Broadly speaking, the information which I now have, I am absolutely satisfied with, is that in blunt terms that Richard O’Rawe, on the key issue between himself and Danny Morrison and the others, that Richard O’Rawe was right and that those who were arguing against him were wrong … I can confirm that it happened, that the prisoners’ acceptance of the deal was over-ruled by the outside leadership …  I have also spoken to the ‘Mountain Climber’; … of course, he didn’t know what was going on inside the prison, but the things that he did know and which he’s told me, confirm Richard O’Rawe’s account – Eamonn McCann (see also: Eamon McCann – “Richard isn’t a liar. He told the truth in his book.” (2008))

Danny Morrison helping the hunger strikers
A few days ago I wrote to a friend in Maghaberry who had been on the blanket protest in the H Blocks. I mentioned to him that TPQ had just received a thoughtful piece which again asked questions of the management of the 1981 hunger strike, particularly in respect of the decision making processes that preceded the deaths of the last six men. That the piece ended up drawing a large number of readers is an indication of interest in the issues it addressed.

I expressed the view to my friend that the most galling thing about the hunger strike was not that the Brits had been so intransigent, horrible in itself, but that the dying men had been shafted by the deception of the IRA’s committee for managing the hunger strike and which had both usurped and subverted the role of the army council.

One of the people at the heart of this appalling deception, Danny Morrison, continues vainly to protest that he took no offer from the British into the prison on 5 July 1981: it is all lies made up by Richard O’Rawe to discredit him. Unfortunately for the Wrong Man he had already told BBC Talk Back in 2005 that he had explained to the hunger strikers on the day of his visit to the prison hospital ‘what was on offer’ and that ‘the offer that we were being offered through the Mountain Climber was a bigger and better offer than what the ICJP thought they had.’

Even more unfortunate for Morrison, Brendan Duddy, the 1981 go-between known as the Mountain Climber, publicly rubbished his dissembling to his face in front of an audience and on camera. The recording shows Duddy loudly pointing out to a mute Morrison that he was the person who had directly passed to Morrison the offer from the British and which was Morrison was to take into the prison on the 5th of July 1981. The only reason that Morrison was permitted into the prison was to convey the offer.

Barney Rowan interviews Brendan Duddy: Part 9. Source Youtube (see also: Rowan, Duddy, Morrison, 2012)
When Rowan asked him did he ‘scribble’ the offer, Duddy replied that he wrote it very carefully.

Earlier Rowan had said to Duddy..‘I think your sort of test which is to get someone into the prison on the Sunday?’

Duddy took a drink of water and pointed to Danny Morrison in the audience and replied…‘Him!’
Duddy: “Danny Morrison went in..”
Rowan: “You outlined the offer?… to the Republican leadership?”
Duddy: “The Republican leadership had the detail of the offer, there’s no argument about that …”
Rowan: “You gave it to Martin McGuinness…”
Duddy: “That doesn’t matter, I’m telling you that the Republican leadership had the detail of that offer and at that particular point, that offer was available to go into the prison…”


In denying the Duddy charge -- which he failed to do when Duddy made it –- that he took in an offer, Morrison might as well claim that he was just out for a Sunday stroll and popped in to the prison to share some lunch with the hunger strikers. Jim Gibney would faithfully reprint it in his Weekly Fool column but ...
"So how could I have gone in with an offer when they hadn't formulated it?" - Danny Morrison, 2014
Had RTE's Aine Lawlor been more au fait with the type of detail that Morrison so fears she could have challenged him when he lied to her that he took no offer into the prison.

