Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ The British Government have recently, in fact for some time, been shouting from the roof tops about imposing an amnesty for all those outstanding “offences” left over from the “troubles” in “Northern Ireland”. 

This amnesty, if it goes through, would apply to all supposed offences which occurred prior to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, including the First Battalion Parachute Regiment who were responsible for the murder of eleven unarmed civilians between 9th-11th August 1971 - the Ballymurphy massacre, part of Operation Demetrius, Internment without trial. 

Five months later, 30th January 1972, the same battalion was responsible for the gunning down of thirteen demonstrators in Derry in what is referred to as “Bloody Sunday,” who were on an anti-internment march. Both wings of the Irish Republican Army (Official and Provisional) had ensured “none of” their “volunteers were not in the area”. This amnesty, the British argue, for all “offences” which took place during the war which engulfed the six-counties for thirty years, will bring the curtain down on that dark period of “Northern Irelands” history. Not so for the families of those gunned down in cold blood! Put bluntly, nobody will face prosecution for these horrific murders carried out by the British Army if this goes through.

The British Army, via Press Officer Captain Mike Jackson (who would go on to become General Mike Jackson and head of the British Army) claimed the army had taken out an IRA armed unit in a gun battle. This was a pack of lies, as has now been proved, and was not even propaganda, which has to have a modicum of truth: these were blatant lies. Jackson was laughing, when showed on the RTE documentary about the massacre in old film footage, as he made these false statements to the press (Britain’s very own Joseph Goebbels) giving his very much doctored version of events, lies. The fact was there were no IRA in the area at the time, as even residents shouted “where were you over the last few days” to representatives of the republican movement. 

The British Army continued to pedal these false claims that the shootings in Ballymurphy had been the result of a battle between themselves and the IRA. The people of Ballymurphy who were gunned down were as innocent as anybody in Clacton on Sea, Essex, who may have been going to the shops and on their return getting shot down by British troops returning from mock land-sea manoeuvres wishing to have some “sport” at the expense of civilian lives. The people of Derry, gunned down by soldiers from the same battalion, One Para, were as innocent as people in London going on an anti-poll tax demonstration and getting shot in cold blood by troops on stand-by (which they were back in 1990, I witnessed them, hundreds in side streets waiting if the police could not handle the situation. They were armed) while protesting against the poll tax. 

The families of those murdered want the British Government's amnesty rejected and prosecutions to be brought against those responsible for their loved one’s deaths. This is an understandable position: who would not want the murder of a family member brought to account? Such prosecutions will bring about closure for the families of those who were murdered in cold blood throughout the thirty-year war.

In May 2021 ten of the eleven who were killed or died as a result of the actions taken by British troops at Ballymurphy - who Jackson tried to claim in the press were IRA gunmen - were found “innocent” by an inquest. The same inquest also found the use of “lethal force” used by the British Army was “not justified” in any way. An eleventh man, Paddy McCarthy, died of a heart attack after being threatened by a soldier and was not part of the inquest. His death was at very least related to the events which took place between 9th and 11th August 1971. The relatives of the victims are urging the Irish Government to oppose this amnesty proposal.

There is, however another side to this dirty coin. This amnesty the British appear determined to bulldoze through also covers republican volunteers who are presently on the run (OTRs). This was a question, that of the OTRs, which should have been clarified by those who signed the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and obviously wasn’t! Some OTRs received letters from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) reconstituted as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) claiming they were no longer wanted by them for any “crime”. This raised false hope for these former volunteers that their days of looking over their shoulders were over. They were wrong; letters from the RUC or any other police force are not letters from the government, they are letters from a government agency, not quite the same thing! Why did the experienced negotiators of the GFA not secure the future of OTRs when they had the chance, and not sign the document, let alone recommend decommissioning, until they had safeguarded these people’s futures? This was not the only lack of clarity surrounding the GFA!

This is a Catch 22 situation which the British Government can’t lose. If on the one hand the amnesty goes through the families of those murdered throughout the conflict will be, justifiably, outraged. The families of the OTRs, though not over the moon, will be pleased their family members presently on the run can return to some kind of normal life. If the amnesty is not ratified then the relatives of those killed will see at least somebody, like the often spoke of “soldier F” - who I believe is being scapegoated - before the courts but it will mean OTRs will probably remain exactly that, on the run! 

