Pádraig Drummond  
 "There’s no “emergency” when the same conditions repeat every month for a decade; that’s policy."

The October 2025 homelessness figures land like a brick through the window of Ireland’s so-called social conscience. Sixteen thousand seven hundred and sixty-six human beings, living, breathing, thinking citizens and children, boxed into “emergency accommodation” that resembles a stopgap solution only if you squint hard enough and ignore the smell of systemic failure rising from the numbers. Eleven and a half thousand adults, over five thousand children, a whole small town’s worth of kids growing up in hotels and hostels, and the government has the gall to present this as a monthly report instead of a national indictment.

In a normal society, these numbers would be a siren from the watchtower. But in Ireland’s mad bureaucracy, they're just another spreadsheet cell. Every statistic in this report reads like a casualty figure from a war that shouldn’t exist, a war waged quietly, efficiently, against the poor. Families make up a quarter of the homeless households, and single adults nearly three-quarters. That’s not just a housing crisis; that’s a generational collapse. Almost six thousand children under eighteen caught in the gears of a system built to grind the vulnerable into administrative dust.

You can practically hear the bureaucrats patting themselves on the back as they churn out percentages about gender and age distributions, as if the tragedy becomes easier to swallow once you convert it into pie charts and percentages. Nearly 60% of adults are men, sure, that tracks, men always get hit first and worst when the floor collapses, but the real horror is in the age bands. Over half the homeless adults are between 25 and 44, prime working and living years, the years society claims it rewards. A quarter more are middle-aged, staring down the barrel of a future that’s shrinking by the day. Two hundred and sixty-seven people over 65, elderly people, shoved into emergency accommodation like some kind of grim retirement plan for a country that forgot how to care.

And Dublin, the gleaming jewel of Irish capitalism, hoards more than 70% of all homeless adults, like some monstrous magnet for misery. Eight thousand one hundred and forty-one adults, enough to fill a small stadium, shuffled between PEA, STA, TEA, and other alphabet soup euphemisms for “we don’t have real housing, so here’s a stopgap.” The fact that the majority of accommodation is still Private Emergency Accommodation, hotels and B&Bs, is a quiet confession that private profit has long since eaten the state alive. There’s no “emergency” when the same conditions repeat every month for a decade; that’s policy.

The report’s self-congratulation about “preventions” and “exits to secure tenancies” reads like something cooked up by a PR team rather than public servants. One thousand six hundred prevented from entering homelessness and 1,234 moved out sounds impressive until you view it through the proper social lens: these are crumbs dropped from the banquet table of a housing system engineered to fail. Tenancies created through Housing First barely hit double digits in multiple regions. Meanwhile, thousands more fall in the front door of emergency accommodation every quarter. You don’t need chemicals to see the hallucination here, it’s all right there in the numbers: the exits are dwarfed by the scale of the problem.

The citizenship breakdown adds another layer of quiet cruelty. Half Irish, half non-Irish, a reflection that capitalism’s failures don’t discriminate, but its apologists will. You can almost predict the cynical debates this will fuel, the narratives that whisper the problem away by blaming migrants instead of the decades-long political decision to outsource the housing system to developers, landlords, and “the market,” as though the market ever cared whether a child sleeps in a bed or on a floor.

Let's call it what it is: state-sanctioned neglect dressed up as progress, a bureaucratic fever dream where human beings become inputs and outputs, and the state issues monthly newsletters instead of solutions. A social analysis doesn’t have to look far, the very structure of the report betrays the ideology behind it. Everything measured, nothing solved. Everything counted, nothing changed.

This isn’t a homelessness report. It’s a confession note slipped under the public’s door. A society that tolerates nearly 17,000 people in emergency accommodation, including more than 5,000 children, is not malfunctioning. It is functioning exactly as designed: protecting property over people, private interest over public need, profit over humanity. And until that design is smashed, these monthly reports will read less like statistics and more like obituaries for the social contract.


⏩Pádraig Drummond is an anti-racism activist.

Hotel Ireland 🏠 Vacancy For The Damned

Irish TimesWritten by Colm Keena.

Fresh detail about the decision of President 
Catherine Connolly to visit Syria in 2018 has emerged since the October election.

