. She has restored to them the victory the Committee robbed them of. The lady who was not for turning was forced to turn by the moral force of the hunger strikers combined to British state strategic acuity which was even at that juncture moulding a leadership that in the language of diplomacy it could do business with or, in the language of counter insurgency, bring to heel and co-opt.
What is galling about documentation that has been making its way into the public domain is that the British interlocutors dealing with the Committee were ‘appalled’ that the Committee men would continue to refuse an offer that would have ended the hunger strike and saved six lives. The prisoners had already accepted the offer and transmitted this to the Committee which overruled them and sabotaged the transmission of their acceptance to the British, thus ensuring only one outcome: coffins on the streets. The Committee had objectives other than saving prisoners’ lives on its agenda.
Richard O’Rawe, comrade of the hunger strikers, foil of the Committee of slayers, no longer requires vindication. His case is proven beyond all doubt. The Committee cannot even take shelter behind the Scottish legal verdict of 'not proven'. Exposed in its disgusting betrayal of great men its own sorry lot could never hope to match, it can claim its rightful spot in the Hall of Shame.
It is a place where Bobby Sands will never be afforded space.
When Bobby Sands died on hunger strike 32 years ago today, for a short time he pushed republicanism into a moral stratosphere from where it could gaze down on its critics, detractors and opponents. It was a commanding height, attained courtesy of interminable suffering, that was never going to be held for long despite the enormous selflessness of the Sands action. The exigencies of armed conflict, the persistently ebbing support for armed struggle, the relentless attrition and unremitting war fatigue all combined to paint armed republicanism into a corner where strategic versatility was heavily circumscribed. Yet for all of that Bobby Sands and the nine comrades who followed in his wake left a footprint which has never been erased from public consciousness.
Before Richard O’Rawe came along and began his lonely endeavour of chipping away at the block lie, a narrative was set in stone that helped keep the public misinformed. In addition to mediator Brendan Duddy two groups of people knew how fallacious the narrative was and for different reasons these two bodies had little incentive to be forthcoming about the events of 1981. The Committee for Prisoner Safety that ran the hunger strike, to the exclusion of the prisoners on strike, banked all the capital that accrued from ten men dead, using it to promote the political career of its leader to whose wagon it was firmly hitched. It wasn’t going to rain on its own parade. Until lately the British maintained radio silence although it is inconceivable that they did not put their wealth of knowledge to major strategic use even though the public might have to wait a while yet to discover the finer details of whatever nefarious transaction occurred there.
The false narrative depicted the British Prime Minister of the day as the Iron Lady who would neither yield nor turn, her intransigence tactile rather than tactical: despite their best efforts the hunger strikers had failed to break the woman and in the end her malevolence won the physical battle while their victory was a moral one
Since the 2005 publication of Blanketmen, clarity has displaced the manufactured clouds that shielded the false narrative. The Committee has fulminated and fumed against O’Rawe but was possessed of neither the punching power to take him out nor the ring craft to evade his hand speed. Now the ring is his to discourse freely from without any fear of serious challenge. As the late Springhill republican Harriet Kelly was fond of saying, there is a hundred ways to lie but only one way to tell the truth. It has been the one way with O’Rawe since his counter narrative emerged. Assailed by a barrage of lies from the managers of mendacity it has withstood everything hurled at it.
Margaret Thatcher outlived Bobby Sands by almost 32 years. Yet there is a certain irony in that she of all people, the bane of the hunger strikers, has posthumously acknowledged their victory though the release of her archive. She has restored to them the victory the Committee robbed them of. The lady who was not for turning was forced to turn by the moral force of the hunger strikers combined to British state strategic acuity which was even at that juncture moulding a leadership that in the language of diplomacy it could do business with or, in the language of counter insurgency, bring to heel and co-opt.
What is galling about documentation that has been making its way into the public domain is that the British interlocutors dealing with the Committee were ‘appalled’ that the Committee men would continue to refuse an offer that would have ended the hunger strike and saved six lives. The prisoners had already accepted the offer and transmitted this to the Committee which overruled them and sabotaged the transmission of their acceptance to the British, thus ensuring only one outcome: coffins on the streets. The Committee had objectives other than saving prisoners’ lives on its agenda.
Richard O’Rawe, comrade of the hunger strikers, foil of the Committee of slayers, no longer requires vindication. His case is proven beyond all doubt. The Committee cannot even take shelter behind the Scottish legal verdict of 'not proven'. Exposed in its disgusting betrayal of great men its own sorry lot could never hope to match, it can claim its rightful spot in the Hall of Shame.
It is a place where Bobby Sands will never be afforded space.







14 comments:
I imagine it wouldn't make a difference to Patterson or Ford but have they drawn any attention to her case and treatment?
NO LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY OVER NATIONAL SECURITY
Following the St Andrews talks the British government introduced two crucial Memorandums of Understandings (MoU) to ensure that Justice Minister David Ford and the Policing Board have no powers to scrutinise the actions of MI5.
Legislation in the first memorandum established that:
• The devolved Minister of Justice and Northern Ireland Assembly have no responsibility for any PSNI functions (past, present or future) that have any national security dimension, with the Secretary of State having sole responsibility.
• UK government will determine what information pertaining to national security can be shared [with the devolved Minister of Justice] and on what terms and that information on the modus operandi of MI5 and other agencies “will not be shared”
• NIO will retain ownership and control of access to all pre-devolution records while the Department of Justice will have no access to records relating to ‘national security’
"http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/154/caj-report-into-mi5/opaque-and-dangerously-unaccountable-the-verdict-on-mi5-five-years-on"
That's why everyone is being arrested and Interned, the old RUC Special Branch now Integrated into MI5, I knew Ex RUC Special Branch were employed at PSNI/RUC, well I thought I did, "They are there", working for MI5 and can withhold evidence from PSNI/RUC on security grounds.
If the above link is not clickable, Please copy and paste and read the full article. some off you may have more knowledge on this than I, but its the first time I have read this article. My conclusion is, The secret evidence is coming from the old ex RUC special Branch, which MI5 use to have anyone arrested and interned., and, they are accountable to No One. Its an Uphill fight now to get anyone released, sorry, but on reading this article you will come to the same conclusion.This same law applies to the UK mainland as well.
“The documents we have discovered show an obsession with keeping anything with the label ‘national security’ secret from our devolved institutions and a total indifference to accountability,” Mr Gormally said.
The second memorandum stated that:
• The Policing Board “has no role in national security matters or related
executive policing decisions.”
• Policing Board members questions on matters that “indirectly touch upon
national security” should not be answered if it might damage national
security interests.
• The Chief Constable should refer any such requests relating to “past, present
or future” national security to MI5 or the NIO.
• The Chief Constable must not tell the Policing Board any information from or
relating to MI5 without MI5’s authority to do so.
If you want to post a link look here
For 30 seconds I'lI buy into the line that Marians Royal Pardon got lost or accidentally shredded (could have happened). Then I keep remembering a poster called Dixie (stand to be corrected) pointed out at least several months ago that it has to be transcribed somewhere in Westminster.
Marian Price was released with a royal pardon on humanitarian grounds (same as Dolores) but Marians RP went awol!!!! Surely the only difference on the wording would be the names of Marian and Dolores. No one has disputed she has one.
Seems to me on face value at least, someone decided to make an example out of her (same as Gerry McGeough, Martin Corey.....WTF is closed evidence?????).
What is it with SF. Can't they accept constructive criticism from people who put their lives on the line for 'the cause'?
I hope I'm wide of the mark here. But a re-run of the troubles within 10yrs is on the cards unless the Folks on the Hill start showing leadership.
This is directly from Wiki.
Fusco was freed on bail on 21 March pending the outcome of his legal challenge, and in November 2000 the Irish government informed the High Court that it was no longer seeking to return him to Northern Ireland. This followed a statement from Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Peter Mandelson saying that "it is clearly anomalous to pursue the extradition of people who appear to qualify for early release under the Good Friday Agreement scheme, and who would, on making a successful application to the Sentence Review Commissioners, have little if any of their original prison sentence to serve". After the court hearing Fusco stated "I’m relieved it’s over", and that he would continue to live in Tralee with his family and work for Sinn Féin. In December 2000 Fusco and three other IRA members, including two other members of the M60 gang, were granted a Royal Prerogative of Mercy which allowed them to return to Northern Ireland without fear of prosecution.
Fair play to Angelo Fusco for being allowed to return home without the threat of jail over his head. If that rule can apply to him..Why not the rest of OTR's...?
Thanks for that link, appreciated.
You are correct as to what Dixie posted, but it all boils down to the Old RUC/Special Branch and MI5, they are the ones who hold the so called SECRET EVIDENCE, There has to be a record of Marians Royal Pardon either in westminister/Buckingham Palace, Marian stated that her solicitor (now deceased) held it in front of her eyes and said, you have nothing more to worry about, I'm Baffled as to why he never made a copy , or, gave her the original document, but putting that aside, the dark work of the ex RUC Special Branch and MI5 has been at the heart of this so called LOSS, or, SHREDDED Royal Document, then they are admitting it existed. If you scroll to the very bottom of that page which you were reading, you can download the whole document 114 pages in PDF format, a lot of scary reading in the document, MI5/MI6 runs the whole of the British establishment, Cameron said to Mrs Finucane, If i were to say yes you can have a full public inquiry, there are people in these corridors who would prevent that, meaning MI5/MI6.
Fraud MP Margaret Moran given supervision order to have Mental health treatment at Southampton hospital for fraud, she claimed £53000 in expenses which she was not entitled to, she has never been on remand and escaped a prison sentence.
Marians solicitor should use this if possible as a reference.
Marty: MI5 and ex RUC special branch run the show.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-20725315
Link to above story
Gerry McGeough is seriously ill in prison on a charge dating from around 1981 while Special Branch/Mi5 kill a laywer in 1989 are free
Loyalist can hold illegal protest, Republicans can't
Some republicans can print book's on the 'Troubles' and everyone is ok with that..While other republicans are either slated like Anthony, Richard o'Rawe etc... or sadly forced to take their own lives like Gearld Bradley because they put pen to paper
So is parity of esteem Orwellian (everybody is born equal but some are more equal that others)?