Brandon Sullivan ✍ with the second part of his dig into the British state's Dirty War in the North.

“All my life here I’ve spent, with my faith in God, and Church, and the Government” - Belfast Child, Simple Minds

It’s worth taking a bit of time to consider how appalling a situation William Black was in. Here was a deeply religious man, with military experience, who volunteered to join the UDR to try and do something about what he saw as a campaign of terrorism. Because of these convictions, and his initiative, he became a target for the very government he swore to protect and uphold. I have often felt a great deal of sympathy for law-abiding unionists, particularly in rural areas, who found themselves stuck between two ruthless and determined entities (the IRA, and the British Government), neither with much regard for them.

The Attacks on William Black Step Up

In fear because of the attack on their home, Mr Black and his family moved to another property, a house with a yellow door at 174 Ainsworth Avenue, in the Shankill. Around this time, the UDR sacked Sgt Black, saying that he had been off sick for too long. Black pointed out that other men were off for far longer, and with much less distinguished service than him, but to no avail. He requested, but was denied, an audience with a senior officer to plead his case.

On the 20th January 1973, the Black family heard a burst of machine gun fire outside of their home. A house opposite, number 147, which had a yellow door like the Black’s home, had been sprayed with bullets, fortuitously with no injuries. The Black family assumed their home had been the target, and the RUC confirmed this. The Black family collected the spent cartridges, which former British soldier Sgt Black was able to confirm were British military munitions. Terrified, and now convinced that elements of the British army were after them, the Black family moved again, this time, albeit with understandable reservations, to the strongly republican area of Lenadoon.

The Black family were not intimidated by locals, and there were no attacks upon their home from any quarter. One incident did occur, however, and it concerned one of their sons. He was arrested in the vicinity of a car theft, despite numerous witnesses confirming that he was not involved. This arrest provoked a strong community response, and it was seen as petty harassment by the army. Mr Black, angry at this treatment of his son, went to the RUC station he was being held in. By chance, at the police station, Black met then Stormont assembly man Kennedy Lindsay and eventually told him the full story of what had happened to his family since August 1972. Lindsay brought the story up in the assembly and told various reporters, but it failed to make a stir or catch up publicity. As Vincent Browne put it: “[Kennedy Lindsay] has a richly merited reputation for unreliability and wild and extreme allegations."

The SAS Attempt to Murder William Black

Vincent Browne noted that the Black family were fond of the outdoors, and frequently holidayed in County Wicklow in the Republic. So it was that William Black rented a holiday cottage in Saintfield, outside Belfast. Mr Black, Vincent Browne reported, was keen for his children to "escape the strife in Belfast." On Friday, 25th January 1974, William Black arranged to sell a boiler to a colleague. The colleague brought two men with him to assist, and the group of four set off for the Saintfield cottage in two cars. What happened when they arrived is disputed. According to an RUC file (05/02/74), William Black smelled cigarette smoke, realised someone was inside the house, and went in to challenge them. There had previously been a spate of burglaries in the area. His companions heard shooting, and made their way to alert the police. Three soldiers were then taken into custody by the RUC.

Vincent Browne reported:

According to the statement later made by Mr Black for the police, when he entered the house he went straight up the narrow stair holding his rifle by his side. From the time he got to the top of the stairs I continue with his own verbatim account; ‘There was a belch of flame towards me and I felt searing pain in my mouth and side. I knew that I had been badly shot. In the light of the flame I recognised what I know to be a Sterling machine gun. I was also able to see a very dim outline of a man. This man at no time made any sound that I could hear. Everything happened so quickly I couldn't tell whether this man was in uniform or civilian clothes. As I fell the shadow of the man seemed to go further into the room and I could no longer see it, After I fell I found myself lying in the corner of the top landing between the wall and the small room door. As I lay in the corner the blood was pouring out of my mouth and I was in great pain all over. I called out to whoever was in the room for them to help me. I was sure that I was going to die. I couldn't understand why this had been done to me for I had wronged no one in my life.