"We needed to know if the Mountain Climber was acting with authority and were assured that he was. As a test of this it was requested that within hours I, who had been banned from the jail since Christmas, be allowed visit the hunger strikers in the prison hospital, acquaint them with the details of Mountain Climber’s offer, meet with Bik McFarlane and have access to an outside telephone. It was a Sunday when there were no visits." - Danny Morrison, 2005

"In July 1981 the British government had various public and private positions. Privately it outlined two different offers, one to the ICJP and another to the republican leadership. I was one of those who described to the hunger strikers, including Joe McDonnell, on July 5 what the British were saying to us. The prisoners told me they wanted the offer clarified and verified in person through a senior British representative." - Danny Morrison, 2006

5 July: After exchanges, Mountain Climber’s offer (concessions in relation to aspects of the five demands) goes further than ICJP’s understanding of government position. Sinn Fein’s Danny Morrison secretly visits hunger strikers. Separately, he meets prison OC Brendan McFarlane, explains what Mountain Climber is offering should hunger strike be terminated. McFarlane meets hunger strikers. - Danny Morrison, 2006; Timeline published in 2006 and 2009 (see also: Morrison: Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises (2005)

"It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the Hunger Strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands." - Danny Morrison, 2009

Duddy’s description of the British offer that he transmitted to Morrison is entirely consistent with Richard O’Rawe’s account of the offer received. O’Rawe for doing nothing other than sharing his recollection of the time was vilified and smeared by Morrison et al. Earlier this year Morrison in a foolhardy move took his case to the letters page of the Irish Times. If you want to go to a paper of record with your account then it better stand up to scrutiny. Morrison’s failed to. If anybody was duped it was short lived. O’Rawe swiftly responded, citing Duddy, and deftly took Morrison out of the game.

Given the problems the video recording has caused his mendacious narrative Morrison has taken to menacing the people who made it. One of them commented on this blog that ‘he's put an awful lot of pressure on my wife over that filmed tape.’ This echoes the sort of pressure Morrison brought to bear on Colm Scullion, Richard O’Rawe’s cell mate on the day that Morrison arrived in the jail with the offer.

What now for Morrison? Given that the people behind the camera are not going to be intimidated, he is likely to wait until Brendan Duddy dies before revealing to the world that he cornered Duddy after the meeting and that Duddy agreed there was no offer, he was confused, got his dates wrong; that the people with the camera cut that exchange out because they were elements opposed to the peace process and merely sought to make him look bad, yada yada yada.

Go on, Danny, tell us another. We can just visualise the multitudes not turning up to believe it.


Death By Deception

Broadly speaking, the information which I now have, I am absolutely satisfied with, is that in blunt terms that Richard O’Rawe, on the key issue between himself and Danny Morrison and the others, that Richard O’Rawe was right and that those who were arguing against him were wrong … I can confirm that it happened, that the prisoners’ acceptance of the deal was over-ruled by the outside leadership …  I have also spoken to the ‘Mountain Climber’; … of course, he didn’t know what was going on inside the prison, but the things that he did know and which he’s told me, confirm Richard O’Rawe’s account – Eamonn McCann (see also: Eamon McCann – “Richard isn’t a liar. He told the truth in his book.” (2008))

Danny Morrison helping the hunger strikers
A few days ago I wrote to a friend in Maghaberry who had been on the blanket protest in the H Blocks. I mentioned to him that TPQ had just received a thoughtful piece which again asked questions of the management of the 1981 hunger strike, particularly in respect of the decision making processes that preceded the deaths of the last six men. That the piece ended up drawing a large number of readers is an indication of interest in the issues it addressed.

I expressed the view to my friend that the most galling thing about the hunger strike was not that the Brits had been so intransigent, horrible in itself, but that the dying men had been shafted by the deception of the IRA’s committee for managing the hunger strike and which had both usurped and subverted the role of the army council.

One of the people at the heart of this appalling deception, Danny Morrison, continues vainly to protest that he took no offer from the British into the prison on 5 July 1981: it is all lies made up by Richard O’Rawe to discredit him. Unfortunately for the Wrong Man he had already told BBC Talk Back in 2005 that he had explained to the hunger strikers on the day of his visit to the prison hospital ‘what was on offer’ and that ‘the offer that we were being offered through the Mountain Climber was a bigger and better offer than what the ICJP thought they had.’

Even more unfortunate for Morrison, Brendan Duddy, the 1981 go-between known as the Mountain Climber, publicly rubbished his dissembling to his face in front of an audience and on camera. The recording shows Duddy loudly pointing out to a mute Morrison that he was the person who had directly passed to Morrison the offer from the British and which was Morrison was to take into the prison on the 5th of July 1981. The only reason that Morrison was permitted into the prison was to convey the offer.

Barney Rowan interviews Brendan Duddy: Part 9. Source Youtube (see also: Rowan, Duddy, Morrison, 2012)
When Rowan asked him did he ‘scribble’ the offer, Duddy replied that he wrote it very carefully.

Earlier Rowan had said to Duddy..‘I think your sort of test which is to get someone into the prison on the Sunday?’

Duddy took a drink of water and pointed to Danny Morrison in the audience and replied…‘Him!’
Duddy: “Danny Morrison went in..”
Rowan: “You outlined the offer?… to the Republican leadership?”
Duddy: “The Republican leadership had the detail of the offer, there’s no argument about that …”
Rowan: “You gave it to Martin McGuinness…”
Duddy: “That doesn’t matter, I’m telling you that the Republican leadership had the detail of that offer and at that particular point, that offer was available to go into the prison…”


In denying the Duddy charge -- which he failed to do when Duddy made it –- that he took in an offer, Morrison might as well claim that he was just out for a Sunday stroll and popped in to the prison to share some lunch with the hunger strikers. Jim Gibney would faithfully reprint it in his Weekly Fool column but ...
"So how could I have gone in with an offer when they hadn't formulated it?" - Danny Morrison, 2014
Had RTE's Aine Lawlor been more au fait with the type of detail that Morrison so fears she could have challenged him when he lied to her that he took no offer into the prison.

"We needed to know if the Mountain Climber was acting with authority and were assured that he was. As a test of this it was requested that within hours I, who had been banned from the jail since Christmas, be allowed visit the hunger strikers in the prison hospital, acquaint them with the details of Mountain Climber’s offer, meet with Bik McFarlane and have access to an outside telephone. It was a Sunday when there were no visits." - Danny Morrison, 2005

"In July 1981 the British government had various public and private positions. Privately it outlined two different offers, one to the ICJP and another to the republican leadership. I was one of those who described to the hunger strikers, including Joe McDonnell, on July 5 what the British were saying to us. The prisoners told me they wanted the offer clarified and verified in person through a senior British representative." - Danny Morrison, 2006

5 July: After exchanges, Mountain Climber’s offer (concessions in relation to aspects of the five demands) goes further than ICJP’s understanding of government position. Sinn Fein’s Danny Morrison secretly visits hunger strikers. Separately, he meets prison OC Brendan McFarlane, explains what Mountain Climber is offering should hunger strike be terminated. McFarlane meets hunger strikers. - Danny Morrison, 2006; Timeline published in 2006 and 2009 (see also: Morrison: Hunger strikers wanted more than vague promises (2005)

"It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the Hunger Strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands." - Danny Morrison, 2009

Duddy’s description of the British offer that he transmitted to Morrison is entirely consistent with Richard O’Rawe’s account of the offer received. O’Rawe for doing nothing other than sharing his recollection of the time was vilified and smeared by Morrison et al. Earlier this year Morrison in a foolhardy move took his case to the letters page of the Irish Times. If you want to go to a paper of record with your account then it better stand up to scrutiny. Morrison’s failed to. If anybody was duped it was short lived. O’Rawe swiftly responded, citing Duddy, and deftly took Morrison out of the game.

Given the problems the video recording has caused his mendacious narrative Morrison has taken to menacing the people who made it. One of them commented on this blog that ‘he's put an awful lot of pressure on my wife over that filmed tape.’ This echoes the sort of pressure Morrison brought to bear on Colm Scullion, Richard O’Rawe’s cell mate on the day that Morrison arrived in the jail with the offer.

What now for Morrison? Given that the people behind the camera are not going to be intimidated, he is likely to wait until Brendan Duddy dies before revealing to the world that he cornered Duddy after the meeting and that Duddy agreed there was no offer, he was confused, got his dates wrong; that the people with the camera cut that exchange out because they were elements opposed to the peace process and merely sought to make him look bad, yada yada yada.

Go on, Danny, tell us another. We can just visualise the multitudes not turning up to believe it.


38 comments:

  1. It was an own goal. As I said in your transcribers post, Danny was a big noise in feile when this event took place, and I am willing to bet it was done as damage limitation after the Gasyard debate.

    When we filmed that I was very sceptical of O'Rawes account, not now though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Something that seems quite bizarre is that most people, when caught in a lie, tend to wriggle, squirm, and go off to super human lengths to deflect by changing the subject. But Danny Morrison, he keeps banging out the same old story, sorry, i mean stories, continually courting the limelight, even though he must know he has been caught out spouting his nonsense, total bubkes, over and over. I don't understand it. Somewhere else on here, i'm quite sure it was Tain Bo, said something like the Sinn Feinn people will believe anything he says but one day the truth will come out. Surely the truth is out already? And do the Sinn Feinn people really still believe him? Surely they know already? But never mind them for a moment, Danny Morrison must know, but he just doesn't stop, does he. Surely the human thing to do would be to say they were mistaken. Everyone must know that what they did to the hunger strikers was very calculated, very deliberate, but surely if he'd said, "We made a big mistake and we're very sorry" over the years they could have salvaged far more than they have by lying?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sarah,

    it is easier to side with the SF version and that is not necessarily out of belief but the long ingrained line of thought whatever the provos say is gospel. In a sense it boils down to believing the SF party line based in loyalty which does not mean people believe Morrison but side with the party suppressing the truth as any challenge to the old guard narratives is ridiculed as disenchanted republicans with an axe to grind against Sinn Fein’s new persona as peace-makers.

    Richard O’Rawe had nothing to gain with his narrative and could just as easily remained silent and remained within the safety net of SF. It takes a great deal of courage to challenge the SF/RM line and on this issue the SF version leaves more questions than answers. Repeating the same old stories would suffice but the factual timeline contradicts the SF version.

    Personally I would prefer to believe there was no duplicity from the leadership but the SF version is riddled. I never understood why they decided back then to shift the focus away from the hunger strike when they put Owen Carron up for election and not another prisoner or hunger-striker. Years later that became crystal clear the SF political agenda was already at work regardless of who was sacrificed.

    I have heard that before they should just accept they made a great mistake a costly one people would be more accepting if they did SF are content to remain the duplicity party it would be easier to believe mistakes were made on all sides of the handling of the hunger strike.

    All the best

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I never understood why they (SF) decided back then to shift the focus away from the hunger strike when they put Owen Carron up for election and not another prisoner or hunger-striker."


    'Tain Bo' check out The Representation of the People Act 1981.

    It provides for the disqualification from membership of the House of Commons of any person who is detained anywhere in the British Islands or the Republic of Ireland (or who is unlawfully at large at any time when he would otherwise be detained) for more than a year for any offence.

    This Act was passed following the election to the Westminster Parliament of Bobby Sands.
    As a result of the Act, following his death, other prisoners on hunger strike were unable to stand in the second 1981 by-election in Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. During the time between Morrison meeting Duddy and being given the 'offer' and Morrison going in to the prison who did he meet or talk too? He didn't make the decision not to convey the offer on his own, now did he? Why is all the focus on Morrison alone? We all know the truth about Morrison thanks to Duddy and O'Rawe but what about the other bastards?
    This is what happens when one colloquial area takes control...infiltration and betrayal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Niall,

    55 Hours explains the detail of it. It is on the quill.

    The focus is on Morrison because the pass he chose to defend was the weakest and therefore it made sense to probe it and destroy it. Had it not been for the weakness of his argument the Committee could conceivably have made it through with its version of events. And of course you are right, there was more than just him involved.

    I suppose in some ways it goes back to a conversation I had in the BBC green room around the time Richard O'Rawe's book came out. It was said to me there that while there were no grounds as of then for accepting what O'Rawe had said what gave his account the edge was Morrison's version sounded so unworthy of belief.

    If Morrison comes to the crease to bat for the lie then it is him who will be bowled out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Tain Bo, that's helpful.

    On another matter - were you able to obtain a copy of Lenni Brenner's 51 Documents? If so, i'd be very interested in hearing what you make of it all.

    Perhaps you or Anthony could write a post about it? Like many others i believe the I/P issue is the moral issue of our time. Forming a deeper understanding of how the zionist machine operates by looking at it's history might help sway those who feel an affinity for "plucky little Israel" into adopting a more balanced view.

    Just a thought.

    All the best to you, too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Henry JoY, indeed and the law banning any prisoner from standing for parliament is known colloquially in legal circles as the "Sands Act".

    The UK government obviously saw the potential threat the prisoner issue posed to their so-called democracy that they had to change the rules completely.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Henry JoY,

    even with the changing of the law standing Owen Carron made no sense at all then, a better choice would have been someone from the H Block/Armagh committee or if possible a relative of a hunger striker. The election of Carron on the sympathy vote done nothing for the POWs apart from shift the focus away from the Blocks away from the prisoners setting the wheels turning in the minds of SF and electioneering instead of the dying prisoners which should have been priority the only people who benefitted from Carron’s election were SF.

    Keep in mind Henry the prisoners stood their ground defying British law the hunger strikes the last resort of defiant protest their faith may have been misplaced in a leadership that were literally sleeping at the eleventh hour.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sarah,

    I have the book and will bump it up the queue after I finish reading a book on Wilfred Owen which ties in with British controlled Palestine. I will read it a few times and try and take a stab at writing something about it. I say a couple of times as I have flicked through it the trick being trying to put it to words.

    All the best

    ReplyDelete
  11. Owen Carron was the obvious choice at the time, someone with a high profile tied to the prison protest. His high profile was necessary to overcome the strong unionist presence in Fermanagh and his role as Bobby's election agent made him relevant.

    As for "standing Owen Carron made no sense at all then" I am not one for judging decisions based on 30 year old hindsight or changes in circumstances that no-one could possibly have foreseen.

    History is what it is. There's no guessing the alternative. Anything different could have happened but didn't.

    People should be held accountable and/or praised for their roles in history depending on their contribution but speculating on a different past would necessitate a different present and who knows where we'd be then.

    No-one could have guessed the state of Sinn Fein in 2014 or even in 1994 with all it's intricacies or even had a basic premise from the lens of 1981.

    Alternative history theories with their "what if such and such happened?" are useless to determine alternative presents and likewise when speculating on motive. I suppose speculation is most helpful when influencing present-day decisions.

    I would hazard a guess that the decision on who would stand was based on who would be the most likely candidate to win particularly given the previous narrow majority and the need to keep up a momentum of sorts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tain Bo, I'm so pleased that you have the book.

    I'm probably missing something obvious here but i don't know how or where Wilfred Owen ties in with British controlled Palestine? Owen died in the trenches on 4 Nov 1918 (i'm not being cute here - i only remember the date because 4 nov is my birthday!) but the Balfour Declaration was made in Nov 1917, only one year prior to Wilfrid Owen's death. I can't see the connection. Would you enlighten me please!

    When it comes to WW1 poets, in my opinion Isaac Rosenberg has been unfairly overlooked. His work stands up robustly against Sassoon's, Rupert Brooke's, and other famous poets of that time. As well as being a gifted poet he was also an incredibly talented artist.

    About 15 yrs ago my very dear friend, Deborah Maccoby, wrote a book about Isaac Rosenberg - his life, art, and his 'poetry from the trenches'. If you have an interest in WW1 poets I strongly suggest having a look at Deborah's book - "God Made Blind - Isaac Rosenberg, His Life and Poetry." You can buy it on Amazon. I'm not trying to promote Deborah (ok, maybe just a little!) but her book is truly brilliant. In my opinion anyway.

    I'm very much looking forward to reading your thoughts on 51 Documents.

    Best wishes
    Sarah.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sarah,

    I too have the 51 Documents on Kindle. I hope to get around to it after I read Max Blumenthal. So much to get through. And then no matter about the state of the world I have an addiction to Scandinavian crime fiction and need my fix!

    ReplyDelete
  14. AM,

    Are you aware of the new Norwegian film called "In Order of Disappearance"? It might be up your street.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anthony, i confess to a disturbingly bizarre fixation on Kurt Wallander. Possibly wouldn't be quite so peculiar if he was actually a real person!!!

    I look forward to you telling your thoughts re 51 Documents.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sarah,

    we have all the Wallander books but having watched the series in both English and Swedish I have not yet got around to reading them. Just finished a Karin Fossum one a few days ago. A very good writer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Simon,

    haven't saw it but it will be listed as 'one to watch'

    ReplyDelete
  18. Simon,

    my friends and I argued the toss back then on the issue it was understandable running Vol. B. Sands after he died electioneering seemed pointless as the emphasis was on political point scoring on the backs of the hunger strikers.

    The problem we had there was plenty of time for elections but little time for resolving the hunger strike a meaningless vote was not going to save dying men.

    I didn’t cheer or have a victory pint when Carron was elected it might as well have been in Timbuktu I was not attempting to alter history or rob Carron of his role it was just my opinion then and it hasn’t changed

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sarah,

    I am sorry I was in a rush writing my last comment you didn’t miss anything obvious I should have said WW1 and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire divvying up the lands redrawing the map and expanding Empires.

    I am fascinated with war poets (all sides) and in general anything artistic that comes out of war. I agree Rosenberg should have his rightful place amongst the more notable artists though I think anti-Semitism might be a factor in that or at least was at the time?

    My absolute favourite “Break of Day in the Trenches" has to be one of the most powerful pieces that came out of the trenches. The Quill is handy that way getting a book recommendation I haven’t been steered wrong over the years here.

    I will definitely pick up a copy of your friends book!

    As for 51 Documents I might have jumped the gun on that one as by far Anthony would do it more justice though I will still make an effort at writing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tain Bo, I interpreted your original post as questioning the person standing for election or at least querying why he was chosen. I didn't know you were against elections in themselves at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Simon,

    I viewed elections then as propping up the State the SDLP bore the brunt of the RM ridicule for participating in elections yet little has changed the State is still being propped up and SF now make the SDLP look like hard-line republicans I maintain a healthy skepticism on political peace.

    Best of luck

    ReplyDelete
  22. Simon,

    I viewed elections then as propping up the State the SDLP bore the brunt of the RM ridicule for participating in elections yet little has changed the State is still being propped up and SF now make the SDLP look like hard-line republicans I maintain a healthy skepticism on political peace.


    Best of luck

    ReplyDelete
  23. Henry,

    thanks, that is one thing about the posters here nothing sneaks past. I remembered that a few hours after posting the comment and didn’t want to bother Anthony about pulling the comment.
    I will need to remember the sharp eyes and minds here and get back to making notes before commenting.

    ReplyDelete

  24. Anthony,

    any word on itsjustmacker?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 6:16 PM, September 03, 2014 Tain Bo said "I never understood why they (SF) decided back then to shift the focus away from the hunger strike when they put Owen Carron up for election and not another prisoner or hunger-striker."

    9:23 PM, September 06, 2014 Tain Bo said "after he (Sands) died electioneering seemed pointless as the emphasis was on political point scoring on the backs of the hunger strikers."

    You're twisting it TB and attempting to right your original faux pas and ignorance around the 'Sands Act'.
    True to usual form you don't take challenges or corrections too well!

    So what did you and your boozing pals think was more appropriate than electioneering given that prisoners couldn't run? ... banging bins lids!

    You're waffling TB, retrospectively trying to justify the history you would prefer rather than reading it in the context of it's time. As Simon has said Carron was the logical and best chance for securing Bobby's seat ... as Bobby's election agent Owen's candidature and victory maintained world wide public attention on the over-all struggle ... kept international notice on the prisoners, their struggles, their sacrifices and their on-going contributions to the revolutionary campaign.

    Remember the policy of the movement at the time was abstentionism from partitionist and external assemblies. The nominal leadership of O'Bradaigh and O'Connell with the support of a majority of volunteers and followers acted in good faith and in pursuance of objectives consistent with those of the prisoners.
    Republicans of the time had no problem with electioneering as a strategy.
    The broad republican family (save Táin Bó and his drinking cronies) had no idea that a Belfast cabal were already hatching a scheme to make it (electioneering) the destination.

    Go pour yourself another one!

    ReplyDelete
  26. You're waffling TB, retrospectively trying to justify the history you would prefer rather than reading it in the context of it's time

    I'll let TB speak for himself henry but reading your thoughts on the Belfast Project you have done what you are accusing TB of doing 'retrospectively trying to justify the history you would prefer'....

    The brief exchange between Niall & Anthony say's a lot...and not enough at the same time..

    Niall: "He didn't make the decision not to convey the offer on his own, now did he? Why is all the focus on Morrison alone?"

    AM : "The focus is on Morrison because the pass he chose to defend was the weakest and therefore it made sense to probe it and destroy it. Had it not been for the weakness of his argument the Committee could conceivably have made it through with its version of events. And of course you are right, there was more than just him involved."

    As far as I understand events Danny Morrison went in to the H Blocks in July 1981 with an offer that would have saved six mens lives inside prison and scores outside but certain nameless people within the leadership of the PRM pulled the rug under the prisoners feet..

    To me it doesn't matter who got elected after Bobby Sands died. The point was made by his (Bobby Sands) election that the reasons for being in jail were not criminal but political.

    In the Marian Finucane Show hosted by Aine Lawlor Morrison said.....

    DM: "Well, I had political status. Ten men had lost their lives in that gaol for political status and after the hunger strike more than their five demands were conceded by the prison administration. So we had quite a bit of freedom: we had access to books, radio, TV and yes – we were locked up many hours a day - but we had access to the exercise yard."

    And today there are Irish Republicans who are in prison for the same reasons and have less rights... ? To me the PRM are basically treating them at worst as second class prisoners or at best the way former INLA prisoners got treated during the prison protests. . PRM is still seen as 'big brother' at least in some circles..

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tain Bo, No worries. Everybody gets caught up in what they say now and again. I think Anthony's rule that the quill is a vehicle for writing down our thoughts and not positions (if I am right in that) is the best rule of thumb.

    It wasn't a serious discrepancy and doesn't betray anything but a change of thoughts. Positions are best left to serious consideration and are also best left off the quill and the web.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Simon,

    you are right. The rule of thumb here is that what people say in the comments section is the first draft rather than the final word. It reflects how we try to think rather than what we actually do think. Unless somebody is deliberately lying rather than practicing their ideas there is no reason to hold them to account over what they say in the comments section of a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Henry,

    Did someone piss in your cornflakes?

    Did you save that up Mr. hindsight with your attempts to rewrite BC. There was no need to bring Simon into it I already read his comment.
    You will need to put a bit more effort into it if you want to rattle my cage.

    A headline for a day in regional news and I am sure it was the leading story on every news station and media outlet around the world absolute bollix the world barely knew there was a conflict in Northern Ireland and that rubbishes the notion of international pressure.

    Carron standing as a proxy prisoner would be truthful if he had resigned after the hunger strike a few years later in 83 the sympathy vote was gone standing as a Sinn Fein candidate and bit the dust so was it electioneering or a genuine case of aiding the prisoners as he also stood for the assembly seems like the electioneers were at work during the hunger strike lapping up the sympathy votes.

    Many a mother and father banged bin lids facing off against the heavily armed Brits and peelers so shove your jibe up your arse and just because you have the luxury of the internet to copy and paste doesn’t enhance your game of pigeons and statues. Mocking the ordinary people who protested in any way they could only displays how much of a wanker you are.

    The next time I am having a few with my mates I will be sure to speak of the bold Henry JoY the man, the legend, and his faithful sidekick the internet.

    Go read up about Carron and Morrison and their magical mystery tour the Belfast Cabal called the shots during the hunger strike so you are in agreement that it was the right move but go on to swipe at the cabal make your mind up.

    ReplyDelete
  30. `Frankie,

    Tain Bo did speak for himself ... graciously acknowledging the inconsistencies in his comments.

    I stand over my comments to date on the Belfast Project. Even Ed eventually, though reluctantly, agreed with my assessment that there were oversights about seeking independent legal advice. Yourself and Tain Bo didn't seem to see that elephant in the room or were reluctant to call it out. That's ok ... It's your prerogative. I'm entitled to call it as I see it.

    The actual history of the Belfast Project is still to be told. Most of what has gone on between the parties is a ding dong of blame between the parties to the original agreement, both reluctant to own their short-comings in the design and set-up stages.

    For various reasons and maybe some valid ones the full narrative has yet to emerge. There's ironically a strong possibility that a full history of the Belfast Oral History Project will never be fully told.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Commenters are reminded that if they wish to use pen names to promote ideas, fine. If they wish to hide behind pen names for the purposes of insulting each other or smearing they will be moved over to the Bates & Wilkes section of the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ok AM, I can respect all of that and agree to engage on such terms.

    Though I do have memories of yourself on occasion, perhaps not necessarily driving the argument on, but certainly not curtailing heated exchanges with such comments as 'it's big boy rules here'.

    If there are to be guidelines and rules of engagement, let them (and the consequences) be clear and consistent.

    HJ

    ReplyDelete
  33. Those who tell fairy tales about the armed struggle need to be challenged more vigorously. On air

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/once-upon-a-time-is-no-basis-for-history-30567441.html#sthash.EC8KnBnL.uxfs

    ReplyDelete
  34. Frankie,

    on the prison issue SF have a short memory and remain content to view the prisoners as criminals or at best rogue pariah republicans.

    The days of smashing the H Blocks/Armagh are long gone and today’s prisoners are an embarrassment to the reformed SF much like their paymasters they turn a blind eye to prison issues.

    I don’t see any difference between prison issues now and back then in 76 the blanket protest kicked off the screws were determined to break that with the systems blessing hammering the prisoners.

    The system severely underestimated the prisoners resolve. It wasn’t even a great demand the prisoners wanted the right to wash without being beaten the system forced them into the no wash protest and that nightmare wasn’t being heard clearly on the outside forcing the last resort the hunger strikes.

    It doesn’t take much for issues to be resolved but given the mistreatment of republican prisoners there is a possibility of the protests of 76 though 81 repeating itself no one would have guessed that one man refusing to wear a prison uniform would set off a war behind prison walls ending in ten men dying.

    I doubt the attitude of the screws or the system has changed much they view republican prisoners as something to be broken and should have little to no rights.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Gerard,

    is there another link to that? That link takes me to a dead end.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tain Bo hope this works..

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/once-upon-a-time-is-no-basis-for-history-30567441.html

    ReplyDelete
  37. Gerard,

    ta, that worked, tugs at the heart strings that these were ordinary men and poor bangers was robbed of becoming a journalist what a lark as he pretends to have been a pacifist and mentally struggled with joining up.

    Take a chair Danny University might have been a challenge but that’s a handy excuse as most people faced the dole lines the ordinary people still face the dole and the poverty trap.

    Interesting that a long haired pacifist would betray his own belief and become a man of violence sounds like another Freudian slip the warring pacifist.

    It reads like they were talking about a friendly football match with high praise for Adams and Morrison avoiding the truth in conflict in which there was or is not much to laugh about.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Is this influence. Whenever Morrison was planted in republican news as editor he was able to influence so much in such a short space of time.The writing of leadership statements at bodenstown,the rewriting of the army's green book,the stopping of attacks on the screws even though prisoners were going through hell, influencing the hunger strikers to continue there fast influencing the armalite and ballot box strategy that's just what I know off and everyone was detrimental to armed struggle and god knows how many more he instigated throughout the 80s.Thats why they gave up scappattici they needed their grand influencer in jail to influence the prisoners to accept ceasefire because their would be no peace process without the prisoners on board.

    ReplyDelete