Brandon Sullivan ✒ From the window of the government building I worked in, I noticed a gathering of men.

Mostly dressed in motorcycle leathers, many of them very overweight, and bearded, the crowd grew to perhaps 70 or 80. Some of the men were wearing maroon berets. They were a comedic spectacle: imagine a few score of Ken Maginnis-types in motorcycle leathers. They lined up in military formation, their physical condition making this pretence pathetic rather than sinister, and unfurled a very small banner which read “WE SUPPORT SOLDIER F.”

I couldn’t help thinking of protests against the injustices visited upon the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six, protests held in England. How society seems to have changed, and not for the better.

Douglas Murray, a neo-conservative thinker and writer much respected and admired by many on the right, had this to say about Soldier F in his peerless account of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry:

Soldier F — who fired 13 rounds on the day — whose performance in 1972 and 2003 was most disturbing. It always seemed to me that if anyone was deserving of prosecution, then it was him.

Murray also had this to say about the killers of 14 civilians on Bloody Sunday: “The soldiers of 1 Para weren’t just unapologetic killers, but unrelenting liars.”

Recently, former British solider Dennis Hutchings faced trial for the killing of John Pat Cunningham. Hutchings received much support, including high profile political support, from those who objected to his prosecution. The circumstances of John Pat’s death could scarcely be more upsetting:

A Benburb doctor said the victim, who was his patient, had been born with an incomplete development of mind, and had been declared a person requiring special care.
The doctor said that about a year earlier, near the scene of the shooting, he had come across soldiers pushing John Cunningham into a Saracen armoured car.
He spoke to the soldiers who said he had been hiding in the bushes and acting suspiciously.
The doctor said he had told the young man’s mother about the incident and advised her to keep a special watch on her son’s movements, in view of his apprehension towards soldiers and their uniforms.

Dennis Hutchings is alleged to have shot John Pat in the back as he ran away from an army patrol. There is simply no way that John Pat was a threat to them. British and Unionist politicians were outraged over a prosecution taking place. They were silent when the prosecution of Soldier F, a perjurer, multiple-killer, and perhaps the single greatest recruiting sergeant the PIRA ever had, fell apart.

From tragedy to farce, we can now look at the case of Donald MacNaughton, who was tried and acquitted of attempted murder in 1974. The case against him fell apart because of “inconsistencies” with the victim’s evidence, and the evidence of MacNaughton and his comrades “fitted together and was not mutually contradictory ." MacNaughton was a member of the Parachute Regiment, whose soldiers colluded with each other to lie to several British Government Inquiries, and indeed to British Army investigators. The farce in this case, I think, demonstrates something of the self-degradation of those on the English right: MacNaughton became a Brexit Party campaigner, and is widely believed to have thrown yogurt over himself to gain media attention.

Hutchings died before his trial, and will be given full military honours at his funeral. Soldier F was promoted and decorated several times in his military career. Just as their killings of Irish citizens did not unduly affect their lives for decades, was there any serious attempt at prosecuting them to the full extent of the law?

But their prosecution is not really the point. The level of support for them is.

What does it say about sections of society, and politicians, if they can support those suspected of murder, so long as it was committed by a uniformed killer, regardless of the status of the victim?

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

Unapologetic Killers, Unrelenting Liars, And Their Uncaring Supporters

Brandon Sullivan ✒ From the window of the government building I worked in, I noticed a gathering of men.

Mostly dressed in motorcycle leathers, many of them very overweight, and bearded, the crowd grew to perhaps 70 or 80. Some of the men were wearing maroon berets. They were a comedic spectacle: imagine a few score of Ken Maginnis-types in motorcycle leathers. They lined up in military formation, their physical condition making this pretence pathetic rather than sinister, and unfurled a very small banner which read “WE SUPPORT SOLDIER F.”

I couldn’t help thinking of protests against the injustices visited upon the Guilford Four and the Birmingham Six, protests held in England. How society seems to have changed, and not for the better.

Douglas Murray, a neo-conservative thinker and writer much respected and admired by many on the right, had this to say about Soldier F in his peerless account of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry:

Soldier F — who fired 13 rounds on the day — whose performance in 1972 and 2003 was most disturbing. It always seemed to me that if anyone was deserving of prosecution, then it was him.

Murray also had this to say about the killers of 14 civilians on Bloody Sunday: “The soldiers of 1 Para weren’t just unapologetic killers, but unrelenting liars.”