After I called out I got no answer from anyone. I don't know how long I lay there but while I lay in the same place I saw from the corner of my eye another dim shadow in the doorway of the big upstairs bedroom but whether from the shock of my injuries or the darkness of the landing I can't say if this man was in uniform or not. The man moved very quickly into the big bedroom again without a sound. I suppose whoever it was thought I was dead.’

William Black was fortunate to survive, and managed to make his way to a farm owned by a Mr Seawright, who drove him to a UDR base.

The Character Assassination of William Black

A confidential memo titled The Shooting Of Mr Black sent to the Secretary of State, wherein representatives of the British Army and RUC (11/02/74) referred to William Black’s “murky background” whilst a minute of another Cab Sec level meeting noted:

 … an army patrol had mounted a surveillance operation at Black’s farmhouse, following information that he was implicated in extreme Protestant subversive activity. As Dr Paisley has mentioned, Black had formerly been a member of the UDR: he was in fact one of those who had been required to resign from the regiment because of his associations. While the patrol was in an outhouse of the farm, a car drew up outside and Black entered the building carrying a firearm. He went upstairs where one of the soldiers was positioned. The latter told him to put down the weapon but he instead cocked it and the solider then shot him. He died a day or two later. Other weapons were subsequently found on the premises. The RUC were informed in the usual way.

In fact, William Black was not killed. But he was, as per Clive Fairweather’s recollection, “confronted on the stairs of his home by SAS soldiers.”

The character assassination of William Black continued in a military file, notated as “restricted” and titled The Shooting Of Mr W S Black Near Saintfield On 26 January 1974.


This file contained the following rationale for the attack on Mr Back (verbatim, typos not mine):

Information was received that about £5000 of stolen goods plus possibly arms and ammunition were stored in the outbuildings of an unoccupied farm near Saintfield. An operation to investigate this report was commissioned by the Commander 3 Brigade and the Chief Inspector of HMG "G" Division was informed.

Initial enquiries indicate that at about 3:00am on 26 January a 3 man patrol entered the outbuildings of the farm and found large numbers of carpets, refrigerators and cases of wine. They then went into the farmhouse and a 9mm pistol and 200 rounds of ammunition. Since there was a possibility that people who had hidden the stolen goods at the farm would return more soldiers were sent to the farm and in all, six hid themselves in the house.

The following day at about 1:30pm one of the soldiers, L Cpl Cooper saw two cars approaching from the direction of Saintfield. He warned the others and managed to take some photographs of the men.

One of them entered the house, and the patrol Commander, Staff Sergeant Abbot, gathered that he was looking for some keys. He heard one of the other three say that he thought there was someone in the house. At this, the man - Mr Back - went out to his car and took out a .22 Remington rifle from the boot and went back into the house.

L Cpl Cooper, who was hiding in the small bedroom, heard Mr Black coming up the stairs. Suddenly the door of the room was thrown open and he could see Mr Black holding what looked like a shotgun. L Cpl Cooper identified himself as a member of the Security Forces and told him to drop his weapon. He saw Mr Black raise the weapon as if he was about to fire, moved sharply to his left so that the door was between him and Mr Black, and fired 5 rounds from his SMG through the door.
Vincent Browne noted that:

The British army version of these events was issued in three conflicting statements and included an allegation that Mr Black had opened fire on them from a field and they had shot him; that they had seen him get out of a car with a gun and had called on him to halt and on his refusing to do they shot him; and that they had arrested his three companions in the barn. British Army Intelligence at Lisburn now admits that all the initial Army version of the incidents were 'mistaken' and say that the shooting should never have happened.

Browne noted that the British Army was obstructing the RUC’s attempts to investigate the shooting, and the claims about stolen goods. None of the RUC officers noticed any of the stolen goods on the day of the events - and the inventory included £1,500 (£14k in today’s money) worth of carpets, and 27 refrigerators, and the goods were not presented the police for several days. Browne also noted that the RUC’s investigations had, so far, managed to corroborate many aspects of William Black’s testimony.

