Brandon Sullivan discusses both a recent book and its main character. 


For students of the Troubles, November 2020 provided two excellent books: Anatomy of a Killing, by Ian Cobain, and Billy Hutchinson’s memoirs; My Life in Loyalism (written with Dr Gareth Mulvenna). This piece is about violent loyalism in general, and My Life in Loyalism in particular. 

Both books are excellent. Hutchinson’s memoirs are fascinating, and frustrating. Fascinating because of the vividness of the writing and the opportunity to look closer at a world that isn’t often looked at closely. For all of my criticisms of the content of the book, it is a vitally important history. One of the best books of the Troubles, in my opinion, is Killing Rage, the memoirs of the IRA man Eamon Collins. Collins was afforded latitude to write with honesty, having been tried and wrongly acquitted of the murders that he was involved with. Hutchinson was found guilty of murder and could have similarly written about them with candour – he didn’t. So it is frustrating because of what he says without expanding, and for what he doesn’t say. And sometimes, what he does say is offensive, evasive and self-serving.

Some Of My Thoughts On Loyalism

I am hostile to loyalism – it is important to say that I am not an objective observer. Whilst I was born on the Falls Road, I left for Scotland whilst still in primary school, and rarely thought about “home” except when news reports came on. I first encountered loyalism, and Billy Hutchinson, as an 18 year old, when he appeared on Peter Taylor’s excellent TV series “Loyalists.” I was watching with my mother as Hutchinson described how he had “no regrets” about murdering two men a matter of metres from where many of my family lived. My mother remembered the murders, and was very upset. Billy Hutchinson, in today’s parlance, radicalised me against loyalism. I could not believe the audacity of this man, attacking my community, presuming he had the right to life and death over my father, uncles, brothers and cousins, and, if I was old enough, me. In the years to come, I was to understand that near neighbours of mine visited upon Hutchinson’s community exactly the type of murderous terror he inflicted on ours.

I believe that loyalism is founded on Protestant superiority and unsustainable, grandiose, vainglorious beliefs. These beliefs required actualisation and performance: Stormont; B-Specials; a Protestant dominated RUC; Orange parades; privileged access to some jobs in some sectors; Gerrymandering; and some privilege in housing allocation all worked to give an impression of superiority. Hutchinson, accurately, talks of the lie that these impressions gave, quoting his father as saying “we might have gotten a slum quicker, but it was still a slum”. In truth, for the most part, the working class PUL community did not greatly benefit in any meaningful, economically significant way from the manner in which Northern Ireland was administered from 1922 – 1972. A mythology developed, believed by the PUL and the CNR community, that one was much better off than the other. The PUL community took comfort in their supposed privilege, and the CNR community simmered with resentment at the slights they believed were visited upon them.

I believe that these slights were, for the most part, part of the loyalist project: the performance of Protestant superiority, needed to fuel loyalist domination.

The prison psychiatrist James Gilligan famously quoted:

I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this ‘loss of face’ – no matter how severe the punishment, even if it includes death. (Anatomy Of A Killing, p29)

By 1972, the RUC had been (temporarily) disarmed, Stormont had been prorogued, and direct rule from London had begun to redress discrimination that favoured Protestants. Protestants found themselves arrested, jailed, even beaten and tortured by “their” police force, and by the British army they had been indoctrinated to revere. And whilst the Orange Order still marched, they had some of their parades banned, and on other occasions, marched through streets strewn with the rubble of republican bombs and past the wreckage of the often Protestant dominated commercial heart of towns and cities in Northern Ireland. And another march was machine-gunned by an IRA man, in a blatantly sectarian attack.

An IRA man once said that “killing an RUC officer, or a British soldier, was an attack on the delusion of colonial” superiority. Killing them removed notions of superiority and destroyed the myth of their invincibility.”

The IRA, in 1972, displayed no fear of the state, killing scores of soldiers and police officers, and no regard for loyalist paramilitaries, bombing Protestant pubs and murdering dozens of Protestant civilians in blatant sectarian attacks. In fact republicans almost seem to be daring the loyalists to come at them with their much prophesied backlash.

Loyalism had, in four short years, seen virtually every foundation that it required to function attacked, damaged, or destroyed. I believe that the most accurate way to analyse the actions of loyalist paramilitaries is not through the lens of counter-revolutionary warfare, but with an understanding of the humiliation that was experienced by a community for whom domination of The Other was a fundamental necessity. 

My Thoughts On Billy Hutchinson

Hutchinson’s habit of sticking to clichés is as saccharine and irritating as reading any booked penned by Gerry Adams. He wearily talks of “fighting the IRA” – “bringing the war to the IRA” and so on, and on, and on and on. The UVF rarely fought the IRA. Hutchinson knows this, and in fact, in an insight into 1970s loyalist paramilitary activity, details how, following the killing of Jim Hanna, Hutchinson approached the UVF brigade staff demanding to know who was responsible. Told that it was the IRA, Hutchinson said they had a list of six IRA targets and were going to “hit them … right away.” His UVF commander’s “face went white” at the suggestion. Why? Weren’t the UVF waging “war” on the IRA, as Hutchinson so frequently claimed? Why would a senior UVF officer pale at the prospect of hitting actual IRA targets. Hutchinson doesn’t say, so we are left to ponder. But it does make Hutchinson’s claims, made elsewhere in the book, about strategy, tactics and analysis seem preposterous.