During the campaign Connolly repeatedly declined to say who had organised the trip to the war-torn country where the Russia-backed government of president Bashar al-Assad was involved in a complex and vicious civil war.

However, two days after the vote, the former TDs and MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly, who accompanied Connolly on the visit, disclosed that they had organised the trip along with Daly’s sister Elaine, a trade union employee who separately ran non-profit tours for people who wanted to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

“We organised that trip ourselves, lads, seeing as you are so bloody interested,” Clare Daly said, speaking on the I4C Trouble podcast she co-hosts with Wallace.

She said the June 2018 trip was arranged with the help of people in Syria that she, Clare Daly, knew from an earlier trip she and Wallace had made in 2017.

Continue @ Irish Times.

New Detail Emerges About President Catherine Connolly’s 2018 Trip To Syria

Enda Craig ⬟ Are British royal charters still in existence, valid in Ireland and do they mentions Lough Foyle specifically?

Yes, some British royal charters remain valid in Ireland, particularly in the Republic of Ireland, due to specific legal accommodations made after independence. While the monarchy no longer grants new charters, existing ones were largely incorporated into the new Irish legal system, often with the agreement reached during the 1922 treaty negotiations. This has allowed some organizations, and even some specific rights like certain fishing or land rights, to continue to exist or function legally under the authority of their original charter.
 
Historical context:  Royal charters were granted to organizations and for rights during the period when Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.

Post-independence: After the creation of the Irish Free State, the legal status of these charters was addressed. Many were confirmed and transitioned into the Irish legal framework.

Continuing validity: As a result, some charters that were recognized by the Crown continue to have legal standing in the Republic of Ireland, as affirmed by the 1922 Treaty and subsequent Irish law.

Examples: This includes organizations that still use "royal" in their names (like the Royal Irish Academy) and certain property or rights, such as those in Lough Foyle, which remain Crown property due to a royal charter.

New charters: No new royal charters can be granted in the Republic of Ireland since the country abolished the monarchy.

Are British royal charters still in existence and valid across former colonies?

No, British royal charters are generally not valid across former colonies in a legal sense, as each former colony is now an independent state with its own laws. While some organizations in former colonies may still retain their "royal" designation or have their original charter acknowledged, these charters do not hold legal authority over national governments or their citizens in the new nations.

Why charters are not valid in former colonies.

National sovereignty: When former colonies gained independence, they became sovereign states with their own constitutions and legal systems, which superseded any authority from the British Crown or its charters.

Repeal of colonial laws:  Acts of independence have typically included provisions that repeal British laws, including the colonial laws that would have upheld the charters' authority.

Legal distinction: A royal charter is a UK legal instrument that is valid within the UK's jurisdiction. It does not extend to other countries unless specific legal arrangements have been made, which is not the case for independent nations.
 
How some organizations still retain charters

Historical significance: Many organizations continue to use their royal name or retain their charter for historical, cultural, or symbolic reasons.

Internal organization: The charter may still function as a form of incorporation for the organization itself, granting it legal status and perpetual succession within its home country's legal framework.
Legal accommodation: Some countries have made legal accommodations to allow these organizations to continue operating under their existing charters while transitioning to the new national legal timeline.
 
Modern-day relevance

The Commonwealth: The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of 54 independent countries that were formerly part of the British Empire, but it does not give the British monarchy any legal authority over its members.

Organizational status: While the charter itself may not have extraterritorial legal validity, it can continue to be a source of prestige and a basis for the organization's internal governance.

⏩ Enda Craig is a Donegal resident and community activist.

Read The Difference Between Ireland And Other Former Colonies

A Digest of News ✊ from Ukrainian Sources ⚔ 1-December-2025.

In this week’s bulletin

 Ukraine’s unbearable choice.
⬤ Donetsk frontline update/ Pokrovsk & other fronts.
⬤ More responses to the ‘peace plan’.
⬤ Ukraine’s biggest corruption scandal.
⬤ Building in Mariupol.
⬤ Russian torture of prisoners.

News from the territories occupied by Russia

29 November – International Women Human Rights Defenders Day: Women of Crimea (Crimea Platform, November 29th)

The Face of Resistance: Crimean Tatar Activist Vadym Bektemirov (Crimea Platform, November 28th)

‘War tourism’ plans for Mariupol and other cities Russia first mercilessly bombed (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 28th)

Luxury rubble: Real estate prices in Russian-occupied Donbas skyrocket despite widespread destruction, shelling, and water shortages (The Insider, November 28th)

Monstrous sentences against Crimean Tatar journalist and activists seized in Russian retaliation for a humiliating attack by Ukraine (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 27th)

74-year-old Crimean Tatar historian detained and prosecuted over interview about the 1944 Deportation (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 26th)

Joint Statement of the Fourth Parliamentary Summit of the International Crimea Platform (Crimea Platform, November 26th)

Weekly update on the situation in occupied Crimea (Crimea Platform, November 25th)

Berdiansk man sentenced to 12 years after 18 months in Russian torture prisons (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 24th)

Fourth Parliamentary Summit of International Crimea Platform (Crimea Platform, Nov 24th)

People in occupied territories must be visible – Alena Lunova at Kyiv Dialogue (Zmina, Nov 20th)

From Crimea to Africa, Asia and Latin America: “Crimea Global” outcomes (Zmina, November 19th)

Women support each other, and it saves lives: Girl Power at Crimea Global (Zmina, November 18th)

Building on Ruins (Belling Cat, November 14th)

Life Under Occupation (Alter Pravo, October 2025)

News from the front and ‘peace’ negotiations

We Have Aces Up Our Sleeve (Tribunal for Putin, November 26th)

What the leaked transcripts reveal about US-Russia negotiations (Meduza, 26 November)

As Trump and Putin seek to force Ukraine into "peace", what's the situation in Donetsk Oblast? (Ukrainska Pravda, November 25th)

'No one will support it': Ukraine's soldiers react to US peace plan (BBC, November 24th)

US/Russia talks. Peace for our time (The Russian Reader, 24 November)

The battle for Pokrovsk and the costs for Ukraine on other fronts (Meduza, 19 November)

News from Ukraine

“Midas” vs. Mindich: How Ukraine’s NABU executed the biggest anti-corruption operation in its history — and why the EU is getting involved (The Insider, November 28th)

Gender, Equality and the EU: ZMINA presented its Shadow Report at the National LGBTIQ Conference (Zmina, November 27th)

War-related news from Russia

Journalist sentenced to 4 years for working with Radio Liberty has disappeared from a Russian prison (Ukrainska Pravda, November 30th)

Russia churns out mass sentences for ‘spying’, with only the part of occupied Ukraine varying (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 28th)

Worked too well together. Crimea bridge defendants sentenced to life (Mediazona, 27 November)

‘I decided to fight back. Ukraine is my home.’ Yulia Lemeshchenko’s final word in court (People and Nature, November 27th)

Ukraine’s powerlifting champion sentenced in Russia to 19 years for partisan acts in defence of her home (Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group, November 25th)

Analysis and comment

We don't have a spare Ukraine, former Kherson mayor says (Ukrainska Pravda, November 28th)

Ukraine/Russia: Peace Efforts Should Put Human Impact First (Human Rights Watch, November 27th)

How Volodymyr Ischenko Strengthens Russia’s Negotiating Position (Ukraine Solidarity Campaign, November 27th)

Intensified attacks on Ukraine and Russia (UN commissioner for Human Rights , November 25th)

Russia is undermining the system of international criminal justice. And the West is inadvertently enabling it (Ukrainska Pravda, November 24th)

War Against Nature (Tribunal for Putin, November 22nd)

Ukraine Faces an Unbearable Choice (Oleksandr Kyselov in Jacobin, November 21st)

Amidst talks of the war ending (Tribunal for Putin, November 21st)

Research of human rights abuses

Music in Captivity: Marine Corps Orchestra’s Story (Kharkiv Human Rights Prot’n Group, Nov 26th)

How many Ukrainian prisoners are in the enemy detention centers, and where are they located? (Tribunal for Putin, November 24th)

A seminar on Ukrainian children abducted by Russia was held on the sidelines of the Fourth Parliamentary Summit of the Crimea Platform (Crimea Platform, November 24th)

Upcoming events

Wednesday 26 November, 6.0pm UK time: What should trade unions do for Ukraine? International public meeting Register here.

Tuesday 2 December, 8-11pm. Ukrainian Winter Folk: fundraising night of live folk singing, Walthamstow Trades Hall 61/63 Tower Hamlets Road, E17 4RQ

Saturday 6 December: Ukraine Solidarity Campaign Annual General Meeting


🔴This bulletin is put together by labour movement activists in solidarity with Ukrainian resistance. More information at Ukraine Information Group.

We are also on twitter. Our aim is to circulate information in English that to the best of our knowledge is reliable. If you have something you think we should include, please send it to 2U022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.


We are now on Facebook and Substack! Please subscribe and tell friends. Better still, people can email us at 2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com, and we’ll send them the bulletin direct every Monday. The full-scale Russian assault on Ukraine is going into its third year: we’ll keep information and analysis coming, for as long as it takes.

The bulletin is also stored on line here.

To receive the bulletin regularly, send your email to:
2022ukrainesolidarity@gmail.com.
To stop it, please reply with the word “STOP” in the subject field.

News From Ukraine 💣 Bulletin 173

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Seven

 

A Morning Thought @ 2988

Jim Duffy One of the perversities in small countries like Ireland of the far left's hate for Ukraine, and their endless swallowing of Putin's talking points, is that they do not understand how their country's status and even survival is linked directly to Ukraine's.
 
To understand why, one needs to go back through history. For centuries, large states were dominant and used their dominance to use, invade and extinguish small countries at will. Small countries were at their mercy.
 
From the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) on, efforts were made to create a body of international rules that granted rights to states. However it wasn't until the late 19th century that a more detailed body of international law regulating the conduct of states emerged. However it had a weakness. States couldn't be forced to sign up, so end up being lured in by the fact that many conventions aren't able to be enforced, but were a kind of gentlemen's agreements that people would obey based on an unenforceable promise.
 
After World War I, the League of Nation was created to introduce an international structure that would bring countries together in one body. It too however was weak, and crucially the US never joined and the USSR ended up suspended over its behaviour.
 
The United Nations tried to create a new stronger structure but it too was fundamentally weakened. To lure major powers in. Five major powers were giving indefinite vetoes in the Security Council, which ended up preventing it from functioning as the major enforcer of the rules based order. The major five, Britain, France, the US, the USSR and China (until the 1970s the Republic of China, later on the People's Republic of China) routinely vetoed vital decisions to protect themselves or friends.
 
A core principle in the conventions, the League, and then the UN, is the central absolute rights of state:

1. The right to sovereignty, and 2. The right to territorial integrity. In other words, a state, whether large or a microstate, had a right to exist based on the will of its people, and no country had a right to extinguish it, and its territorial integrity was sacrosanct - meaning its territory could not be broken up and regions taken by other states. Those principles are written in the UN Charter.
 
That radically changed international affairs, and severely limited the powers of large states while protecting the rights of small states. It meant a common feature of European history in the past, the conquering and annexing of small states by large ones, to a large extend died out. Not totally. China seized Tibet, for example. But the the constant annexing of small countries, as Prussia did for example to Hanover, died out.
 
The UN Charter amounted to a dramatic rebalancing of the powers in favour of small countries, making their position more protected. Some large powers, used to throwing their weight around, and seizing smaller countries' territories, were more than miffed about the rules as they developed. They were also miffed at rules limiting what they could do in war, rules on war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and human rights granted in international law based on sex, religious belief, on ethnic or cultural minorities, and much else.
 
The visions of Putin and Trump are the same: a world where all restrictions on big states are swept aside, where they can invade anywhere, annex anywhere, have their military do whatever they want to anyone with no repercussions.
 
Putin's invasion unambiguously beached all core principles of the UN Charter in Article 2.4. 

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Putin's aim is unambiguously to use force against both the territorial integrity and political independence of Ukraine, through the biggest war in Europe since World War II.

In the war, Putin's military deliberately is breaking every rule in international law on war. It executes prisoners, executives civilians, deliberately bombs civilians, apartment blocks, and kidnapped children - actions that are not merely illegal but war crimes. That is all deliberate. The thinking is that if Russia succeeds in Ukraine, the whole rules-based international order will be dead-in-the-water as it has been broken completely without negative consequences. Putin will have said, yet again, to the world "fuck your rules!"
 
Seizing land and setting up fake republics, then claiming them as Russian territory is a blatant breach of Ukraine's "territorial integrity" and the UN Charter, and intended to be. That is why the international community has universally refused to recognise Crimea as Russian territory and why legally it remains, and will remain, Ukrainian territory. Even China, no fan of international law, refused to recognise Occupied Crimea as part of Russia. (Territories illegally occupied by a state in breach of the "territorial integrity" and "Political Independence" rules are known as "Occupied Territories" - for example, the "Occupied Territories" held by Israel but not owned by it in international law.)
 
Trump, to the disgust of the international community, of course wants to recognise Crimea as Russian. It is his way of also helping bring down international law - something he despises. He is also trying to collapse the International Criminal Court for enforcing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide laws on Israel. He has made it clear he wants the US military to be free to commit war crimes without danger of prosecution. It is why he wants to recognise the "Occupied Territories" in Palestine as part of Israel - as another way to give the finger to international law.
 
Irish people who say "what has the Ukraine War got to Ireland?" don't get it at all. It has everything to do with Ireland and all small countries. Their status is explicitly protected by international law. If Putin and Trump get their way, those protections would collapse as would all protections. It would return to the horror days of "might is right" where big countries could do whatever they wanted, as all protections built up over one hundred years, and indeed right back to the Treaty of Westphalia, would be swept aside.
 
If Russia was to succeed in capturing and annexing Ukraine (Putin's aim is to capture Ukraine, sweep aside its democratic institutions, impose pro-Russian puppet, Viktor Yanukovych, who had been driven from the presidency by a popular revolution and fled to Russia, and then have Yanukovych in Ukraine's name apply for Ukraine to join Russia), it would mean that it was open season on all other countries for invasion and annexation as the protections in international law for small states have been swept aside and dead-in-the-water.

Russia would then feel free to invade Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, or any other country in Europe. Georgia and Azerbaijan are on the menu. Trump's America is free to seize and annex Greenland, or any other country or territory. China can invade any of its neighbours.
 
In Africa, large countries would have carte blanche to invade and annex any of their neighbours. The international rules that for one hundred years that have managed, with uneven success rates, to make such invasions and wars relatively rare, and which largely led to the disappearance of annexation post World War II, would be de-facto dead. If Russian could get away with it in Ukraine, then everyone else can too.
 
That is why for Ireland and all small states, Russia's war in Ukraine is potentially existential. The idea that it doesn't matter to Ireland couldn't be more wrong. The rules that protect Ireland's right to exist and territorial integrity, and which do so for small countries all over, are on the line in this war. Putin intends this war to be the battering ram to collapse the rules based order that protects millions but which he despises. He, and Trump, want to sweep away all rules that get in their way. They are using Ukraine to attack those rules. Ukraine and most governments get that. That is why they are so strongly supportive of Ukraine. They realise how crucial the war is for their interests.

⏩ Jim Duffy is a writer-historian.

Russia's Existential Threat To Small States

The Hartmann Report Written by Thom Hartmann

How a small nation’s pragmatic, humane approach exposes the lie behind America’s manufactured “crisis” and offers a roadmap for defeating the racist strongmen weaponizing immigration for power…

Razor wire in the sunrise, shadows waitin’ at the gate,
Families walk from fire only to meet another state.
Little hands on chain-link fences, tired eyes that plead for grace,
A journey made for freedom ends in fear they shouldn’t face.
’Cause the cruelty ain’t a bug—it’s the whole damn plan,
Turning hope into a weapon in the heart of this land.
But we can guard our borders without losing dignity;
We can choose the road of mercy over cold strategy.

The most gruesome feature of the Trump/Vance/Miller regime is their glee in brutalizing nonwhite people and terrorizing anybody who objects or tries to hold them to account. Their entire rationale is that the barbarity and savagery are “necessary” to deal with millions of “illegals.”

Denmark is onto something that could blow up their entire excuse for this violence against both people and our Constitution, and Democrats need to pay attention.

Back in June 2008 I did my radio program for a week from the studios of Danish Radio in Copenhagen. 
Continue @ Hartmann Report.

Did Denmark Find The Answer To Immigration 🪶While Trump Chose Barbarism Instead?

The Fenian Way 🔖 An Accidental Villain from the outset is an honest admission that I had never heard of a British soldier called Sir Hugh Tudor, a close confidante of Winston Churchill, and head of the notorious Black and Tans in Ireland. 