The British Government, and “Northern Ireland” Secretary, Brandon Lewis, will be more than aware of the conflicting interests their amnesty proposals present. Could it set family against family? The British may well be hoping so I am sure of that. They will be able to say to the relatives of those on the run, along the lines of, look we offered you an amnesty and your own people rejected it: especially as Sinn Fein are opposed to the amnesty. They would not, of course go into detail as to why it was rejected. This could be their line should their amnesty bill fail. 

Remember, the English, later British establishments, have been at this since the middle-ages! The British may well take the position of injured party in all this. They’re good at that, and may say again along the lines of; look we are not going to prosecute our own poor blokes and let your lot on the run off now are we now? They may put on the deeply hurt ambivalent tone, almost asking for the sympathy of all for trying to be honest brokers again. They would almost certainly take the view, we are not going to prosecute the members of the Parachute Regiment, while the IRA and INLA members presently on the run can go home and live out their lives. This almost certainly would be the view of the British establishment.

There is a possible way round this conundrum. British Army officers are supposedly in their positions to take responsibility for the actions of their men. Even today we see former SS officers, rightly so, going before the courts for war crimes during the Second World War. Even former German Army (which the SS were not part of) officers are being questioned and even tried for offences on the Eastern Front against civilians. Therefore, why can the same rule of thumb not apply here? 

Generals Harry Tuzo and Robert Ford who oversaw the Bloody Sunday murders in Derry are dead, but lower ranked officers may well still be alive. Brigadier General Frank Kitson who from September 1970 commanded the 39th Air-portable Brigade which consisted of eight frequently changing battalions on short four-month tours. The First Battalion Parachute Regiment, often referred to as “Kitson’s private army” were attached to this grouping. Kitson was below or technically under Lieutenant General Ian Freeland followed by Lieutenant General Vernon Erskine-Crum, but pretty much according to the documentary about the Ballymurphy Massacres, did as he pleased. Freeland and Vernon Erskine Crum are dead but Kitson is not! Now if Kitson and then Captain Mike Jackson, the Pres Officer who lied through his teeth, later General, are still at large should it not be them on trial for war crimes? These men were officers, albeit in the case of Jackson in 1971 a lower ranked officer who climbed the greasy poll, who are supposed to take responsibility as officers for the actions, no matter how wrong, of their men. I shine no light for so-called Soldier F but he and others are minions, “obeying orders” I think is the term (which covers a multitude) but should it not perhaps be those who gave the orders be the ones standing trial?

The officer responsible for sending the paras into the Bogside on 30th January 1972, Colonel Derek Wilford, then Lieutenant Colonel Wilford is very much alive. He disobeyed a senior-officer's orders, not to send troops into the Bogside, and therefore is ultimately responsible for the deaths of thirteen (fourteen, as another man died later) civilians on that day. Wilford still claims his men were shot at first, despite there being no corroborating evidence to support his claim. He is alive and well, living in Belgium with his wife. He along with Kitson, Jackson and others could be brought forward for war crimes trials, or trial relating to the deaths in Belfast and Derry, already described as “unlawful”.

Of course, the British Government would not entertain such ideas. They would not sacrifice the misleading “good name” of the British Army Officer, which is bollocks, when some cunt lower down the pecking order will do to hang out to dry. 

Dating back centuries English, then British Army Officers, were/are supposed to be “officers and gentlemen” which in most cases they were/are neither. Going back to the “Tan War” or “War of Independence” this crap was touted around while, at the same time, upper crust thugs in uniform rampaged through Irish towns and cities. Take, for example the Auxiliaries, a ruthless gang of supposed retired army “officers and Gentlemen” whose actions were worse, if such deeds are possible, than those carried out by the Black and Tans. The Auxiliaries came from the upper echelons of British society, aristocracy and large bourgeoisie, and were above court-martial. The Black and Tans, on the other hand, came from the working-class and were occasionally held to account via a court-martial. They received, albeit, relatively light sentences relative to their crimes but the point was, so-called “officers and gentlemen” would not face court-martial for horrendous crimes against Irish civilians whereas Black and Tans on occasion would. 