Browne also noted an intriguing fact:

There is one especially intriguing aspect to all this - a Star pistol allegedly found by the Army in the farmhouse transpires to have been the personal issue of a UDR man called Todd who was shot dead in strange circumstances on the Shankill Road in Belfast a year ago.

The shooting of UDR Private John Thomas “Jackie” Todd, Shankill Road, 17th October 1972

Jackie Todd was unarmed, according to a friend of his, who claimed the two of them were drinking in Shankill Road bars the day of his death, and Jackie deliberating left his pistol at home. The army claimed that they shot a man who aimed a rifle at him. The coroner, Mr James Elliot, said there were many conflicting stories surrounding the case. He said there was little corroborating evidence to support the army, and that a post mortem had shown there was no alcohol in Todd's blood, which contradicted his friend's story (Belfast Telegraph 23/08/73).

Jackie Todd was a member of the UDR, but also seemed to be in the UDA. Uniformed members of the UDA marched at his funeral, and a volley of shots was fired by “men in civilian clothes” outside UDA HQ when his funeral cortege passed by. Death notices were left by a number of organisation, including his battalion, 10 UDR, the “officers and volunteers of the loyalist prisoners of war” and the “staff and customers of the Salisbury Arms” (Belfast Telegraph 20/10/72).

“Captain Black”, Sergeant Black, and Private Todd

Photo credit – Buzz Logan

Captain Black is synonymous with the UDA murderer, John White, and someone (probably White) identified himself using the moniker when he claimed responsibility for the savage knife murders of SDLP Senator Paddy Wilson, and his friend Irene Andrews. By the time of the 1974 attack on William Black, John White was interned without trial. His partner-in-sectarian murder, Davy Payne was still at large, however, despite his involvement in crimes every bit as sadistic and vile as White’s being well known to the authorities. I have in fact written about White & Payne’s whereabouts in February 1974 in this piece.

 
Davy Payne, 1975, BBC Rewind

 John White, 90s, Boston College

The identities of these men would have been no secret. If the SAS or MRF wanted to kill either man, then they presumably could have. That they didn’t, and instead focused their efforts on targeting a member of the Plymouth Brethren in his 40s is, to put it mildly, very strange.

I asked my ex-military contact why they were so keen to kill William Black. He replied that simply because he had interfered with an MRF operation. If that is the case, there are still a number of intriguing questions:

  • Did they want to kill William Black to eliminate a witness, or to intimidate potential witnesses, or simply because, as Clive Fairweather put it, simply because they could?
  • If they could, why could they? And could they not target more deserving personalities?
  • Why was Jackie Todd killed? And who within the British army killed him? And how did his personal weapon end up in a house which had been taken possession of by the SAS?

If you have any information about anything relating to this story, please contact me: mr.brandon.sullivan.20@gmail.com

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

Killing Captain Black? The Curious Case Of The UDR Sergeant Targeted by Undercover British Soldiers – Part Two

Brandon Sullivan ✍ with the second part of his dig into the British state's Dirty War in the North.

“All my life here I’ve spent, with my faith in God, and Church, and the Government” - Belfast Child, Simple Minds

It’s worth taking a bit of time to consider how appalling a situation William Black was in. Here was a deeply religious man, with military experience, who volunteered to join the UDR to try and do something about what he saw as a campaign of terrorism. Because of these convictions, and his initiative, he became a target for the very government he swore to protect and uphold. I have often felt a great deal of sympathy for law-abiding unionists, particularly in rural areas, who found themselves stuck between two ruthless and determined entities (the IRA, and the British Government), neither with much regard for them.

The Attacks on William Black Step Up

In fear because of the attack on their home, Mr Black and his family moved to another property, a house with a yellow door at 174 Ainsworth Avenue, in the Shankill. Around this time, the UDR sacked Sgt Black, saying that he had been off sick for too long. Black pointed out that other men were off for far longer, and with much less distinguished service than him, but to no avail. He requested, but was denied, an audience with a senior officer to plead his case.