Allow me to digress – I watched Hutchinson’s 1997 interview with Peter Taylor, when he says he “has no regrets” in the murder of two Catholic civilians, with my psychotherapist father-in-law. My father-in-law empathised with Hutchinson, saying that he was a man in extreme and acute pain, uttering words about himself (having no regrets) he knew not to be true. My analysis of Hutchinson is not as kind. I think he’s a coward and a hypocrite. He attempts to blacken the name of the two men he murdered, by saying that his organisation, the YCV, had “intelligence” that they were active republicans. He says he doesn’t know if the intelligence was accurate.            

Hutchinson deprived a family of two members. He did not see fit to acknowledge that they were, at best, victims of an organisation with a completely unreliable intelligence gathering system, or, more accurately, simply either shot at random, or killed for dubious reasons. One of the brothers had been shot and injured already, by a shot fired at random across the peace-line. Contemporary newspaper reports of the time note that the brothers worked at a building site in Bangor. I wonder if someone on that site objected to two Falls Road “Taigs” being about the place? A contemporaneous TV news report, by Jeremy Paxman, noted that the modus operandi of the double murder committed by Hutchinson and his friends was identical to others that took place in that area at that time. The victims were postmen, or bakery workers. Did Hutchinson’s friends have information on them, as well? Hutchinson has already said he had intelligence on IRA targets, targets that made the UVF brigade staff fearful of touching, so why were he and his men shooting labourers, bakers and postmen (none of whom received IRA funerals)? Again, he doesn’t say.

Hutchinson discusses his relationship with west Belfast Catholic Jimmy McKenna, who worked with Hutchinson and his men in targeting various men alleged to be connected to the Provos. It appears nobody within the UVF stopped to think that their campaign of harassing, torturing and murdering members of the nationalist community might dissuade more persons from that community coming to them with information on IRA targets. Nevertheless, McKenna’s story is fascinating.

Billy Hutchinson, Lenny Murphy, And Johnny Adair

Hutchinson discusses his relationship with “Shankill Butcher” Lenny Murphy, providing a glimpse into a spectral, almost mythic personality of the Troubles, and offers this summation:

Lenny [Murphy] seemed consumed by the need to be recognised. He appeared to have a steely determination to make a name for himself, and the kudos he began to receive within loyalist circles apparently wasn't enough to satisfy his burning desire to become infamous.

This insightful analysis of Murphy sprung to mind later in the book, when Hutchinson discusses Johnny Adair, a man he obviously loathes. What Hutchinson doesn’t do in his memoirs, but perhaps should consider, is why loyalism sustained, promoted, and propelled these two men, Murphy and Adair, to prominence? What is it about loyalism that attracted Murphy and Adair and, more importantly, why did loyalism do nothing to curtail the deeply anti-social activities of these men, activities that arguably devastated the Shankill in a manner that the IRA never could.

Bakers, Builders, Gardeners And Unrepentant Murderers

20 years after Hutchinson and other Shankill loyalists murdered two Falls Road working men, some other Shankill loyalists murdered another Falls Road working man, Sean Monaghan, a 20 year old landscape gardener whose Protestant partner was left to raise their twin girls alone. The loyalists who murdered Sean Monaghan, in barbaric circumstances, were part of Adair’s UFF. One of these men, David Burrows, on trial for the murder, turned to Sean Monaghan’s mother, and shouted “I shot your fucking son – four in the back of the head … I killed him, I’m proud of it.”

What, ultimately, is the difference between Burrows taunting his victim’s mother and Hutchinson saying he had no regrets about murdering two brothers?

When all is said and done, what Burrows and Hutchinson did was identical. They drove from the Shankill onto the Falls, committed murder, and did it unapologetically, and with no remorse. 

Abject And True Remorse Versus Banal Justification

Loyalists, in stark contrast to most republicans (particularly those who remain loyal to Sinn Fein), are capable of disarming honesty when they talk about their often brutal paramilitary activities and the beliefs, which some of them have since renounced, that led them to violence. The UVF’s Billy Giles gave perhaps the most affecting testimony of a combatant in the same TV series that Hutchinson said he had “no regrets” – Billy Giles’ regrets tormented him until his death by suicide. Hutchinson has said “I justify everything that I did in the Troubles, and I have to do that to stay sane.” One of the issues that I have with Hutchinson is that the justification for his murders might well have driven, and continue to drive, the families of Michael Loughran and Edward Morgan to even greater hurt and grief. Their cousin wrote a very moving piece about them in the Belfast Telegraph, that humanised them, and gave them an identity they deserve. History, at this moment in time, records them as the two completely undeserving victims of a man who would go on to become an acclaimed politician.