For this reason, none of those officers still alive today, Kitson, Wilford and Jackson to name but three, will ever be brought to task for their crimes during the early seventies. Why? Because British “officers and gentlemen” do not commit such acts! But if this track were to be adopted then the bereaved families will have closure, proper closure, and the OTRs would be free men and women. So-called “Soldier F”, no doubt from a working-class background would not be sacrificed for his so-called “social betters” whom, like many mugs throughout the ages, appears happy enough to be sacrificed in order to maintain and uphold the British class system, rotten to the core as it is!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

British Government Attempts At Amnesty For The Troubles/War In The Six-Counties

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ The British Government have recently, in fact for some time, been shouting from the roof tops about imposing an amnesty for all those outstanding “offences” left over from the “troubles” in “Northern Ireland”. 

This amnesty, if it goes through, would apply to all supposed offences which occurred prior to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998, including the First Battalion Parachute Regiment who were responsible for the murder of eleven unarmed civilians between 9th-11th August 1971 - the Ballymurphy massacre, part of Operation Demetrius, Internment without trial. 

Five months later, 30th January 1972, the same battalion was responsible for the gunning down of thirteen demonstrators in Derry in what is referred to as “Bloody Sunday,” who were on an anti-internment march. Both wings of the Irish Republican Army (Official and Provisional) had ensured “none of” their “volunteers were not in the area”. This amnesty, the British argue, for all “offences” which took place during the war which engulfed the six-counties for thirty years, will bring the curtain down on that dark period of “Northern Irelands” history. Not so for the families of those gunned down in cold blood! Put bluntly, nobody will face prosecution for these horrific murders carried out by the British Army if this goes through.

The British Army, via Press Officer Captain Mike Jackson (who would go on to become General Mike Jackson and head of the British Army) claimed the army had taken out an IRA armed unit in a gun battle. This was a pack of lies, as has now been proved, and was not even propaganda, which has to have a modicum of truth: these were blatant lies. Jackson was laughing, when showed on the RTE documentary about the massacre in old film footage, as he made these false statements to the press (Britain’s very own Joseph Goebbels) giving his very much doctored version of events, lies. The fact was there were no IRA in the area at the time, as even residents shouted “where were you over the last few days” to representatives of the republican movement. 

The British Army continued to pedal these false claims that the shootings in Ballymurphy had been the result of a battle between themselves and the IRA. The people of Ballymurphy who were gunned down were as innocent as anybody in Clacton on Sea, Essex, who may have been going to the shops and on their return getting shot down by British troops returning from mock land-sea manoeuvres wishing to have some “sport” at the expense of civilian lives. The people of Derry, gunned down by soldiers from the same battalion, One Para, were as innocent as people in London going on an anti-poll tax demonstration and getting shot in cold blood by troops on stand-by (which they were back in 1990, I witnessed them, hundreds in side streets waiting if the police could not handle the situation. They were armed) while protesting against the poll tax. 

The families of those murdered want the British Government's amnesty rejected and prosecutions to be brought against those responsible for their loved one’s deaths. This is an understandable position: who would not want the murder of a family member brought to account? Such prosecutions will bring about closure for the families of those who were murdered in cold blood throughout the thirty-year war.

In May 2021 ten of the eleven who were killed or died as a result of the actions taken by British troops at Ballymurphy - who Jackson tried to claim in the press were IRA gunmen - were found “innocent” by an inquest. The same inquest also found the use of “lethal force” used by the British Army was “not justified” in any way. An eleventh man, Paddy McCarthy, died of a heart attack after being threatened by a soldier and was not part of the inquest. His death was at very least related to the events which took place between 9th and 11th August 1971. The relatives of the victims are urging the Irish Government to oppose this amnesty proposal.