On the 20th January 1973, the Black family heard a burst of machine gun fire outside of their home. A house opposite, number 147, which had a yellow door like the Black’s home, had been sprayed with bullets, fortuitously with no injuries. The Black family assumed their home had been the target, and the RUC confirmed this. The Black family collected the spent cartridges, which former British soldier Sgt Black was able to confirm were British military munitions. Terrified, and now convinced that elements of the British army were after them, the Black family moved again, this time, albeit with understandable reservations, to the strongly republican area of Lenadoon.

The Black family were not intimidated by locals, and there were no attacks upon their home from any quarter. One incident did occur, however, and it concerned one of their sons. He was arrested in the vicinity of a car theft, despite numerous witnesses confirming that he was not involved. This arrest provoked a strong community response, and it was seen as petty harassment by the army. Mr Black, angry at this treatment of his son, went to the RUC station he was being held in. By chance, at the police station, Black met then Stormont assembly man Kennedy Lindsay and eventually told him the full story of what had happened to his family since August 1972. Lindsay brought the story up in the assembly and told various reporters, but it failed to make a stir or catch up publicity. As Vincent Browne put it: “[Kennedy Lindsay] has a richly merited reputation for unreliability and wild and extreme allegations."

The SAS Attempt to Murder William Black

Vincent Browne noted that the Black family were fond of the outdoors, and frequently holidayed in County Wicklow in the Republic. So it was that William Black rented a holiday cottage in Saintfield, outside Belfast. Mr Black, Vincent Browne reported, was keen for his children to "escape the strife in Belfast." On Friday, 25th January 1974, William Black arranged to sell a boiler to a colleague. The colleague brought two men with him to assist, and the group of four set off for the Saintfield cottage in two cars. What happened when they arrived is disputed. According to an RUC file (05/02/74), William Black smelled cigarette smoke, realised someone was inside the house, and went in to challenge them. There had previously been a spate of burglaries in the area. His companions heard shooting, and made their way to alert the police. Three soldiers were then taken into custody by the RUC.

Vincent Browne reported:

According to the statement later made by Mr Black for the police, when he entered the house he went straight up the narrow stair holding his rifle by his side. From the time he got to the top of the stairs I continue with his own verbatim account; ‘There was a belch of flame towards me and I felt searing pain in my mouth and side. I knew that I had been badly shot. In the light of the flame I recognised what I know to be a Sterling machine gun. I was also able to see a very dim outline of a man. This man at no time made any sound that I could hear. Everything happened so quickly I couldn't tell whether this man was in uniform or civilian clothes. As I fell the shadow of the man seemed to go further into the room and I could no longer see it, After I fell I found myself lying in the corner of the top landing between the wall and the small room door. As I lay in the corner the blood was pouring out of my mouth and I was in great pain all over. I called out to whoever was in the room for them to help me. I was sure that I was going to die. I couldn't understand why this had been done to me for I had wronged no one in my life.

After I called out I got no answer from anyone. I don't know how long I lay there but while I lay in the same place I saw from the corner of my eye another dim shadow in the doorway of the big upstairs bedroom but whether from the shock of my injuries or the darkness of the landing I can't say if this man was in uniform or not. The man moved very quickly into the big bedroom again without a sound. I suppose whoever it was thought I was dead.’

William Black was fortunate to survive, and managed to make his way to a farm owned by a Mr Seawright, who drove him to a UDR base.

The Character Assassination of William Black

A confidential memo titled The Shooting Of Mr Black sent to the Secretary of State, wherein representatives of the British Army and RUC (11/02/74) referred to William Black’s “murky background” whilst a minute of another Cab Sec level meeting noted:

 … an army patrol had mounted a surveillance operation at Black’s farmhouse, following information that he was implicated in extreme Protestant subversive activity. As Dr Paisley has mentioned, Black had formerly been a member of the UDR: he was in fact one of those who had been required to resign from the regiment because of his associations. While the patrol was in an outhouse of the farm, a car drew up outside and Black entered the building carrying a firearm. He went upstairs where one of the soldiers was positioned. The latter told him to put down the weapon but he instead cocked it and the solider then shot him. He died a day or two later. Other weapons were subsequently found on the premises. The RUC were informed in the usual way.

In fact, William Black was not killed. But he was, as per Clive Fairweather’s recollection, “confronted on the stairs of his home by SAS soldiers.”

The character assassination of William Black continued in a military file, notated as “restricted” and titled The Shooting Of Mr W S Black Near Saintfield On 26 January 1974.


This file contained the following rationale for the attack on Mr Back (verbatim, typos not mine):

Information was received that about £5000 of stolen goods plus possibly arms and ammunition were stored in the outbuildings of an unoccupied farm near Saintfield. An operation to investigate this report was commissioned by the Commander 3 Brigade and the Chief Inspector of HMG "G" Division was informed.

Initial enquiries indicate that at about 3:00am on 26 January a 3 man patrol entered the outbuildings of the farm and found large numbers of carpets, refrigerators and cases of wine. They then went into the farmhouse and a 9mm pistol and 200 rounds of ammunition. Since there was a possibility that people who had hidden the stolen goods at the farm would return more soldiers were sent to the farm and in all, six hid themselves in the house.

The following day at about 1:30pm one of the soldiers, L Cpl Cooper saw two cars approaching from the direction of Saintfield. He warned the others and managed to take some photographs of the men.

One of them entered the house, and the patrol Commander, Staff Sergeant Abbot, gathered that he was looking for some keys. He heard one of the other three say that he thought there was someone in the house. At this, the man - Mr Back - went out to his car and took out a .22 Remington rifle from the boot and went back into the house.

L Cpl Cooper, who was hiding in the small bedroom, heard Mr Black coming up the stairs. Suddenly the door of the room was thrown open and he could see Mr Black holding what looked like a shotgun. L Cpl Cooper identified himself as a member of the Security Forces and told him to drop his weapon. He saw Mr Black raise the weapon as if he was about to fire, moved sharply to his left so that the door was between him and Mr Black, and fired 5 rounds from his SMG through the door.
Vincent Browne noted that:

The British army version of these events was issued in three conflicting statements and included an allegation that Mr Black had opened fire on them from a field and they had shot him; that they had seen him get out of a car with a gun and had called on him to halt and on his refusing to do they shot him; and that they had arrested his three companions in the barn. British Army Intelligence at Lisburn now admits that all the initial Army version of the incidents were 'mistaken' and say that the shooting should never have happened.

Browne noted that the British Army was obstructing the RUC’s attempts to investigate the shooting, and the claims about stolen goods. None of the RUC officers noticed any of the stolen goods on the day of the events - and the inventory included £1,500 (£14k in today’s money) worth of carpets, and 27 refrigerators, and the goods were not presented the police for several days. Browne also noted that the RUC’s investigations had, so far, managed to corroborate many aspects of William Black’s testimony.

Browne also noted an intriguing fact:

There is one especially intriguing aspect to all this - a Star pistol allegedly found by the Army in the farmhouse transpires to have been the personal issue of a UDR man called Todd who was shot dead in strange circumstances on the Shankill Road in Belfast a year ago.

The shooting of UDR Private John Thomas “Jackie” Todd, Shankill Road, 17th October 1972

Jackie Todd was unarmed, according to a friend of his, who claimed the two of them were drinking in Shankill Road bars the day of his death, and Jackie deliberating left his pistol at home. The army claimed that they shot a man who aimed a rifle at him. The coroner, Mr James Elliot, said there were many conflicting stories surrounding the case. He said there was little corroborating evidence to support the army, and that a post mortem had shown there was no alcohol in Todd's blood, which contradicted his friend's story (Belfast Telegraph 23/08/73).

Jackie Todd was a member of the UDR, but also seemed to be in the UDA. Uniformed members of the UDA marched at his funeral, and a volley of shots was fired by “men in civilian clothes” outside UDA HQ when his funeral cortege passed by. Death notices were left by a number of organisation, including his battalion, 10 UDR, the “officers and volunteers of the loyalist prisoners of war” and the “staff and customers of the Salisbury Arms” (Belfast Telegraph 20/10/72).

“Captain Black”, Sergeant Black, and Private Todd

Photo credit – Buzz Logan

Captain Black is synonymous with the UDA murderer, John White, and someone (probably White) identified himself using the moniker when he claimed responsibility for the savage knife murders of SDLP Senator Paddy Wilson, and his friend Irene Andrews. By the time of the 1974 attack on William Black, John White was interned without trial. His partner-in-sectarian murder, Davy Payne was still at large, however, despite his involvement in crimes every bit as sadistic and vile as White’s being well known to the authorities. I have in fact written about White & Payne’s whereabouts in February 1974 in this piece.

 
Davy Payne, 1975, BBC Rewind

 John White, 90s, Boston College

The identities of these men would have been no secret. If the SAS or MRF wanted to kill either man, then they presumably could have. That they didn’t, and instead focused their efforts on targeting a member of the Plymouth Brethren in his 40s is, to put it mildly, very strange.

I asked my ex-military contact why they were so keen to kill William Black. He replied that simply because he had interfered with an MRF operation. If that is the case, there are still a number of intriguing questions:

  • Did they want to kill William Black to eliminate a witness, or to intimidate potential witnesses, or simply because, as Clive Fairweather put it, simply because they could?
  • If they could, why could they? And could they not target more deserving personalities?
  • Why was Jackie Todd killed? And who within the British army killed him? And how did his personal weapon end up in a house which had been taken possession of by the SAS?

If you have any information about anything relating to this story, please contact me: mr.brandon.sullivan.20@gmail.com

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

45 comments:

  1. Jackie Todd was shot dead by soldiers who said Todd aimed a rifle at them - apologies, my writing doesn't make it clear

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fascinating two pieces. Why the British military hounded Mr. Black so relentlessly is hard to puzzle out. The author observes that were much more murderous characters on the "loyalist" side running amok with the full knowledge of the authorities and indeed leadership figures in the PIRA weren't targeted for assassination when the British state certainly had the means to do so. That said, it wasn't as if the British Army didn't have the will to target prolific IRA gunmen during this time; Joe McCann and Jim Bryson come to mind. The pursuit of Mr. Black had nothing to do with maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland, and is at odds with efforts by unionist politicians in the current day legacy battle to portray the security forces as non-partisan peacekeepers who weren't protagonists in the conflict. Sinn Féin's attempts to create equivocation between PIRA and the security forces nearly always focus on later collusion but the violence of the state in that period, particularly targeting working-class Catholic areas was historically more important. It included of course large-scale shootings like in Ballymurphy and Derry, but it was also the day-to-day brutality and rough treatment, at the behest of a discredited Protestant supremacist government, that set the stage for years of conflict. It was only in 1969-1972 that the number of killings by British security forces rivalled that of paramilitaries. For example on 17 October 1971 the IRA killed three British soldiers in separate attacks across NI; in the week that followed the British Army killed seven Catholics, a mixture of IRA members, civilians mugging a man in Newry, and totally uninvolved civilians.

    All this does make me wonder throughout the course of the Troubles on what grounds would the security forces arrange an ambush to kill an IRA team or just observe them, say with the caveat an informant had tampered with a bomb beforehand. For example, in late 1990 the SAS ambushed an INLA gang carrying out a shooting on the home of a UDR soldier near Strabane. He had vacated his home in advance and the SAS team took up positions inside. The only fatality was the INLA member driving the getaway vehicle, who ironically was himself the informant who had likely provided the basis for the ambush and thus his own death. The Army's rationale for the shooting was unclear; with the UDR man moved out there was no threat to life and anyway the INLA was a small and ineffectual grouping by this time. In another incident in 1990 undercover British soldiers ambushed and killed a trio of common criminals robbing a north Belfast bookies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In another incident in 1990 undercover British soldiers ambushed and killed a trio of common criminals robbing a north Belfast bookies."

      That was happenstance. The two of them came bolting out of the bookies and towards the car just when a two man undercover unit was walking up the road. One of the soldiers was an Australian on detachment to 22SAS. The ODC were not the target(s). Created no end of shit when it dawned on the higher ups that he could hardly shout out a warning with an Ozzie accent (Yellow Card-not that it was ever seriously used). The political backlash would have been considerable, particularly given the push for a Republic back then in Australia.

      Delete
  3. " I have often felt a great deal of sympathy for law-abiding unionists"

    That is a more sweeping expression of sympathy than just the RUC. My sympathies lay with the Nationalist community that was under seige from law abiding unionists (Judiciary, RUC, B-Specials, UDR, Presbyterian, Church of Ireland, DUP, OUP, UUP, UDA, Alliance etc )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roping in Alliance with the B Specials and UDA is stretching things rather?

      Delete
    2. Barry
      The encompassing categorisation was 'law-abiding unionists' --why do you feel Alliance fall out of that category? I thought some might question the UDA but it was not out-lawed until August 1992.

      Incidently, throughout the conflict the Alliance always voted hardline anti-nationalist when it counted.

      Delete
    3. Barry
      And the Alliance party had former B-specials/UDR and RUC among its membership and voter bloc -the UDA maybe not.

      Delete
  4. "If they could, why could they? And could they not target more deserving personalities?"

    Ah, we finally got somewhere, they shot the wrong kind of terrorist --they should have stuck to shooting Nationalists/Republicans and left Loyalists to their own devices... weren't they all on the same team so to speak -fighting for Queen and country?

    Don't get me wrong I had hoped you were going to get somewhere --have you any idea how many Nationalists they shot just because the could? And know theyd get away with it. Given the way you framed this I do not see that big of an injustice or mystery. Black was a shady character and was killed under shady circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Christy Walsh

    Since I mainly write hugely critical analysis of loyalism, my sympathy for the main objects of their violence (the CNR community - which I was born into) should be obvious.

    I've a fairly good idea of how many nationalists were shot because they could, yes. But I find it intruiging that they went so intently after William Black. In its unusuality, it is worth researching, no? Especially after the story originated from a former SAS commander talking to AM.

    In terms of them targeting "deserving personalities" did you miss me having a while paragraph to the alleged Captain Black, and his pal Davy Payne? I even included photos.

    I don't think William Black was shady. I think shady people wanted to kill him, and so described him as shady. Unless you trust the MRF more than Vincent Browne?

    I think umpire still labouring under the misapprehension that I'm an RUC apologist. My offer stanfs: I'll donate £5 to a republican organisation of your choice for every bit of RUC apologia I've written that you can find. Same for the UDR (an organisation I have particular contempt for).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon
      I read most of your articles which are generally informative -But: there is balance and then there's re-writing or misrepresenting history. I think you are heavy on the latter.

      For example, during Lesley Stock's series of artices you asserted and defended that the 'the RUC were predominantly decent', you also touted the government's 'few bad apples' propoganda. You did not accept clarification that the RUC was predominantly sectarian and anti-nationalist -which is their legacy.

      "I was born into"
      That you are Castle Catholic (loosely speaking) comes as no surprise

      Delete
    2. In exchanges Castle Catholic is more of a put down than an engagement with the ideas expressed.
      I have seen nothing in Brandon's writing that would lend itself to that type of characterisation.

      Delete
    3. AM
      That is the only term I know that identifies that section of the Catholic come Nationalist community, that are sympathetic or supportive of unionism/the crown -the Alliance party targets that section of the Nationalist community for votes. I am not aware of any other term used to identify that group?

      Delete
    4. It is a pejorative term that is meant to label much the same way as MOPEs or Uncle terms is meant to label. It is used more as a smear than a description. And I am sure I have used it myself but I am not going to feign a position that it is an idea more than it is an insult. In any event it hardly fits Brandon who attempts to introduce nuance into his writing. I can think of other terms such as nationalists who are sympathetic or understanding of aspects of unionism, or people who take a more benign view of unionist sentiment. There are lots of ways to express a sentiment which make a point without seeking to score one.