Recently, former British solider Dennis Hutchings faced trial for the killing of John Pat Cunningham. Hutchings received much support, including high profile political support, from those who objected to his prosecution. The circumstances of John Pat’s death could scarcely be more upsetting:

A Benburb doctor said the victim, who was his patient, had been born with an incomplete development of mind, and had been declared a person requiring special care.
The doctor said that about a year earlier, near the scene of the shooting, he had come across soldiers pushing John Cunningham into a Saracen armoured car.
He spoke to the soldiers who said he had been hiding in the bushes and acting suspiciously.
The doctor said he had told the young man’s mother about the incident and advised her to keep a special watch on her son’s movements, in view of his apprehension towards soldiers and their uniforms.

Dennis Hutchings is alleged to have shot John Pat in the back as he ran away from an army patrol. There is simply no way that John Pat was a threat to them. British and Unionist politicians were outraged over a prosecution taking place. They were silent when the prosecution of Soldier F, a perjurer, multiple-killer, and perhaps the single greatest recruiting sergeant the PIRA ever had, fell apart.

From tragedy to farce, we can now look at the case of Donald MacNaughton, who was tried and acquitted of attempted murder in 1974. The case against him fell apart because of “inconsistencies” with the victim’s evidence, and the evidence of MacNaughton and his comrades “fitted together and was not mutually contradictory ." MacNaughton was a member of the Parachute Regiment, whose soldiers colluded with each other to lie to several British Government Inquiries, and indeed to British Army investigators. The farce in this case, I think, demonstrates something of the self-degradation of those on the English right: MacNaughton became a Brexit Party campaigner, and is widely believed to have thrown yogurt over himself to gain media attention.

Hutchings died before his trial, and will be given full military honours at his funeral. Soldier F was promoted and decorated several times in his military career. Just as their killings of Irish citizens did not unduly affect their lives for decades, was there any serious attempt at prosecuting them to the full extent of the law?

But their prosecution is not really the point. The level of support for them is.

What does it say about sections of society, and politicians, if they can support those suspected of murder, so long as it was committed by a uniformed killer, regardless of the status of the victim?

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

12 comments:

  1. It says the lives of those that they murdered do not matter but thier killer's lives do. Simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What does it say about sections of society, and politicians, if they can support those suspected of murder, so long as it was committed by a uniformed killer, regardless of the status of the victim?"

    People in NI don't seem to have a problem voting for them either!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see the point you're making, but I think what we are seeing with the Soldier F et al support represents something different, and more sinister.

      The British have always had a sentimental indulgence for their armed forces, something I have found somewhat inexplicable when compared with the societal shunning of hang-men, like Albert Pierrepont for example (in my opinion, the only difference between the two is that Pierrepont generally only killed the guilty).

      But I do believe that a general backlash against what is erroneously referred to now-a-days as "woke" or "political correctness" and in times past was referred to as the "looney left."

      Solider F was a murdering, perjuring low-life who was directly responsible for a major part in an incident that led to broadside after broadside being fired at the British military and political establishment.

      Even by the admittedly low and poorly thought out standards of the reactionary right, it is obvious that Soldier F didn't deserve support for his, on British terms, idiotic, selfish, and self-serving antics.

      That many thousands of British people choose to ignore the reality of what Soldier F did and the repercussions says something about those supporters.

      I presume your comment was about Sinn Fein. And it is true that they have lionised their killers. But for the example to truly fit, there would have needed to be widespread demonstrations in both parts of Ireland over the prosecution of Ivor Bell, for example.

      But I accept your general point. Sinn Fein employed sectarian murderers of Protestants, sometimes in high profile roles. This is abhorrent.

      Delete
    2. Most nations have a sentimental soft spot for their Armed Forces, usually driven by the knowledge that it's oft the working class who serve in the ranks and who invariably suffer the most in conflict.

      I'm not entirely convinced it's wholly a sinister motivation behind the support for Soldier F for this reason.

      Broad stroking the individuals as overweight bikers of girth is a tad simplistic, given the advancement of age usually goes hand in hand with the advancement of waistline as my wife never tires of pointing out to me...

      But to the point in hand, those in attendance may have been comrades of soldier F so it would be a bit like McGuinesses funeral in that regard. People may disagree but still want to show support.

      The whole saga is redundant without a Truth Commission either way. Like has been said many times before, if the war is over why are they still taking prisoners?

      Delete
  3. But their prosecution is not really the point. The level of support for them is.

    The chilling awfulness captured in one terse sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is this level of support, not only among the growing fascist and far-right, but within the population generally. Soldier F is part of groups like "Britain First" and the "English Defence League" propaganda support gathering machine. It is frightening how much support within sections of the British Armed Forces the fascist rights support for Soldier F generates. This is now filtering into the population as a whole, people who would codem such actions as Soldier F murdering people on Bloody Sunday if these actions were carried out by the forces of another country, but applaud when the crime is carried out by soldiers of the British Army. Very concerning indeed.