There is, however another side to this dirty coin. This amnesty the British appear determined to bulldoze through also covers republican volunteers who are presently on the run (OTRs). This was a question, that of the OTRs, which should have been clarified by those who signed the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and obviously wasn’t! Some OTRs received letters from the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) reconstituted as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) claiming they were no longer wanted by them for any “crime”. This raised false hope for these former volunteers that their days of looking over their shoulders were over. They were wrong; letters from the RUC or any other police force are not letters from the government, they are letters from a government agency, not quite the same thing! Why did the experienced negotiators of the GFA not secure the future of OTRs when they had the chance, and not sign the document, let alone recommend decommissioning, until they had safeguarded these people’s futures? This was not the only lack of clarity surrounding the GFA!

This is a Catch 22 situation which the British Government can’t lose. If on the one hand the amnesty goes through the families of those murdered throughout the conflict will be, justifiably, outraged. The families of the OTRs, though not over the moon, will be pleased their family members presently on the run can return to some kind of normal life. If the amnesty is not ratified then the relatives of those killed will see at least somebody, like the often spoke of “soldier F” - who I believe is being scapegoated - before the courts but it will mean OTRs will probably remain exactly that, on the run! 

The British Government, and “Northern Ireland” Secretary, Brandon Lewis, will be more than aware of the conflicting interests their amnesty proposals present. Could it set family against family? The British may well be hoping so I am sure of that. They will be able to say to the relatives of those on the run, along the lines of, look we offered you an amnesty and your own people rejected it: especially as Sinn Fein are opposed to the amnesty. They would not, of course go into detail as to why it was rejected. This could be their line should their amnesty bill fail. 

Remember, the English, later British establishments, have been at this since the middle-ages! The British may well take the position of injured party in all this. They’re good at that, and may say again along the lines of; look we are not going to prosecute our own poor blokes and let your lot on the run off now are we now? They may put on the deeply hurt ambivalent tone, almost asking for the sympathy of all for trying to be honest brokers again. They would almost certainly take the view, we are not going to prosecute the members of the Parachute Regiment, while the IRA and INLA members presently on the run can go home and live out their lives. This almost certainly would be the view of the British establishment.

There is a possible way round this conundrum. British Army officers are supposedly in their positions to take responsibility for the actions of their men. Even today we see former SS officers, rightly so, going before the courts for war crimes during the Second World War. Even former German Army (which the SS were not part of) officers are being questioned and even tried for offences on the Eastern Front against civilians. Therefore, why can the same rule of thumb not apply here? 

Generals Harry Tuzo and Robert Ford who oversaw the Bloody Sunday murders in Derry are dead, but lower ranked officers may well still be alive. Brigadier General Frank Kitson who from September 1970 commanded the 39th Air-portable Brigade which consisted of eight frequently changing battalions on short four-month tours. The First Battalion Parachute Regiment, often referred to as “Kitson’s private army” were attached to this grouping. Kitson was below or technically under Lieutenant General Ian Freeland followed by Lieutenant General Vernon Erskine-Crum, but pretty much according to the documentary about the Ballymurphy Massacres, did as he pleased. Freeland and Vernon Erskine Crum are dead but Kitson is not! Now if Kitson and then Captain Mike Jackson, the Pres Officer who lied through his teeth, later General, are still at large should it not be them on trial for war crimes? These men were officers, albeit in the case of Jackson in 1971 a lower ranked officer who climbed the greasy poll, who are supposed to take responsibility as officers for the actions, no matter how wrong, of their men. I shine no light for so-called Soldier F but he and others are minions, “obeying orders” I think is the term (which covers a multitude) but should it not perhaps be those who gave the orders be the ones standing trial?

The officer responsible for sending the paras into the Bogside on 30th January 1972, Colonel Derek Wilford, then Lieutenant Colonel Wilford is very much alive. He disobeyed a senior-officer's orders, not to send troops into the Bogside, and therefore is ultimately responsible for the deaths of thirteen (fourteen, as another man died later) civilians on that day. Wilford still claims his men were shot at first, despite there being no corroborating evidence to support his claim. He is alive and well, living in Belgium with his wife. He along with Kitson, Jackson and others could be brought forward for war crimes trials, or trial relating to the deaths in Belfast and Derry, already described as “unlawful”.