An architect of bloody reprisals as an instrument of both Lloyd George's and Winston Churchill's tacit but determined policy against the IRA and the struggle for independence, that he eluded the crosshairs of both The Squad and history allows us a clearer insight into the mindset of frontline British thinking during the conflict.

At the heart of Tudor's reasoning is his absolute belief in, and fidelity to, British imperialism and the conflicts pursued in its maintenance. This imperial zeal is all the more amplified when set against his own declared indifference to the aspirations of indigenous people's who struggled under British colonialism. Ireland was no different. Having served in an artillery unit in WW1 he had displayed a bravery consistent with the perceived norms of imperial slaughter. His close association with the Minister for War, Churchill, allowed him to traverse the often blurred lines of military intervention and political approval and accountability.

The Royal Irish Constabulary was the frontline instrument in safeguarding British interests in Ireland. Whether it was agrarian agitation against an absentee landlord class, industrial disputes with wealthy business owners or republican activity in search of constitutional change the RIC formed the bulwark of Westminster's response. The reputation of the RIC amongst the Irish people was one of healthy scepticism as to whose interests they ultimately served. From an Irish republican perspective they were an enemy to be ostracised and isolated.

At the heart of this book is the recognition and exposure of Tudor's total unsuitability for the task which Churchill assigned to him as he had absolutely no concept of how to deal with a guerrilla campaign. Unlike the 1916 rising, which followed a recognisable military pattern, the conflict of the early nineteen twenties had all the frustrating hallmarks of using a fork to pick up the proverbial mercury.

Tudor's lack of suitability was only compensated for by his clear belief that he would succeed in defeating the IRA and he would do so by reorganising the RIC and redefining its role in the conflict. Both the Black and Tans and Auxiliaries were paramilitary divisions of the RIC, allowed to use military tactics and reprisals not usually associated with any concept of policing. The relationship between RIC middle command and the new departure of Tudor is well explored as is the conflicting views of the British Military and political establishment when it came to dealing with the IRA.

The book offers a fascinating and detailed look into the evolving tactic of the use of reprisals and how individuals like Lloyd George and Churchill skilfully manipulated propaganda to deflect growing public and international criticisms of the practice. It also goes into considerable detail on the extent of reprisals and names many individuals who were directly involved. Any revisionist arguments of trying to rehabilitate the reputation of the RIC during the conflict fall foul of the well researched data presented in the book.

The old perceived notion that the Tans were a drunken undisciplined mob let loose on the Irish population is also turned on its head as the strategy employed by Tudor for them presents a very formidable enemy against the IRA. Collins was not the only protagonist in the conflict who recognised the value of first rate intelligence and he most certainly was not alone when it came to acting on it. The extent of reprisals further erodes the drunken mob concept because as a policy of intent it was guided from hands in Downing Street, the higher echelons of the British Military and Tudor and his chosen henchman in the RIC.

The author makes great use of access to the personal diaries of the key British players which reaches into that British mindset which is so essential for republicans to understand how and why certain political settlements were reached. Tudor was resolutely set against a truce as a means to begin exploring peace talks. He was joined in this by senior British military personnel who viewed such a truce as a respite for an increasingly stretched and pressurised IRA. This highlighted their fundamental apolitical stance as they were blindly ignorant of the ever increasing US pressure to cease reprisals and the conveyor belt acquittals of guilty Tans or Auxiliaries by military tribunals.

The book tantalisingly dangles the prospect that Tudor's strategy could well have resulted in the poor terms of the treaty set against what republicans were actually fighting for. And in equal measure, Lloyd George's threat of 'immediate and terrible' war if the treaty was not accepted may well have signalled to Collins that Tudor would lead the charge with an even more freehand to eliminate an IRA which in international eyes would be seen as having rejected an opportunity for peace.

Imperial politics prevailed over Tudor's paramilitary tactics and the Anglo Irish Treaty was signed; a Tudor type role was no longer necessary as the bulwark against republican forces was now the newly formed Free State army. But Churchill, now Minister for the Colonies was not quite finished with Tudor.

When Tudor left Ireland the one thing he took with him was the fear of assassination from an Irish hand which in itself was his own admission of the crimes he perpetrated against the Irish people. When General Wilson was executed in London and an informer clipped in New York Tudor recognised his potential vulnerability wherein he viewed his new posting in Palestine as a reasonably safe haven from Irish republicans.

Churchill brought the Black and Tan strategy to Palestine and entrusted Tudor to once again reprise his role as a leader of a local police force enforcing an imperial writ. But the murky politics of Ireland and the upper echelon conniving in the British military and Intelligence community also made its way to Palestine and Tudor was ultimately sacrificed on that altar. 

The final chapters deal with Tudor's drift into obscurity both in geographic terms - he moved to Newfoundland - and in political terms as his close association with Churchill waned. The last paragraph of the book sums it up well:

He chose instead to bury himself in a place where he would be left alone, where he could pretend that time was standing still, where he could enjoy the comfort and security of respectable irrelevance while avoiding the consequences of a brief political significance.

Ireland still suffers from the legacy of that brief political significance!


Linden MacIntyre, 2025. An Accidental Villain: Sir Hugh Tudor, Churchill's Enforcer in Revolutionary Ireland. Merrion Press. ISBN-13: 978-1785375750

⏩ The Fenian Way was a full time activist during the IRA's war against the British.

An Accidental Villain

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of One Thousand Nine Eight Hundred And Six

 

Pastords @ 19

 

A Morning Thought @ 2987

Cam Ogie  When the disappearance of Captain Robert Nairac is described as a “war crime,” it is necessary to examine not only the event itself but the broader political context in which such labels are being invoked. 

This includes the fact that some former IRA volunteers — individuals who were active during the period of Nairac’s abduction and death — now describe his fate, and events such as Kingsmill, as “war crimes.” Their adoption of this terminology invites scrutiny: they are now relying on definitions created and institutionalised by states whose own conduct has consistently raised grave humanitarian concerns.

The modern legal architecture of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” — the Geneva Conventions, the UN frameworks, and later the Rome Statute — was heavily shaped by dominant military powers, particularly the UK, the US, and allied states. These same powers have engaged in multiple conflicts where extensive civilian casualties have been documented by UN agencies, human-rights organisations, investigative journalists, and in some cases their own military inquiries. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Western-supported military operations in Gaza, have all resulted in significant civilian harm. These deaths are rarely denied; rather, they are reframed through bureaucratic terminology: “collateral damage,” “operational error,” or “proportionate use of force.”

This discrepancy between legal principle and political practice is further illuminated by a recent major development at the UN: the UN Security Council’s endorsement of Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, which authorises an international stabilisation force for Gaza and establishes a transitional “Board of Peace” potentially to be chaired by Trump himself and quite possibly Tony Blair as his subordinate.

This striking arrangement — whereby a former US president is centrally placed in the governance framework of Gaza — underscores how the institutions that claim to adjudicate and define “war crimes” and “justice” can themselves be instrumentalised by powerful states for political ends.

This pattern underscores a foundational asymmetry: although international humanitarian law exists in principle — embodied in the Geneva Conventions, the Rome Statute, and UN frameworks — its enforcement is contingent upon geopolitical power. States with overwhelming military and political influence can reinterpret, evade, or reject legal scrutiny. The United States’ refusal to accept International Criminal Court jurisdiction, the limited legal accountability for British military actions in Iraq and Northern Ireland, and the absence of prosecutions related to Western-backed operations resulting in large-scale civilian casualties all underscore this reality.

This does not imply that atrocities are morally insignificant, nor that suffering is somehow “equal.” Rather, it reveals that the labels “war crime” and “crime against humanity” are not applied according to universal standards but deployed selectively — most often against actors lacking the geopolitical capacity to resist or influence the legal regime.

Against this context, elevating Nairac’s disappearance as a singular moral outrage reflects selective moral reasoning rather than principled adherence to international law. The disproportionate focus on this individual case, contrasted with the relative silence surrounding far more extensive patterns of state violence, exposes whose suffering is recognised and whose is dismissed. This selective invocation of international law suggests a hierarchy of victims and perpetrators determined not by legal consistency but by political convenience.

When former combatants adopt the vocabulary of international criminal law — particularly when such law is constructed and applied by states they once opposed — it raises deeper questions about how definitions of “war crimes” are being understood, why they are being invoked, and which political narratives they ultimately reinforce.

Unlike powerful states that routinely deflect, reinterpret, or ignore accusations of wrongdoing, some former IRA volunteers have shown a far greater moral autonomy in how they use terms like “war crime.” Their willingness to apply this vocabulary even to their own former comrades demonstrates that they are not confined by the limitations or justifications of the organisation they once served. Instead, they appear guided by a deeper personal understanding of morality in war — one that allows them to call out actions they now consider wrong, regardless of loyalty or political allegiance. This stands in stark contrast to the behaviour of states that constructed the international legal system yet refuse to hold themselves to its standards.

Ultimately, the contemporary use of “war crime” is less a neutral legal classification than a reflection of power: who defines the law, who escapes its reach, and who is condemned by it. And until international humanitarian law is applied consistently — irrespective of political strength — its terminology will remain subject to selective deployment and contested meaning.

For my part, I do not regard either Kingsmill or the disappearance of Captain Nairac as “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” or moral equivalents of state-directed atrocities such as Bloody Sunday in Derry. This does not diminish the tragedy of the lives lost; rather, it reflects a deeper truth about both the nature of war itself, and the political origins of the terminology used to judge it.

It is compounded by the fact that the modern legal architecture of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity” was constructed by dominant military powers — chiefly the UK, the US, and their allies — who have repeatedly refused to abide by the standards they imposed on others. Their own actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and other theatres of conflict consistently contradict the moral authority claimed in defining such terms. Consequently, the legal architecture they created has been hollowed out, emptied of moral authority, robbed of credibility, denuded of meaning, and drained of ethical force by their own conduct, rendering these classifications morally and ethically redundant. They have become less legal principles and more political instruments — abstract words detached from consistent application. In many ways, these labels have become abstract terms with no consistent relationship to the actions they claim to describe — little more than empty, selectively applied words.

The reality is that war, by its very nature, is immoral. It is a situation in which human beings are authorised — even expected — to kill one another in pursuit of competing political objectives. Every protagonist in a war seeks victory, and historically, victory is pursued by whatever means are judged necessary. To then isolate specific brutal acts within that wider framework and label them as uniquely immoral presupposes that there is some acceptable, sanitised form of killing. But war does not function on morally coherent lines. The entire enterprise is a moral quagmire. Singling out particular acts as being “above” or “beyond” the normal brutality of war often tells us more about political narratives than about genuine ethical distinctions.

It is analogous to the courtroom dynamic during the conflict in the North: IRA volunteers often refused to recognise or cooperate with British courts as part of their political and moral stance and in some cases, courts appeared to treat that stance as relevant to the proceedings, without endorsing the republican refusal to recognise British authority. Loyalist defendants who accepted the court’s legitimacy were sentenced under its authority. The law’s meaning became contingent on selective recognition, not universal principle. The international vocabulary of “war crimes” functions similarly: it is invoked or ignored depending on political convenience, not moral clarity.

Beyond the terminology, the covert activities carried out by Nairac and other British state actors in Ireland were unlawful from the outset. Investigations, reports, and testimonies have alleged that elements of British intelligence and security forces directed and colluded with loyalist paramilitaries responsible for murdering civilians, with senior governmental awareness. The Glenanne network, in particular, has been linked by researchers to a deliberate strategy of provocation intended to escalate communal conflict. Within this context, the events leading up to Kingsmill cannot be reduced to the simplistic narratives often presented today. The only gunman who spoke at the scene reportedly had an English accent, and Nairac was already known to the South Armagh IRA at the time. Whether or not he was directly involved, it is undeniable that British covert units and loyalist collaborators helped create the very conditions that preceded Kingsmill, at a moment when the IRA leadership had previously restrained volunteers from retaliatory actions.

These complexities raise serious and unresolved questions about who was ultimately directing events on the ground and whether the violence formed part of a broader pattern of manipulation and engineered escalation. For these reasons, I cannot categorise Kingsmill or the disappearance of Captain Nairac within the same moral or legal framework as state-executed massacres like Bloody Sunday — nor within the hollow and debased, selectively applied vocabulary of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity,” which fails to capture either the moral reality of war or the political realities that shape how these terms are used.

⏩ Cam Ogie is a Gaelic games enthusiast. 

Reframing “War Crimes” 🪶 Power, Selective Morality, And The Case Of Captain Nairac