Despite my criticisms of what Hutchinson chose to divulge in his book, I am grateful that he told some of his story. My Life in Loyalism is essential reading for any student of the Troubles, or indeed of political violence. In some ways, it is a natural companion piece to Gareth Mulvenna’s Tartan Gangs and Paramilitaries, which is simply one of the best and most important book to about the troubles to emerge in recent years.

As ever, I hope that my writing encourages discussion and debate, and welcome criticism and commentary. 

⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys.

Further Reflections On Loyalist Paramilitary Activity

Brandon Sullivan discusses both a recent book and its main character. 


For students of the Troubles, November 2020 provided two excellent books: Anatomy of a Killing, by Ian Cobain, and Billy Hutchinson’s memoirs; My Life in Loyalism (written with Dr Gareth Mulvenna). This piece is about violent loyalism in general, and My Life in Loyalism in particular. 

Both books are excellent. Hutchinson’s memoirs are fascinating, and frustrating. Fascinating because of the vividness of the writing and the opportunity to look closer at a world that isn’t often looked at closely. For all of my criticisms of the content of the book, it is a vitally important history. One of the best books of the Troubles, in my opinion, is Killing Rage, the memoirs of the IRA man Eamon Collins. Collins was afforded latitude to write with honesty, having been tried and wrongly acquitted of the murders that he was involved with. Hutchinson was found guilty of murder and could have similarly written about them with candour – he didn’t. So it is frustrating because of what he says without expanding, and for what he doesn’t say. And sometimes, what he does say is offensive, evasive and self-serving.

Some Of My Thoughts On Loyalism

I am hostile to loyalism – it is important to say that I am not an objective observer. Whilst I was born on the Falls Road, I left for Scotland whilst still in primary school, and rarely thought about “home” except when news reports came on. I first encountered loyalism, and Billy Hutchinson, as an 18 year old, when he appeared on Peter Taylor’s excellent TV series “Loyalists.” I was watching with my mother as Hutchinson described how he had “no regrets” about murdering two men a matter of metres from where many of my family lived. My mother remembered the murders, and was very upset. Billy Hutchinson, in today’s parlance, radicalised me against loyalism. I could not believe the audacity of this man, attacking my community, presuming he had the right to life and death over my father, uncles, brothers and cousins, and, if I was old enough, me. In the years to come, I was to understand that near neighbours of mine visited upon Hutchinson’s community exactly the type of murderous terror he inflicted on ours.

I believe that loyalism is founded on Protestant superiority and unsustainable, grandiose, vainglorious beliefs. These beliefs required actualisation and performance: Stormont; B-Specials; a Protestant dominated RUC; Orange parades; privileged access to some jobs in some sectors; Gerrymandering; and some privilege in housing allocation all worked to give an impression of superiority. Hutchinson, accurately, talks of the lie that these impressions gave, quoting his father as saying “we might have gotten a slum quicker, but it was still a slum”. In truth, for the most part, the working class PUL community did not greatly benefit in any meaningful, economically significant way from the manner in which Northern Ireland was administered from 1922 – 1972. A mythology developed, believed by the PUL and the CNR community, that one was much better off than the other. The PUL community took comfort in their supposed privilege, and the CNR community simmered with resentment at the slights they believed were visited upon them.

I believe that these slights were, for the most part, part of the loyalist project: the performance of Protestant superiority, needed to fuel loyalist domination.

The prison psychiatrist James Gilligan famously quoted:

I have yet to see a serious act of violence that was not provoked by the experience of feeling shamed and humiliated, disrespected and ridiculed, and that did not represent the attempt to prevent or undo this ‘loss of face’ – no matter how severe the punishment, even if it includes death. (Anatomy Of A Killing, p29)

By 1972, the RUC had been (temporarily) disarmed, Stormont had been prorogued, and direct rule from London had begun to redress discrimination that favoured Protestants. Protestants found themselves arrested, jailed, even beaten and tortured by “their” police force, and by the British army they had been indoctrinated to revere. And whilst the Orange Order still marched, they had some of their parades banned, and on other occasions, marched through streets strewn with the rubble of republican bombs and past the wreckage of the often Protestant dominated commercial heart of towns and cities in Northern Ireland. And another march was machine-gunned by an IRA man, in a blatantly sectarian attack.

An IRA man once said that “killing an RUC officer, or a British soldier, was an attack on the delusion of colonial” superiority. Killing them removed notions of superiority and destroyed the myth of their invincibility.”

The IRA, in 1972, displayed no fear of the state, killing scores of soldiers and police officers, and no regard for loyalist paramilitaries, bombing Protestant pubs and murdering dozens of Protestant civilians in blatant sectarian attacks. In fact republicans almost seem to be daring the loyalists to come at them with their much prophesied backlash.