Of course, the British Government would not entertain such ideas. They would not sacrifice the misleading “good name” of the British Army Officer, which is bollocks, when some cunt lower down the pecking order will do to hang out to dry. 

Dating back centuries English, then British Army Officers, were/are supposed to be “officers and gentlemen” which in most cases they were/are neither. Going back to the “Tan War” or “War of Independence” this crap was touted around while, at the same time, upper crust thugs in uniform rampaged through Irish towns and cities. Take, for example the Auxiliaries, a ruthless gang of supposed retired army “officers and Gentlemen” whose actions were worse, if such deeds are possible, than those carried out by the Black and Tans. The Auxiliaries came from the upper echelons of British society, aristocracy and large bourgeoisie, and were above court-martial. The Black and Tans, on the other hand, came from the working-class and were occasionally held to account via a court-martial. They received, albeit, relatively light sentences relative to their crimes but the point was, so-called “officers and gentlemen” would not face court-martial for horrendous crimes against Irish civilians whereas Black and Tans on occasion would. 

For this reason, none of those officers still alive today, Kitson, Wilford and Jackson to name but three, will ever be brought to task for their crimes during the early seventies. Why? Because British “officers and gentlemen” do not commit such acts! But if this track were to be adopted then the bereaved families will have closure, proper closure, and the OTRs would be free men and women. So-called “Soldier F”, no doubt from a working-class background would not be sacrificed for his so-called “social betters” whom, like many mugs throughout the ages, appears happy enough to be sacrificed in order to maintain and uphold the British class system, rotten to the core as it is!

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

17 comments:

  1. good one, caoimhin. you always write such interesting pieces

    ReplyDelete
  2. Smacks a touch of wanting amnesty for your own and prosecution for 'themmuns' Caomhin.

    I'm all for a truth and reconciliation commission under an Amnesty but for fairness it needs to be across the board.

    If not it will degenerate into whataboutry ad nauseam.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not at all Steve, IRA and INLA volunteers were soldiers on the ground fighting a war. That war is now, in the main, over resulting in a score draw. "Soldier F" was in all probability "obeying orders" orders probably coming from his O/C, Colonel Wilford. If not, what was the point having an O/C? Therefore it is, or suppossed to be, the Officer in Charge who takes the rap, that is unless you are a British officer in "Northern Ireland". No doubt, "Soldier F" was not unhappy to comply, even if he had been disobeying orders was/is a court-martialing offence. The fact is, officers, those with the fancy braid and big pay packet, are suppossed to take responsibilities.

    The same applies to Ballymurphy, Brigadier Frank Kitson and (now General retired)formerley Captain Mike Jackson are both alive enjoying huge pensions you are paying for. To achieve their pensions, and good life they enjoy, they ordered and covered up, lied, about killing in cold blood your fellow unarmed countrymen!! If the non-existent "gun battle" had taken place, and the dead were republican volunteers there would, in all parobability, have been British casualties. The fact is, these people were non combatants.

    Read the article again Steve, I am calling for those who gave the order to be brought forward, in much the same way as leading SS high rankers are being. Unless, of course, Kitson and company are, like some Nazis useful to the USA, under a protection order from the British establishment???

    Caoimhin O'Murailae.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve has a point Caoimhin if you are calling only for British commanders to be brought to book and not IRA and INLA ones. Both of those republican organisations perpetrated war crimes.

      Delete
    2. In theory lower ranks are allowed to disobey orders if they in good conscience do not believe they are morally or ethically sound (conduct unbecoming), but in practical terms no squaddie is about to question his senior ranks. So ignoring the ranks and targeting the establishment is bound to fail for obvious reasons.

      Delete
  4. IRA and INLA commanders are not under the (unofficial) protection of the 26 county, or any other, government. It is plain to see that Brigadier (retired) Kitson, General (retired) Jackson and Colonel (retired) Wilford are being protected by the British establishmen. Jackson is on film telling his lies, Wilford disobeyed an order from his superior officer, not to send troops into the Bogside. This in itself, under their rules, is a court-martial offence. To take anybody to court evidence is required, in the case of these three there is plenty. Statements from soldiers serving in other regiments about the Paras, acting on Kitsons orders are available, they were freely given to the RTE documentary.