    Caoimhin O'O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  5. Caoimhin

    I think it is more than that. The entire Brit military establishment is very touchy about prosecutions and they feel under siege because there are hundreds of cases coming from the middle east and not just the Conflict here. Soldier's being prosecuted years later for their crimes is not good for recruiting or moral. Its not just fascists within the UK

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Steve R

    I find it highly unlikely that they were comrades of Soldier F. F is a biker, and the biker fraternities came out in force ("Rolling Thunder") to show their support for Solider F.

    To be honest, I think for most of them it was something of a jolly, and Soldier F something of a totem to rally round. What troubles me is that Solider F, to virtually anyone who studies him and his antics, sees him as nothing to celebrate, and an enthusiastic murderer whose antics (with a very few others) caused an enormous upswing in recruitment to the IRA, which partially led to 129 soldiers dying that year, the British Embassy being burned to the ground, and much of the world seeing Britain in a lesser light.

    I think there are two possibilities. The widespread support for Solider F is based on ignorance of what he did, or the knowledge of what he did and a justification for it.

    It is interesting that the Para's ransacked and murdered on the Shankill, and grievously tortured Billy Hutchinson as well.

    As a side issue, I was once hungover and watching Kilroy (I know, I know), and the son of one of the cleaning ladies killed in the OIRA bombing of Aldershot Barracks was on it. He described a life of poverty, monetary and emotional, caused by an absent father and a murdered mother. His was a life of addiction, petty crime, and a cycle of terms in prison. He was a victim of the troubles every bit as much as the families of those murdered by Soldier F. I think the man who bombed Aldershot was caught, and died in prison, but I could be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. one of the men convicted of carrying out the OIRA bombing of the Aldershot Barracks of the Parachute Regiment (a daring action with sad consequences) was Noel Jenkinson. The Wikipedia entry on the bombing mentions him a number of times without a link to an entry about the man himself, strangely.

      A sympathetic site posted about his early life mostly in Dún Laoghaire and emigration to England, where he was an active trade unionist and communist. In part:
      "In 1972, Noel was arrested and charged with the Official IRA’s bombing of Aldershot Barracks, the home of the British Army’s Parachute Regiment. Jenkinson was convicted virtually on the basis of his political beliefs as no forensic evidence was produced. The trial was a farce and even saw Judge Sebag Shaw taking part in the cross-examination, questioning Noel on his support for communism. The police even planted fake evidence at Jenkinson’s flat in a bid to place him in Aldershot on the day but during the trial this evidence, a shop receipt, turned out to belong to the son of a Chief Inspector who was also one of the investigating officers. Jenkinson was still convicted, becoming the first person in England to be given a recommended sentence, receiving 30 years imprisonment.
      Noel always maintained his innocence. An appeal was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg but was rejected. Noel was violently attacked on three different occasions while he was imprisoned and on the 9th October 1976 he was found dead in his cell in Leicester Prison. He was aged 46. Although he died under mysterious circumstances an inquest found that he died as a result of a heart attack. Another prisoner claimed that Noel was complaining of pains and that the screws gave him either tablets or powder. There was an official inquest into his death but no independent autopsy. But it was stated that the prison medical staff had not given Noel any medication. He was the father of four children when he died."

      In jail he left the OIRA and declared for the Provisionals some time before his death.

      Delete
  7. If British soldiers are to be prosecuted today for past actions in Ireland, Kenya, Aden and Afghanistan, for example, how can they be relied upon to suppress resistance in future, which will surely be required at some point?

    I think that is why they are supported 1) by the British establishment and 2) by Loyalists, British conservatives, fascists etc. And though disgraceful and uncomfortable thinking for liberals, it makes absolute sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diarmuid

      The simple answer to your question is, who cares. If they murdered people they should face the consequences -maybe that would reduce their interference or occupation in countries they have no right to be in.

      Is that how you reduce their occupation of Ireland? -having occupied Ireland -they need the man power to suppress any resistance from the natives?

      You have a very apt name, is it for real or is it a cryptic reference to Dermot MacMurrough?

      Delete
  8. @ Diarmuid

    If I recall correctly, the story was covered in the excellent The IRA in English Prisons duo of books.

    They are dense, detailed accounts of prison life for Irish (and Ulster) prisoners in English jails.

    It was in this book that I learned that the UDA bombed pubs in Kilburn, and the culprits were caught, and in prison with republicans, along with UVF prisoners, coalesced into a unit which functioned to protect itself from other prisoners and prison officers.

    ReplyDelete