Loyalism had, in four short years, seen virtually every foundation that it required to function attacked, damaged, or destroyed. I believe that the most accurate way to analyse the actions of loyalist paramilitaries is not through the lens of counter-revolutionary warfare, but with an understanding of the humiliation that was experienced by a community for whom domination of The Other was a fundamental necessity. 

My Thoughts On Billy Hutchinson

Hutchinson’s habit of sticking to clichés is as saccharine and irritating as reading any booked penned by Gerry Adams. He wearily talks of “fighting the IRA” – “bringing the war to the IRA” and so on, and on, and on and on. The UVF rarely fought the IRA. Hutchinson knows this, and in fact, in an insight into 1970s loyalist paramilitary activity, details how, following the killing of Jim Hanna, Hutchinson approached the UVF brigade staff demanding to know who was responsible. Told that it was the IRA, Hutchinson said they had a list of six IRA targets and were going to “hit them … right away.” His UVF commander’s “face went white” at the suggestion. Why? Weren’t the UVF waging “war” on the IRA, as Hutchinson so frequently claimed? Why would a senior UVF officer pale at the prospect of hitting actual IRA targets. Hutchinson doesn’t say, so we are left to ponder. But it does make Hutchinson’s claims, made elsewhere in the book, about strategy, tactics and analysis seem preposterous.

Allow me to digress – I watched Hutchinson’s 1997 interview with Peter Taylor, when he says he “has no regrets” in the murder of two Catholic civilians, with my psychotherapist father-in-law. My father-in-law empathised with Hutchinson, saying that he was a man in extreme and acute pain, uttering words about himself (having no regrets) he knew not to be true. My analysis of Hutchinson is not as kind. I think he’s a coward and a hypocrite. He attempts to blacken the name of the two men he murdered, by saying that his organisation, the YCV, had “intelligence” that they were active republicans. He says he doesn’t know if the intelligence was accurate.            

Hutchinson deprived a family of two members. He did not see fit to acknowledge that they were, at best, victims of an organisation with a completely unreliable intelligence gathering system, or, more accurately, simply either shot at random, or killed for dubious reasons. One of the brothers had been shot and injured already, by a shot fired at random across the peace-line. Contemporary newspaper reports of the time note that the brothers worked at a building site in Bangor. I wonder if someone on that site objected to two Falls Road “Taigs” being about the place? A contemporaneous TV news report, by Jeremy Paxman, noted that the modus operandi of the double murder committed by Hutchinson and his friends was identical to others that took place in that area at that time. The victims were postmen, or bakery workers. Did Hutchinson’s friends have information on them, as well? Hutchinson has already said he had intelligence on IRA targets, targets that made the UVF brigade staff fearful of touching, so why were he and his men shooting labourers, bakers and postmen (none of whom received IRA funerals)? Again, he doesn’t say.

Hutchinson discusses his relationship with west Belfast Catholic Jimmy McKenna, who worked with Hutchinson and his men in targeting various men alleged to be connected to the Provos. It appears nobody within the UVF stopped to think that their campaign of harassing, torturing and murdering members of the nationalist community might dissuade more persons from that community coming to them with information on IRA targets. Nevertheless, McKenna’s story is fascinating.

Billy Hutchinson, Lenny Murphy, And Johnny Adair

Hutchinson discusses his relationship with “Shankill Butcher” Lenny Murphy, providing a glimpse into a spectral, almost mythic personality of the Troubles, and offers this summation:

Lenny [Murphy] seemed consumed by the need to be recognised. He appeared to have a steely determination to make a name for himself, and the kudos he began to receive within loyalist circles apparently wasn't enough to satisfy his burning desire to become infamous.

This insightful analysis of Murphy sprung to mind later in the book, when Hutchinson discusses Johnny Adair, a man he obviously loathes. What Hutchinson doesn’t do in his memoirs, but perhaps should consider, is why loyalism sustained, promoted, and propelled these two men, Murphy and Adair, to prominence? What is it about loyalism that attracted Murphy and Adair and, more importantly, why did loyalism do nothing to curtail the deeply anti-social activities of these men, activities that arguably devastated the Shankill in a manner that the IRA never could.

Bakers, Builders, Gardeners And Unrepentant Murderers

20 years after Hutchinson and other Shankill loyalists murdered two Falls Road working men, some other Shankill loyalists murdered another Falls Road working man, Sean Monaghan, a 20 year old landscape gardener whose Protestant partner was left to raise their twin girls alone. The loyalists who murdered Sean Monaghan, in barbaric circumstances, were part of Adair’s UFF. One of these men, David Burrows, on trial for the murder, turned to Sean Monaghan’s mother, and shouted “I shot your fucking son – four in the back of the head … I killed him, I’m proud of it.”

What, ultimately, is the difference between Burrows taunting his victim’s mother and Hutchinson saying he had no regrets about murdering two brothers?

When all is said and done, what Burrows and Hutchinson did was identical. They drove from the Shankill onto the Falls, committed murder, and did it unapologetically, and with no remorse. 

Abject And True Remorse Versus Banal Justification

Loyalists, in stark contrast to most republicans (particularly those who remain loyal to Sinn Fein), are capable of disarming honesty when they talk about their often brutal paramilitary activities and the beliefs, which some of them have since renounced, that led them to violence. The UVF’s Billy Giles gave perhaps the most affecting testimony of a combatant in the same TV series that Hutchinson said he had “no regrets” – Billy Giles’ regrets tormented him until his death by suicide. Hutchinson has said “I justify everything that I did in the Troubles, and I have to do that to stay sane.” One of the issues that I have with Hutchinson is that the justification for his murders might well have driven, and continue to drive, the families of Michael Loughran and Edward Morgan to even greater hurt and grief. Their cousin wrote a very moving piece about them in the Belfast Telegraph, that humanised them, and gave them an identity they deserve. History, at this moment in time, records them as the two completely undeserving victims of a man who would go on to become an acclaimed politician.

Despite my criticisms of what Hutchinson chose to divulge in his book, I am grateful that he told some of his story. My Life in Loyalism is essential reading for any student of the Troubles, or indeed of political violence. In some ways, it is a natural companion piece to Gareth Mulvenna’s Tartan Gangs and Paramilitaries, which is simply one of the best and most important book to about the troubles to emerge in recent years.

As ever, I hope that my writing encourages discussion and debate, and welcome criticism and commentary. 

⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys.

31 comments:

  1. Good piece Brandon. For somebody hostile to loyalism you try to provide insight which is not bigoted, even though I would not share your views.

    I wonder about the accuracy of the charge that the IRA killed dozens of Protestant civilians in blatant sectarian attacks in 1972. The most sectarian phase of the 1972 IRA came during the truce period and which caused serious tensions with the Belfast IRA. Belfast was the most sectarian of the IRA brigades but at that time was for the most part under the control of its least sectarian leadership which was furious at the killings of the Orr brothers, for example.

    I think the characterisation of Hutchinson as a coward is wrong. I think he has shown courage over the years and has been more than willing to make his case in the heart of republican territory where moral rather than physical courage was needed.

    Brandon's father-in-law might have been right in his characterisation but if Hutchinson has no regrets or refuses to allow himself to have any it is better that he tells us this than make up saccharine hand wringing excuses and apologies. Nor would I hold the view that a boastful arrogance in court specifically directed at the family is comparable with a cold statement of no regrets stated bluntly for the record rather rather than in your face. After my trial I was described as a laughing killer for my own demeanour in court. I was laughing at the judge who gave me 25 years but people would see it as the height of callous insensitivity towards the family of the dead person. I would regard Hutchinson's forthrightness as less annoying than my own.

    Killing Rage, I found self-serving. Better written than the others from that genre, including the serial liar Sean O'Callaghan, but so heavily pulled in his own favour. I don't think he wrote with the honesty ascribed to him by Brandon. Met him once during a radio interview. He got a terrible death not too long after that.

    Hutchinson no more presumed life and death over others than we in the IRA did - on occasion the others were part of our own community.

    I think loyalism as a philosophy is in part rooted in the supremacism Brandon refers to, unionism ever more so. There was certainly a hatred on the ground but I wonder how much of this was the result of supremacism or resentment borne out of grievance. Take 69 out of the equation and there is no reason to think the loyalist organisations would have got off the ground any more than the Provisional IRA. What drew the individuals to it rather than the existence of loyalism is arguably a more useful line of research.

    Murphy and Adair being attracted to loyalism is no more a concern to me than the psychopaths we in the IRA drew to our own ranks. They might not always have made the headlines in similar fashion but they were there and their disposition commented on.

    I am irrevocably opposed to loyalism but I try to understand what draws people to it, and fully realising had I been born 200 yards away in Donegall Pass rather than the Lower Ormeau Road, I might likely have ended up in the same cage as Billy Hutchinson.

    Great writing Brandon and thanks as ever for putting the way of TPQ and giving us something to think about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM,

      " Take 69 out of the equation and there is no reason to think the loyalist organisations would have got off the ground any more than the Provisional IRA"

      Take Paisley out of the situation entirely and I wonder where we'd all be now. Perhaps the moderates would have won? I blame him for whipping up more irrational fear than anyone else in that period, and naked secatarnism too.

      Delete
    2. Brandon,

      "Told that it was the IRA, Hutchinson said they had a list of six IRA targets and were going to “hit them … right away.” His UVF commander’s “face went white” at the suggestion. Why? Weren’t the UVF waging “war” on the IRA, as Hutchinson so frequently claimed? Why would a senior UVF officer pale at the prospect of hitting actual IRA targets. Hutchinson doesn’t say, so we are left to ponder. But it does make Hutchinson’s claims, made elsewhere in the book, about strategy, tactics and analysis seem preposterous."

      Not entirely sure where you grew up in Belfast but even as a kid I was aware that there was an 'understanding' between the top Provos and Loyalists in Belfast that they'd not be touched, at least as far as the UVF was concerned. A family member at that time still remembers quite vividly Gusty Spence travelling in a car with senior Belfast Provos and was completely baffled by the sight. This would have been early 70's I think.

      If I remember right even the black taxi's were carved up as a source of revenue, in North street, though it's been years since I thought of this. The whole situation is dirty beyond belief.

      Interesting piece though, thanks for sharing.

      Delete
  2. Brandon

    Intersting piece. When I first heard Hutchinson say “I justify everything that I did in the Troubles, and I have to do that to stay sane” I have always taken that as his cryptic way of expressing his regret and keeping down the ghosts.

    Loyalist killers have never struck me as being very couragous, especially where it involved collusion with the security forces so I harbour a level of contempt for them, including for Hutchinson in that regard. But I think he is good in his leadership role of the PUP and has shown both courage and restraint, especially during the Holy Cross debacle. I remember there was one interview where he was trying desperately to calm the situation while Gerry Kelly was just being snide because he figured he could afford to be. As bad as the loyalists were I know that I would not have dragged my own children, in what appeared to be a headlock, through all that trauma to get them to school. For me, Hutchinson was one of the few responsible actors who was genuinenly trying to find a resolution to the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too found that comment very nuanced and suggested something along the lines you have identified.

      Delete
    2. Christy,

      "Loyalist killers have never struck me as being very couragous, especially where it involved collusion with the security forces so I harbour a level of contempt for them, including for Hutchinson in that regard."

      There's nothing couragous about shooting unarmed people or planting no warning bombs regardless of what side you nominally turn a blind eye to.

      Delete
    3. Steve

      Fair point, I was just thinking that that was Loyalists exclusive mode of operation, often with the assistance of the security forces -unlike the IRA who were always at risk of being killed or captured going or coming from attacks, regardless of the nature of the attack. The IRA also pulled off quite a few, of what became known as 'spectaculars' where their hallmark was their daring and audacity.

      Delete
    4. Christy,

      While I get your point it's a touch wide of the mark. There are many examples of Loyalists being arrested on way to or just after an incident. The IRA probably had more to lose so when the BA or the RUC came up against them an inevitable gunfight would ensue.

      I've just finished reading Steaknife too, and it's clear the various shades of Brit Intel Spooks had saturated both sides and at all levels so I'm now more inclined to point the finger of responsibility at them.

      Delete
    5. Steve

      Yes some were, no doubt there were some cops who despised loyalist paramilitaries and had a sense of ethic about being a cop -but not many just some. And some loyalists were sacrificed just for show. Simply from observation and mixing with both republican and loyalist paramilitaries I figured, republicans were riddled with informers but not so much to neutralise them. And I think Loyalist paramilitaries were recruited from the ranks of informers. Some loyalists freely discussed and identified other loyalists with me -and if they moved guns that weekend or other stuff etc -and they saw me as a member of the IRA. So if they had no inhibitions about telling me things or speaking freely in my presence there probably wasnt much they were holding back from the Brits.

      Delete
    6. Christy,

      100% with you on the cops, I found some of them decent and impartial with a great hatred for Loyalist paramilitaries in their community.

      You remind me of that old joke some cops used to say, "They had to beat the Provos to get them to talk and beat the Loyalists to get them to shut up!"

      Delete
  3. The man Billy Hutchinson was ... could potentially kill again
    But thankfully, like many others who killed, or advocated for it he's not the same man

    The Muhammad Ali quote, in all likelihood doesn't apply

    "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

    Even though there's always another generation coming through and there's inevitably a few 'wasters' still out there, still out there and compulsively obsessed with misguiding others down the putrid path, Hutchison is unlikely to be one of them.
    Rather I'd allow him his history and also his reflections upon it; just another imperfect human being who was temporarily swallowed up in the inevitable currents of culture, time and place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There are lots of excellent comments on the piece that I'll get to - some will require a bit of further research on my part, and perhaps revision.

    But:

    @ Steve R

    I'm aware of the "top man's agreement" - though I'm not sure it was in place in 1972 (from memory, there was a meeting of paramilitary delegates in the Kesh in 72 and some UDA dickhead said all Catholics, including grandmothers, were legitimate targets, and was killed by the IRA within a few weeks) - open to be corrected on that. But the point I'm making is that Hutchinson, with wearisome repetition, claimed he was "fighting the IRA." He didn't say "we had an agreement with the 'RA that we wouldn't actually kill them, and we were likewise safe enough, so we just contented ourselves with murdering postmen, labourers and bakers."

    And he doesn't explain why the six IRA targets were off-limits, but Edward Morgan and Michael Loughran were fair game for killing. So he's claiming to have "intelligence" on eight men, only two of whom were deem fit to be killed by the UVF: the two whom UVF Brigade Staff apparently weren't scared of killing.

    What kind of bullshit is that?

    Also, in the book, Hutchinson talks about IRA attempts on his life, so if there was a reciprocal arrangement then, it didn't include him.

    To touch on a point by AM (whose points I will return to more fully in the future), I think it is cowardice to leave the points I developed earlier in this comment undeveloped. He is telling himself a comfortable story, that he was "fighting the IRA" - he wasn't. He didn't. He told is himself that he didn't. He's lying to himself. That is cowardice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - for the cowardice theory to be plausible for me I would have to see the IRA denial of Kingsmill as cowardice or Gerry Adams' denials of IRA membership. While I think the denial of Kingsmill is indefensible I don't believe cowardice explains it. Nor do I believe that the Adams denials are driven by cowardice. Cognitive dissonance has often been a more persuasive explanation for people taking up positions that seem bizarre to others.
      It is arguable that he is guilty of cowardice but I don't think it is as persuasive as alternative explanations.

      Delete
    2. Brandon,

      Is it cowardice to put yourself in front of a young, angry Volunteer with an AK who wants to go and shoot up rioters and tell him it's wrong?

      Delete
  5. @ AM

    The IRA denial of Kingsmill was expediency, basically - it makes sense, on a corporate level. I mean, how could they do anything other than deny it?

    Adams' denials of IRA membership... I honestly don't think I have the psychological tools to unpack that one. But I don't think it is motivated by cowardice, and in some ways Adams, like Hutchinson, is exceptionally brave.

    I think Hutchinson is cowardly because he was involved in two sectarian murders and won't admit, not least to himself, that he was a leading figure, and a sectarian murderer, in an organisation of sectarian murderers.

    What is interesting, in responding to these comments, is that my original feelings of contempt for Hutchinson are giving way to something more akin to considering that he is capable of more than he is giving. Perhaps, in a sense, it's a backhanded compliment that I am paying him in saying he is capable of moving beyond the cliches.

    I must say, though, that when he described the INLA as "a sectarian murder gang" I thought "are you taking the fucking piss?" Someone can describe the INLA as as sectarian murder gang (I don't think the term fits, but there is evidence to form a point for debate), but a UVF leader describing any organisation as a sectarian murder gang is frankly ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon, after 45 years, it seems they could quite easily acknowledge responsibility.
      Allowing expedience for the IRA but not to Hutchinson seems a weakness in the argument. He too might be playing the expediency game.
      Some of those who know Adams well claim he was very brave. I don't feel cowardice lies beneath his denials. Nor do I think Hutchinson's same type of denial is motivated by cowardice. It is sometimes said that people are not what they claim but what they hide. Maybe that applies to us all.
      I think your discourse on loyalism makes for a worthy discussion.

      Delete
  6. @ AM

    Come to think of it, the IRA's denial of Kingsmill was cowardly in a corporate sense - they did not want to have to face up to the consequences of their actions.

    I think that the charge of at least moral cowardice could apply.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it is an arguable point but is it as strong as the view that cynicism rather then cowardice is a better explanation?
      Doing what needs to be done in the pursuit of one's own self interest cannot be explained away as mere cowardice and may be more calculation.

      Delete
  7. Cowardice seems to be thrown around a lot here. It's a pointless smear, in my view. It takes an element of courage to hold a gun in any situation, never mind a hostile one. To take part in any operation takes courage regardless of how hard or soft the target is. A lot of people who use the coward argument have never been in these circumstances, the kind of people who have no problem with bombs being dropped from thirty thousand feet but any action they deem terrorist must be cowardly
    Maybe cognitive dissonance accounts for manipulation of history or maybe it's just the hero complex in our personality, we can't deal with the fact we might be cunts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David - I think it is more challenging in terms of a cost-benefit analysis to carry out the type of attack that Hutchinson did than it is to bomb Palestinian kids from the sky or to slaughter Jewish children in a ravine. But Brandon is raising the question of moral courage. While I happen to think he is wrong I feel it is important to try to lift his man from the square it is on.

      I think the use of the term cowardice is one of those double edged swords that risks cutting the wielder with the blade of macho posturing. I don't think Brandon is posturing but risks having his case being framed that way.

      Unfortunately, from tome to time, there is a tendency on the blog for the discussion to go down that route.

      I remember writing that the only ones amongst us who are not cunts are children. So, admittedly, with a large measure of tongue and cheek, I now promise myself one day at a time to make the bid to get through the day without being a cunt.

      Delete
  8. David

    What elements of courage were involved in the Srebinica massacre, the mass shootings at the Christchurch mosque, the Pittsburgh synagogue to name just three atrocities?

    Did the SS mobile killing squads on the Eastern Front in World War II display courage when they machine gunned 1.5 million Jews into burial pits like Babi-Yar?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a wider context to courage which this valid observation otherwise does not get to. People like Hutchinson face a long time in prison which has to figure into their calculations. In terms of the immediate attack, no courage is required to kill unarmed people. However, Brandon is tackling the issue on a different square of the board.

      Delete
  9. On cowardice:

    Hutchinson, like Gerry Adams, manoeuvred their paramilitary organisations to ceasefire. They did so at risk to their lives from those within their respective organisations opposed to such moves. When it comes to this, they are courageous. They literally put their lives on the line.

    Both men are liars. I think that Hutchinson is lying to himself, as well as for political expediency (I find Adams simply impossible to consider on this issue). If you watch the BBC Documentary about HMP Maze from 1990, you will see Billy Giles, convicted UVF murderer, saying that he "killed an identified republican." He doesn't say it with any conviction. He looks like what he is: a man haunted by what he has done.

    Later, in 1997, Billy Giles acknowledges that his victim, far from being "an identified republican" was in fact a politically uninvolved Catholic that he worked with. Giles faced himself, and what he had done. That is bravery, and that is the type of bravery that I think Hutchinson is lacking, to the point of cowardice. And, given the tragic conclusion to Billy Giles' life, perhaps it is understandable.

    @ Barry

    The Einsatzgruppen frequently come up within the comments on this blog. They, in common with the Hutchinson's organisation, largely waged a campaign of murder against unarmed populations. Again, in common with the UVF, they sometimes operated against armed opposition. But mostly, they murdered.

    More than a few Einsatzgruppen cadre lost their minds or turned to alcoholism.

    I am not sure I would use the term "coward" if I were to write this piece again. But I do believe it was correct to draw attention to the hypocrisies and psychological sleights of hand that Hutchinson employs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never takes long before the enemy gets equated to the Nazi's.
      The first step in dehumanizing.
      If you grew up like Hutch did Brandon, you'd probably turn out exactly the same.

      Delete
  10. Brandon

    We had our own Einsatzgruppen to contend with in the FRU. They had the full protection and resources of the Brit war machine behind them; and still the bravest thing they could do was sneak up behind their victims -their main mode of operadi was drive-by shootings and then hi-tailing it away at speed.

    Oh, and all Brit special forces were swamped with alcoholism - ever read about the lives of the SAS, 14Intel and FRU -they mask their fear and ghosts with drunken false bravado and boasting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Christy,

      "Oh, and all Brit special forces were swamped with alcoholism - ever read about the lives of the SAS, 14Intel and FRU -they mask their fear and ghosts with drunken false bravado and boasting."

      I read the autobio of 22 SAS Regimental Sargent Major in the Gulf War, he makes no bones about the fact that some of his men were shivering with fear, but when the gunfire started they snapped back to their training.

      After reading Steaknife recently I think the FRU held everyone in contempt especially the cops, who felt the same about them. They had no skin in the game and played Russian Roulette with people's lives and often allowing murder to go unstopped and unpunished. I don't think FRU were alkies but they were certainly c**ts.

      Delete
    2. Steve

      No question that SAS had to be able to stand their ground, hence their motto. But alcohol kept their ghosts and trauma at bay rather than it gave them courage -it made them functional -not unlike US soldiers need for a constant high in Vietnam.

      Delete
    3. On Drunkenness This piece might be instructive.

      Delete
    4. Am: Interesting piece on Fairweather.

      Delete
  11. Anthony,
    Fair enough. It's not a criticism of Brandon. It's just a blanket response to guerilla type violence, to label cowards, I feel it needs challenged. It seems to me we ask loyalist to explain sectarian outrages, then when they do, we go 'ack ya lying loyalist murdering bastards' if yer man says that why he did it, we should take him on face value, at least for the sake of argument.
    As far as moral courage is that not giving your opinion, regardless of reception or is it only if it suits a certain narrative? If he believes he benefited Loyalism, he should say so, just as if he felt the whole thing was pointless, he should say so.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Steve R

    I don't think I'd have fallen for loyalism's nonsense, to be honest with you. I've more in common with Hutchinson Senior than Junior. And if I wanted to actually fight the IRA, I could have joined the RUC, or the British Army, or the UDR. Plenty of options for a young man keen to do their bit for Ulster.

    I also don't think I'd have joined the Provos, either, truth be told. But who knows. Hutchinson's organisation killed two men from my wee street in Belfast. One of them, Hutch's mate Lenny Murphy is reputed to have had a hand in torturing and tormenting, before murdering. Neither were involved in anything other than their own lives and their own families. I imagine if it was my dad, or uncle, or brother, I'd want payback. And the RUC and UDR weren't really options. This, in essence, is what I think is the psychotic, inhumane stupidity of loyalist violence.

    I honestly do not care if Ireland is united or not. It makes no difference to my life. But loyalists can not and should not be trusted with any meaningful political power.

    It does make me think of Stiff Little Fingers, though:

    "Stuff your fucking armies, killing isn't my idea of fun."

    ReplyDelete