    I have no doubt what you say, Anthony, about war crimes committed by volunteers acting under orders by the two republican forces. Given the fact, certainly towards the end of the war, both armies had been infiltrated at the highest level it would seem, who was giving the volunteers orders? The FRU infiltrators perhaps? If this was the case then the crimes were in effect committed by British Army undercover personel. Has anybody considered this? If the bloke at the top, issuing orders, is a British infiltrator, then that person is responsible for issuing the order.

    Of course, as I see it Anthony, the rule books of the IRA and INLA were greatly to blame. Unquestioning obedience to superior officers? A dangerous situation. This tends to be a problem with armies, all armies both conventional and guerilla, idiots telling relatively sane people what to do!

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that sounds like a sleight of hand for getting senior Brits prosecuted and getting senior republicans off the hook. It also leads to a hierarchy of victims - those killed by the Brits matter while those killed by republicans don't. It has been considered on this blog and elsewhere that agents were directing a lot of want went on and that it therefore hard to assign culpability to one body. As for evidence, is Gerry Kelly right when he says anybody against whom there is evidence should be prosecuted?
      IRA and INLA did court-martials as well. Should they now CM those who carried out war crimes?

      Delete
  5. A fair point Anthony, but having read several works, not least Ian Hurst AKA Matin Ingram, some of these senior republicans may well have been senior Brits as well? Nothing would surprise me, as I am sure you will appreciate to a far greater degree as to what went on. People who in my wildest dreams, or worst nightmares, turned out not to be the persons I once thought they were. All I do know is there is plenty of evidence on the three "Gentlemen" in question. I like the sleight of hand bit.

    Generally speaking I would opposse prosecutions, but when three high ranking officers are so blatantly responsible the amnesty should not apply to them, especially when they are more than happy sitting on their fat army officer pensions, to hang out private soldiers to dry.

    If I was Gerry Kelly, I think I'd keep quiet.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They may have been - but that still means you only want prosecution for Brits and not for republicans. Because I don't want republicans prosecuted I can't call for the British to be prosecuted either. We either support prosecutions or we don't. There is no exception to the rule otherwise it just becomes a demand for half the truth

      Delete
  6. These were "officers and gentlemen" in theory, another fucking lie, and are guilty by their own actions and statements. Do Wilford for disobeying a superiour officers orders. The officers are responsible for the two incidents, they get the big buck, the braid of gold and mega pention, retiring early, now let them answer.

    I see your point Anthony, and this prosecution suggestion does not apply to republicans, unemployed in many cases, no life of luxury for them, except those who were working for the British, FRU-now renamed the JSG (Joint Services Group). The fat cats walk every time.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just proved my point Caoimhin, and this is were this argument inevitably falls down. I can't in good conscience call for any combatants to face prosecution unless it is across the board, which it never will be.

      The other reason why the British will never really prosecute their own soldiers is that it would have a tremendously negative impact on recruitment in the future, and that's something they cannot afford to lose. What is an Army without cannon fodder?

      Like my Da always said, "Never trust an officer (or a cop)"

      Delete
    2. it still works out at prosecution for one set of players but not another. It is a position that certainly can be argued but is most unlikely to gain traction. It also reinforces the hierarchy of victims concept in that the victims of British war crimes are to have their day in court but not the victims of republican war crimes.
      If the war is over then its time to stop taking prisoners.

      Delete
    3. "If the war is over then its time to stop taking prisoners."

      As long as they aren't trying to continue the war of course.

      Delete
    4. I imagine the issue being discussed is very clear - those affected by any suggestion of Amnesty: which means activity pre 98

      Delete
    5. 24 years on and we still have to be clear on the dates. I'm feeling old AM.

      Delete
  7. I can see your points, all of you, but these tossers are guilty by their own admissions and actions. Have another look at the documentary, Ballymurphy Masacre, and look at Jackson laughing. Then other soldiers, who also hated Kitson, claiming he considered his own "private army" the paras.

    I agree with your da, Steve.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete