Dr Mark Hayes with a piece on the late IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes that initially featured on the Tal Fanzine website on 11 November 2013.  Mark Hayes defends the reputation of this exemplary volunteer in the face of disingenious criticisms from former republicans who have now become incorporated into the administrative apparatus of the British state.


Brendan Hughes
A short time ago I was asked by TAL editor if I would consider writing a short piece about Brendan Hughes. As readers of TAL will doubtless be aware Brendan Hughes figures prominently in the narrative of modern Irish Republicanism, and much has already been said and written about him. What else, I pondered, might usefully be added to the wealth of material that already exists? Moreover, there is a sense in which the effort to recollect causes much more pain than pleasure. Why inflict more discomfort by revisiting the past?

Perhaps it would be far better to press on without glancing backwards. As it turns out Stevie posited the question at precisely the right time because recent events have made remembering an obligation for anyone who claims to profess adherence to the Republican creed. It is not the gradual and insidious elision from principled armed resistance to pragmatic parliamentary politics that has precipitated my desire to comment, although that particular, sorry story is shameful enough - it has been the careless vitriol recently directed toward Brendan himself by people who should know better. The leader of Sinn Fein, not content with presiding over the somnambulant drift of his party into the arms of the British state, recently saw fit to describe Brendan Hughes as a “liar”. Indeed, certain websites (I will not dignify them with a name) have even suggested that Volunteer Hughes was an informer! A perfect moment, therefore, to reflect on the personality of the man himself.

I will not dwell on the biographical detail of Brendan Hughes’ life and the contribution he made in the effort to free Ireland from imperialism and oppression. That information is a matter of fact and public record. Not even the pro-Unionist “Republicans” ensconced safely in Stormont could seriously cast doubt on his credentials as an armed volunteer. The people of west Belfast and across the occupied north were well aware that if even half of the folk-tales were true about Brendan, then he was a volunteer to be reckoned with, and to be remembered in the same breath as Bobby Sands.

This is not the substance of my modest intervention. I am writing to tell you something of the man I knew, who stayed in my house, who laughed with us, debated with us, and the man whose coffin I helped carry around the narrow streets of Belfast. I considered the “wee Dark” a good friend and comrade. Yet we need to be brutally clear and honest in our assessment - Brendan was a man with faults and frailties, and he wrestled with his conscience over decisions that would have destroyed lesser men. He made mistakes too, as all human beings have.

The crucial point, however, is that Brendan would have recognised those weaknesses and acknowledged them. It may seem slightly odd to emphasise this observation. Why would I focus upon this aspect of his character, when there are so many tales to be told about fighting “Brits” and attacking the forces of the state? I could recount many, and a few would provide ample evidence to confirm the old aphorism that fact is far stranger than fiction. Many of these incidents and events have been recorded for posterity for the benefit of future generations. So why not make an icon of a man who, as much as anyone, is deserving of retrospective veneration? Why not allow the reputation of Brendan Hughes the IRA Commander to evolve into another cult of the Republican soldier? There are several inter-related reasons why great care should be taken over how his legacy is handled.

Firstly, Brendan would not have wanted a celebration of his deeds. He was clearly aware that the manipulation of commemorations could serve a variety of purposes, not all of which would be endorsed by those who were being commemorated. Moreover, turning “the Dark” into a “fallen soldier” to be worshipped as such would seriously diminish and distort the nature of the politics which underpinned his contribution to the Republican struggle. Politics should take priority in any account of Brendan Hughes. “Darkie” was an unreconstructed and unrepentant class warrior, and as such he did not fight for a utopian united Ireland as some kind of mystical national entity which would somehow automatically resolve all social, political and economic contradictions. Che Guevara mattered much more than Cuchalain and “the Dark” had his eyes focused firmly on a further horizon, his vision fixed – the Republic would be egalitarian or it would be lost.

People may not be aware that one of Brendan’s bitterest disputes with Sinn Fein was about the pay of building workers in Belfast. The fate of ordinary working class people, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, formed the very epicentre of his perspective on the world. Securing a living wage, decent housing and quality healthcare for everyone were the focus of his attention, rather than the misty and maudlin fixations of “mother Ireland”. Portraying Brendan as anything other than a man of the people would be a gross distortion of historical reality, and a sad betrayal of his political legacy. He believed in ordinary people, and he belonged to them alone.

Secondly, Brendan Hughes knew that violence should only ever be tactic (not a principle), and the glorification of war is, at best, unseemly. Brendan was a gentle man, despite having a righteous temper, and would only ever countenance the use of an armed strategy in the service of the noblest ideals, against the rich and powerful. He would never have sanctioned the use of violence to intimidate the weak, unlike some who have used the epithet “soldier” or “freedom fighter” to obscure the evil essence of their malevolent misdeeds. Brendan Hughes was not a bully. It might also be added, nevertheless, that Brendan would never have traded the right to resist as a bargaining chip in a tawdry compromise with the bitterest of political enemies. Brendan may have been a reluctant soldier, but he was not a fool.

The other related point of identifying and emphasising very clearly Brendan’s own capacity for critical self-reflection is this – he was an honest man. If he made a mistake he was prepared to acknowledge it. In that sense he had the humility of a fallible human being trying, as we all are, to do what is best in onerous circumstances. He also accepted other people as they were, with all their faults, and was hugely generous in giving his time and consideration to others. He was never arrogant or self-obsessed, and incredibly diffident – despite the fact that he had very little to be modest about. Brendan was generous, decent and honourable. This is why the accusation of deliberate duplicity is so utterly grotesque – the very word “liar” as applied to “Darkie” Hughes should choke those who have the temerity to deploy it against him.

Men who have compromised, conceded the moral high ground and capitulated to the enemy now make accusations that would never, ever have been made to Brendan’s face. Such accusations are a desperate and despicable ploy to destroy the reputation of a principled political adversary. The suggestion that Brendan’s so-called “demons” somehow invalidate his ideological perspective is not only specious, it is the work of the most unscrupulous gombeens, a cheap and spurious knave’s trick designed to deflect attention from his legitimate critique of Sinn Fein. But the political ideas expressed by Brendan will not be marginalised by the self-serving insinuations of those mercenaries who are now content to administer British rule on behalf of businessmen and bankers. If the firing squad in Kilmainham jail could not silence James Connolly, then the political assassins who now take aim at the reputation of “Darkie” Hughes will have to think again.

In many ways now, as the consensus constructed around Sinn Fein’s “peace strategy” begins to crumble, the people who perpetrate this foul calumny are more to be pitied than scorned. Their project is being progressively dismantled. Nevertheless, those people who remain committed to the path of pro-Union constitutionalism should seriously reflect on the nature of a leadership which is willing to do such a wretched dis-service to the memory of a good man. Of course those who have led the strategy have far too much to lose by retracting their vile revisionism. To concede that the calculated character assassination of Hughes is morally reprehensible would cast considerable doubt on the rest of the story they have cynically concocted to justify their discredited political strategy. Feeble men – it must be cold for them, standing there in his shadow.

When I think of Brendan I recognise neither the “warrior” icon of Republican mythology, nor the cruel misrepresentations cast by his political opponents. I remember a person of the utmost integrity, but also an activist full of passion for the pursuit of a political ideal that some of us steadfastly refuse to relinquish. His enemies will never be able to degrade his reputation because, to paraphrase Bobby Sands, they can call him whatever they want – the people call him a man! And I would take the opportunity to make one final point to the politically motivated purveyors of half-truth and crass distortion – if you take issue with him, then you take issue with us all. We will not be silent, because the “wee Dark” still walks among us…

"Darkie" and the Gombeens: In the Shadow of a Gunman

Dr Mark Hayes with a piece on the late IRA volunteer Brendan Hughes that initially featured on the Tal Fanzine website on 11 November 2013.  Mark Hayes defends the reputation of this exemplary volunteer in the face of disingenious criticisms from former republicans who have now become incorporated into the administrative apparatus of the British state.


Brendan Hughes
A short time ago I was asked by TAL editor if I would consider writing a short piece about Brendan Hughes. As readers of TAL will doubtless be aware Brendan Hughes figures prominently in the narrative of modern Irish Republicanism, and much has already been said and written about him. What else, I pondered, might usefully be added to the wealth of material that already exists? Moreover, there is a sense in which the effort to recollect causes much more pain than pleasure. Why inflict more discomfort by revisiting the past?

Perhaps it would be far better to press on without glancing backwards. As it turns out Stevie posited the question at precisely the right time because recent events have made remembering an obligation for anyone who claims to profess adherence to the Republican creed. It is not the gradual and insidious elision from principled armed resistance to pragmatic parliamentary politics that has precipitated my desire to comment, although that particular, sorry story is shameful enough - it has been the careless vitriol recently directed toward Brendan himself by people who should know better. The leader of Sinn Fein, not content with presiding over the somnambulant drift of his party into the arms of the British state, recently saw fit to describe Brendan Hughes as a “liar”. Indeed, certain websites (I will not dignify them with a name) have even suggested that Volunteer Hughes was an informer! A perfect moment, therefore, to reflect on the personality of the man himself.

I will not dwell on the biographical detail of Brendan Hughes’ life and the contribution he made in the effort to free Ireland from imperialism and oppression. That information is a matter of fact and public record. Not even the pro-Unionist “Republicans” ensconced safely in Stormont could seriously cast doubt on his credentials as an armed volunteer. The people of west Belfast and across the occupied north were well aware that if even half of the folk-tales were true about Brendan, then he was a volunteer to be reckoned with, and to be remembered in the same breath as Bobby Sands.

This is not the substance of my modest intervention. I am writing to tell you something of the man I knew, who stayed in my house, who laughed with us, debated with us, and the man whose coffin I helped carry around the narrow streets of Belfast. I considered the “wee Dark” a good friend and comrade. Yet we need to be brutally clear and honest in our assessment - Brendan was a man with faults and frailties, and he wrestled with his conscience over decisions that would have destroyed lesser men. He made mistakes too, as all human beings have.

The crucial point, however, is that Brendan would have recognised those weaknesses and acknowledged them. It may seem slightly odd to emphasise this observation. Why would I focus upon this aspect of his character, when there are so many tales to be told about fighting “Brits” and attacking the forces of the state? I could recount many, and a few would provide ample evidence to confirm the old aphorism that fact is far stranger than fiction. Many of these incidents and events have been recorded for posterity for the benefit of future generations. So why not make an icon of a man who, as much as anyone, is deserving of retrospective veneration? Why not allow the reputation of Brendan Hughes the IRA Commander to evolve into another cult of the Republican soldier? There are several inter-related reasons why great care should be taken over how his legacy is handled.

Firstly, Brendan would not have wanted a celebration of his deeds. He was clearly aware that the manipulation of commemorations could serve a variety of purposes, not all of which would be endorsed by those who were being commemorated. Moreover, turning “the Dark” into a “fallen soldier” to be worshipped as such would seriously diminish and distort the nature of the politics which underpinned his contribution to the Republican struggle. Politics should take priority in any account of Brendan Hughes. “Darkie” was an unreconstructed and unrepentant class warrior, and as such he did not fight for a utopian united Ireland as some kind of mystical national entity which would somehow automatically resolve all social, political and economic contradictions. Che Guevara mattered much more than Cuchalain and “the Dark” had his eyes focused firmly on a further horizon, his vision fixed – the Republic would be egalitarian or it would be lost.

People may not be aware that one of Brendan’s bitterest disputes with Sinn Fein was about the pay of building workers in Belfast. The fate of ordinary working class people, Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter, formed the very epicentre of his perspective on the world. Securing a living wage, decent housing and quality healthcare for everyone were the focus of his attention, rather than the misty and maudlin fixations of “mother Ireland”. Portraying Brendan as anything other than a man of the people would be a gross distortion of historical reality, and a sad betrayal of his political legacy. He believed in ordinary people, and he belonged to them alone.

Secondly, Brendan Hughes knew that violence should only ever be tactic (not a principle), and the glorification of war is, at best, unseemly. Brendan was a gentle man, despite having a righteous temper, and would only ever countenance the use of an armed strategy in the service of the noblest ideals, against the rich and powerful. He would never have sanctioned the use of violence to intimidate the weak, unlike some who have used the epithet “soldier” or “freedom fighter” to obscure the evil essence of their malevolent misdeeds. Brendan Hughes was not a bully. It might also be added, nevertheless, that Brendan would never have traded the right to resist as a bargaining chip in a tawdry compromise with the bitterest of political enemies. Brendan may have been a reluctant soldier, but he was not a fool.

The other related point of identifying and emphasising very clearly Brendan’s own capacity for critical self-reflection is this – he was an honest man. If he made a mistake he was prepared to acknowledge it. In that sense he had the humility of a fallible human being trying, as we all are, to do what is best in onerous circumstances. He also accepted other people as they were, with all their faults, and was hugely generous in giving his time and consideration to others. He was never arrogant or self-obsessed, and incredibly diffident – despite the fact that he had very little to be modest about. Brendan was generous, decent and honourable. This is why the accusation of deliberate duplicity is so utterly grotesque – the very word “liar” as applied to “Darkie” Hughes should choke those who have the temerity to deploy it against him.

Men who have compromised, conceded the moral high ground and capitulated to the enemy now make accusations that would never, ever have been made to Brendan’s face. Such accusations are a desperate and despicable ploy to destroy the reputation of a principled political adversary. The suggestion that Brendan’s so-called “demons” somehow invalidate his ideological perspective is not only specious, it is the work of the most unscrupulous gombeens, a cheap and spurious knave’s trick designed to deflect attention from his legitimate critique of Sinn Fein. But the political ideas expressed by Brendan will not be marginalised by the self-serving insinuations of those mercenaries who are now content to administer British rule on behalf of businessmen and bankers. If the firing squad in Kilmainham jail could not silence James Connolly, then the political assassins who now take aim at the reputation of “Darkie” Hughes will have to think again.

In many ways now, as the consensus constructed around Sinn Fein’s “peace strategy” begins to crumble, the people who perpetrate this foul calumny are more to be pitied than scorned. Their project is being progressively dismantled. Nevertheless, those people who remain committed to the path of pro-Union constitutionalism should seriously reflect on the nature of a leadership which is willing to do such a wretched dis-service to the memory of a good man. Of course those who have led the strategy have far too much to lose by retracting their vile revisionism. To concede that the calculated character assassination of Hughes is morally reprehensible would cast considerable doubt on the rest of the story they have cynically concocted to justify their discredited political strategy. Feeble men – it must be cold for them, standing there in his shadow.

When I think of Brendan I recognise neither the “warrior” icon of Republican mythology, nor the cruel misrepresentations cast by his political opponents. I remember a person of the utmost integrity, but also an activist full of passion for the pursuit of a political ideal that some of us steadfastly refuse to relinquish. His enemies will never be able to degrade his reputation because, to paraphrase Bobby Sands, they can call him whatever they want – the people call him a man! And I would take the opportunity to make one final point to the politically motivated purveyors of half-truth and crass distortion – if you take issue with him, then you take issue with us all. We will not be silent, because the “wee Dark” still walks among us…

38 comments:

  1. very good article. i have always found Brendan Hughes very charismatic and a man of integrity. He believed in his cause and refused to sell out for a paycheck. Sinn Fein and Gerry Adams screwed this man over on a huge level. Not many Unionists I would regard to be of Brendans honesty and integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was directed to another site yesterday,belonging to the bearded ones bro who as you say was inferring that the "dark"was a tout and one other commentator another relation was agreeing,and in his usual way, pontificating in his high winded manner about touts, now this man described as the highest educated IRA man to be captured during the troubles is imo no one to talk about touts he couldnt walk down the street without telling any Ruc brit patrol he run into what he had for dinner. so a cara an empty vessel makes the loudest noise in this case,if the "dark" had been a tout would it have not made more sense both to himself and his handlers for him to remain close to the "leadership"and if the "dark" had been a tout why were the "leadership"falling over themselves to carry his coffin?Brendan Hughes was an honourable man who gave it his all in the most extraordinary circumstances and he paid a terrible price, he does not deserve to have memory denigrated by people who are of a very dubious character, the next thing we will be reading is Scappaticci lecturing us on loyalty, honesty and respect for life ffs

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why was he busting his balls to be seen carrying the coffin of a liar.This is a desperate slur to make about brendan.He had ample time in the witness box of a belfast court to stand up and point his finger at his brother and say LIAR.No h reserved that for millions of viewers on tv for a man who was out operating while he was hiding under the oilcloth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr Nark-sorry Mark-

    " wee Dark still walks among us "-

    Going by the TV the wee Dark also
    still Talks among us-

    Who tells the tales-who names the names-Sinn Fein-nope-the Dark-yes-

    Noticed that the tale telling and the name giving stopped at the 70s-if the truth wanted to be told we would have heard of tales from the late 80s-the 90s and so on-unless the darks war ended a long time before the Provos one-[win]-

    ReplyDelete
  5. See big lornie has stepped up to gerrys defence in th irish news.it also says former hunger striker mckeown is currently working with RUC CHIEF SUPER.INTENDENT RODGER MCCALLUM IN SOME MAD PLAY.LOL.These people have no shame and should keep the darks name out of their mouths.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Billy,

    just read that after reading your comment. Thought Laurny, very crucially, was being non committal on the question of whether he believed Adams. As he was not trying to con anybody I thought it was an okay response. He has already set out his stall both publicly and in private that he broadly endorses the direction the Provisional Movement has gone in so there was little new in his comments. Had Adams pleaded the 5th - and who would have blamed him? - from the start little of this discussion would be taking place today.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Michael Henry
    If you have nothing else at least have some respect.
    Only someone who knows nothing about the IRA would make the snide comment that the 'Dark's s' war ended in the 70s
    Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the story of the H Blocks and the hunger strike.
    Perhaps you should read up on how Brendan on his release had set about trying to restructure a flagging Northern Command in the late 80s only to be undermined, deceived, betrayed and repeatedly lied to by your leader and his cronies.
    Brendan kicked out most of the dirt in Belfast and set about investigating the investigators.
    Adams response to this was to relocate him. Remove him to a place where he could not undo the rot.
    The trash he diismissed were brought back, the touts at the head of security guaranteed a safe haven.
    Then, the process of undermining Bendan himself began. 'Poor Darkie can't cope. He can't come to terms with the happenings in the H Blocks and the rest!!
    No where else would a man of this calibre be treated the way Brendan was.
    Even when he approached Adams about the extent of the corruption more rumours started. 'The Darks paranoid , he's losing it.'
    He was called a tout back then also.
    His crime was refusing to take extra money to stay quiet about the exploitation of workers on the site he was employed.
    Brendan Hughes was offered 50,000 to inform and he laughed at them.
    There plenty who currently swell up the ranks of Sinn Fein who told plenty. In fact some told that much they were grateful for the Blanket Protest to scrape back some kudos.
    Was that their problem, their guilt?
    All the lowlifes and many who squealed the heap were now taken back into the flock and getting set up within the new dispensation.
    People who could not of laced Brendan's boots on any front not just Republicanism were now being given a platform to slagg him off.
    The zeroes to heroes. The ones Brendan himself claimed, made their unenvious reputations on the tail coats of volunteers.
    I think if there is one Image that epitomises Brendan it's the one taken in Milltown the day Stone attacked the funerals.
    I think that one picture represents everything he ever was, a man of his people and a protector of his people.
    Any demons he ever had were placed there by the treacherous deceivers, misfits and touts who got where they were then and today on the back of everything Brendan and other IRA volunteers sacrificed.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nuala,

    while many will appreciate the effort there is not really a need to make so compelling an argument against such a weak case. Nevertheless, it cetainly brings clarity to the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AM,He was not trying to con anybody..Hes sitting hee heeing with an ruc commander.In my book thats a con.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mackers,
    If the truth is a compelling argument then so be it.
    It was the naming of the names comment that really got to me.
    Sinn Fein can credit themselves with having quite a few amongst their ranks who not only named names but sold their souls for lesser sentences and only salvaged themselves on the protest.
    Adams himself named names so yes I think it's worth being compelling and it certainly didn't require too much effort.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Billy,

    you might but right but it is not how I see it.

    Nuala,

    fair play.

    Adams named a Real IRA leader to Johann Hari during an interview. Hari referred to it but refused to publish the name.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mackers.
    He named two Clonard Volunteers as being the main men behind the early bombing campaign. He retracted his statement the next morning but not before a Priest seen it as he was claiming duress he said one branch man threatened him with a hammer.
    Both of the men he named died in a premature explosion the following week.
    No Mackers fair play to you for being so tactful. I was a bit over zealous and I hope it does not take away from the point I was trying to make.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Billy a cara I agree with you as a matter of fact I go as far as saying that everyone of them is a fucking conman/woman, and those carpetbaggers that infest quisling $inn £eind made vichy France look revolutionary.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nuala,

    I attended the funerals of those volunteers. Mitched school to do it. Was unaware of him having named volunteers to the Brits. I didn't think you were overzealous, just mastering something with solid reason but sort of overlooked that what was never reasoned in will never be reasoned out. The rest of us certainly benefitted from it but the intended recipeint will see it pass over his mind rather than through it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The smear campaign of innuendos etc adopted by opponents of the decision made by 'The Dark', AM, Dolours Price (RIP) et al to their invovlement in the Boston project were both repugnant & despicable on every level let alone Republican. Is this what debate within Republicanism Hass boiled down to???

    After 'The Dark's death the bearded one was insinuating that personal issues in his life were manipulated by others for their own ends. Yet he made no mention that the 'unthinkable' U turns made by the leadership he dedicated his life too may have contributed to that. Furthermore, the bearded one should be the last to speak of manipulation especially when he refuses to confirm that he was one of the alleged leaders of the movement. What message does that send to the rank & file let alone those who gave the ultimate sacrifice???

    Everytime I read any tributes or articles pertaining to 'The Dark' the famous quote by Castro comes to mind.
    "I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action.'

    When you chart his life's in the movement and read his commentary then you realise that he had the depth of faith & plan of action Castro spoke off.

    He stood by his principles and refused to get with the 'pogrom' and move on with re-inforcing partition....

    ReplyDelete
  16. Marty,

    we have been down this path before over the same person.

    I think it has been a weakness of my writing over the years that I have not been as robust in critiquing former blanket men as I might otherwise have been were they not part of the protest. It was an issue I was going to address in response to Belfastgit when he was citing something about Pat Sheehan. One of my many foibles.

    It has been pointed out to me, or less frequently, I have noticed it myself, that I have held back somewhat when it comes to Bik McFarlane, Laurny McKeown, Raymond McCartney, Padraic Wilson among others. To the extent that this holds good, I am still of the opinion that essentially Laurny did little that I would fault him for here. It does not annoy me in the slightest that he might want to cooperate with an ex cop on a writing project. The writer in me would love to see what comes out of it. I value intellectual promiscuity.

    ReplyDelete
  17. An piece written by John Coulter after Brendan's death.

    Even in death - has found himself in the centre of a debate again.

    http://indiamond6.ulib.iupui.edu:81/JCDARK.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. Maitui,

    You remind me of the old Native American adage:

    "Beware he who speaks with forked tongue."

    This saying can equally be applied to those within our partitioned political establishment to whom lying comes easily and truths can be so blithely twisted into untruths without concern or conscience...

    ReplyDelete
  19. AM
    I am intrigued now, which one of my musings about Sheehan are you talking about? I think (I can stand corrected) that I mentioned Sheehan on here twice. The last one was about him describing the Great One as a man of integrity, before that, I was commenting about people saying (not just about Sheehan) that he/she were great people in their time, to which my response was; I don't give a fuck what they've done, they are traitors now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Belfastgit,

    it was about integrity in the Invisible Dead piece. You had mentioned him and I was going to comment about me not being robust enough but ended up doing it in response to Marty here.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I find it odd that Brendan Hughes, Delours Price and the other republicans who participated in the Boston College (BC) Belfast Project are being labelled "touts" when hundreds of republican veterans of the Easter Rising and the War of Independence did exactly the same thing when they gave testimonies to the Bureau of Military History (BMH) in the 1940s and 1950s. Like the BC testimonies, the BMH archive was not made public until 2003 when all known veterans of the conflict had died.

    Are those volunteers touts as well? I did not think Sinn FĂ©iners could sink any lower, but it shocks me how they can casually slander a man of such obvious integrity.

    Shame on them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dr. Mark
    Maybe the sheep that now follow SF somnambulated into their "peace process", but Adams and McGuinness and the clique around them most certainly did not sleep walk into anything. They knew exactly what way it was going to end up, and going by Dixie's post, it seems it was going back far longer than I (or anyone thought). Maybe Fr. Reid baptised Adams, and his first words were; peeeeeeeeeaacccceeee prooooooooceeeeeeeessssssssss!

    ReplyDelete
  23. nuala just love her input, ask albert could I take ye out for a tipple,was a pleasure to have known such a warrior and an honest man had a great o/c of the same calibre of Brendan who got shafted also..

    ReplyDelete
  24. AM
    No problem, I had a fair idea that it was the "integrity" comment that you were talking about.

    Alfie
    Spot on cara! Was Tom Barry, Dan Breen, Ernie O'Malley et al (who wrote and published books while they were still alive) touts? NO! I, personally, am not shocked at anything SF have done or said this good while back (there's nothing now that would make me sit up and say: did he/she actually do/say that). As you said, shame on them, problem is, they haven't got any!

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm getting confused here, is Brendan being accused of being a tout because he contributed to the Boston college oral history project or is this something else?

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Paddy,

    as you know it is not about them believing the Dark is a tout but about them trying to intimidate anybody who does not buy the bollix.

    Organised Rage,

    it is about his contribution to BC. Their usual smear and intimidation which just gets them treated with even more contempt than they are used to.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mickey,

    at best you continuously provide levity you always seem to defy the natural force of gravity as you float around in your own orbital musings.
    On the same trajectory of those you serve all well and all bad things eventually come to an end.
    The wayward asteroid of Sinn Fein enjoys its unhindered flight but over the years large chunks of truth have fallen off its tail end.

    It’s unavoidable Mickey your party fear the one thing that eventually it will collide with, truth.
    Maligning those that have spoken the truth as they lived and breathed it only serves to highlight the desperation and fear of those who hide behind the myths and lies.
    I wonder is it the pay packet that keeps your jaw so well oiled parroting the same lines over and over as you never say anything that remotely hinges on conviction.

    It is always a laugh speak not about the holy party in a dark light but do as the party order and pass on any information to the peelers.
    When not so long ago it was, pass on any information about the peelers, how lofty it must feel to be righteously brimming with hypocrisy.

    It’s a sorry sight to remember the leader imposing his presence shouldering the coffin of his former friend and comrade almost as if he was in a rush to see for himself the man laid to rest.
    He could bury the man but he isn’t fairing so well with burying the truth.
    I doubt there was any genuine emotion in his mind as he buried his former friend you can almost hear his seething anger why did this man not die on hunger strike.

    How apt the title Voices From the Grave, not tales from the grave Mickey, just truth as remembered by those who lived it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gerry Adams called Brendan Hughes a liar.. Hmmmmmmmmmm

    Didn't Gerry lie about being in prison at the time of Jean McConvilles murder then lied about singing songs that weren't even penned...lied about his brother...

    And lies day in and day out about being in the PIRA.. Yet he wrote a comm while in the cages and it went something like this...... Provo's: The IRA & Sinn Fein episode 2...10mins 20seconds into the show..

    "I am an IRA Volunteer, the course I take involves the use of physical force but only if I achieve the situation where my people can genuinely prosper.."

    Gerry tell the truth (on a wall in Beechmount (stand to be corrected)..

    ReplyDelete
  30. I've been reliably informed that the person shouting the loudest about the dark being a tout was once caught with laundered diesel in his taxi and he told Customs where he got it in The Westwood Center...

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sparky Heels,
    I suppose the law of averages will dictate that someone, somewhere will like something you say.
    As for the tipple Albert would consider it a saving.

    ReplyDelete
  32. We will never know what SF have been saying to the british ,How many names have been passed on by them , to many docs being censored to the max.

    Those who are doing all the "Tout" shouting against Brendan are the ones who done all the singing and name mentioning when they were lifted. Those who new Brendan the most will know that he was never a tout, could never be a tout. Just let those touts who are shooting there mouth off they will end up with there own feet in there mouth.

    Time will tell , biggest touts were the Nutting Squad, and , Adams himself of course , we could all mention names, and , if we did, ex provies would be ripping hairs out of each other, yet they walk about thinking they are safe. Beggars belief.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Frankie
    When it came to the "Brownie" column in AP/RN he got his "whipping boy" Richard McAuley to say that it was him (McAuley) that wrote it because it said that he was proud to be an IRA volunteer! Honestly, you couldn't make this shite up! If anyone submitted this to a comedy writers team they would dismiss it as being too fantastical! Unfortunately, you and I (and everyone else) have to live with it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ belfastgit...

    Unfortunately, you and I (and everyone else) have to live with it.

    I stopped living it in 1989 (just before my 21st Birthday). I packed a bag and grabbed a plane ticket out of Belfast. I refused to be told where and where not I can go, drink, talk to etc.

    I wasn't forced out or told to leave. And as far as I am aware I never came into the PIRA's radar.. Basically I got pissed off turning on the news and hearing about another shooting, bombing etc.. I said to myself, "fcuk this for a game of soliders, there has to more to this rock I live on than the carnage around me" and I ended up in France. One day I stumbled on to The Blanket and started learning about Irish republicanism...

    ReplyDelete
  35. In the shadow of a gunman..........

    From The Blanket

    Brendan Hughes • 7/6/2002

    How do you kill a child? For some people it seems quite easy - look at the Middle East today. There were times when I had the chance. I remember standing outside a shop in Leeson Street. A young British soldier was at the corner crying for his ''mummy''. I stood over him with a .45 aimed at his head. I could easily have physically pulled the trigger and sent him off to eternity. But morally and emotionally I was not able to end his life. He was a mere child, so frightened, out of his own country facing what his politicians and commanding officers told him were the ''mad Irish''. I could not shoot him. In a gun battle, at a distance, beyond the sound of his cries, where he had a soldier's chance I could have. But at that point the thing I felt it was my duty to kill - the soldier - had died within him. Now stood only a child whimpering in front of me.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Aye Frankie.an x republican and a war criminal.oh and a UDR man for good measure just to rub your nose in it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. thanks to internet you can see that martin and gerry are compulsive liars, going way back, it is actually frightening that they are still at the top. look at o bradaigh in 1986 ard fheis and then check out martin at same. that was the night the doublespeakers took over the movement. methinks if the five demands were met before bobby's death he'd be looking out his window now from a lonely flat in Divis wondering what the hell has happened his former comrades. Gerry would probably brand him a liar too. so sad republican movement is one big lie now lead by people george orwell would find a bit too farfetched for a work of fiction.

    ReplyDelete