      Delete
    5. AM
      I agree it is used in the same way as the term 'Tout' is used...it is not a flattering term. At least with 'tout' it identifies an informer --what other term identifies Castle Catholics? --no single term that I know off but you suggest give an explaination or more qualified description? I'll go with that.

      I do not disagree with most of what Brandon writes -I dont even disagree that there were decent Unionists/RUC/Brits --but he exagerates it way to much than is historically or factually correct. I question his motivation behind that tendancy.

      Delete
    6. AM

      My concern is that when you leave disengenous or inaccurate smudging of historical fact they can become accepted as being true narrative. In a more extreme example one need only look at how Ron DeSantis is trying to erase or re-write Black history in Florida.

      Delete
    7. There are a plurality of narratives about the North's conflict and people can share a different view from us without being disingenuous. There is no useful comparison between what Brandon is doing in terms of human empathy and what DeSantis has been doing with his political attacks.
      Revisionist is a term that could have been employed (although I see none of it in Brandon's work) in lieu of Castle Catholic, given that the latter is little other than a term of abuse in the type of dialogue we are having here.

      Delete
    8. I suppose its down to the readers interpretation discriptive/abusive? Whatever the correctness of that issue it distracts from the argument that law-abiding unionists were victims caught up between 2 ruthless entities, and deserving of sympathy for their unfortunate position in the middle?

      They were no passive observers, they volunintarily chose their lot and dirtied their hands in variety of ways ranging from bigotry and discrimination to everything else inbetween, up to and including murder and collusion in murder? And on occassion they gathered every now and then to wave their gun licemses in the air lest we fenians forget the the law had armed them as reward for being law-abiding subjects.

      Delete
    9. AM
      I think Brandon forgets that ruthless entity No1 (Government) had left Unionists to their own devices in maintaining the 6 counties. Ruthless entity No2 came about from law-abiding unionists cracking the heads of peaceful Nationalists demanding their civil rights.rights . In otherwords law-abiding unionists started the whole conflict.

      Delete
    10. @ Christy,

      Are you seriously trying to imply that among the entire Unionist population they were all guilty of ..

      "...They were no passive observers, they volunintarily chose their lot and dirtied their hands in variety of ways ranging from bigotry and discrimination to everything else inbetween, up to and including murder and collusion in murder?"

      Calling Brandon a Castle Catholic is so far wide of the mark I'd think you were trolling if you weren't so bitter. Maybe you wrote this on the sauce..

      Delete
    11. I don't think he forgets any of it at all. I feel he believes that as a result of republicans being the ruthless enemies of the British state, and seemingly responsible for more killings than any other single entity, the impact on the wider unionist community was going to be considerable.
      It is hard to imagine him being a Castle Catholic and an anti-unionist bigot at the same time - two of the things he has been accused of being on this blog over the course of time. Those type of slurs thrown his way for nothing other than expressing a different opinion probably means he is doing something right
      The generalisation that the entire unionist community were complicit or guilty rings much like that dimension of Islam you so oppose: totalitarian and labelling as infidel those who have a different opinion to the one held. People should not be demonised in that way. I presume you see how easy it is for your view to elide with another perspective which lumps people together as guilty or evil and that killing them is somehow a solution.
      Brandon, to his credit, does not defend the use of political violence by any of the parties to the North's conflict. By his own admission his most excoriating work has been on the violence of loyalism.

      Delete
    12. Steve R

      I assume you missed my comment "I dont even disagree that there were decent Unionists/RUC/Brits"

      In my first post I pointed out that Brandon had made a broad sweeping or all encompassing statement re: law-abiding unionists -that is all inclusive from the UDA up to Judiciary. It was not me as you believe -I responded to those terms.

      I agree with AM's view that Castle Catholic is a derogotary term but I had a dilemma because it is also the only descriptive term I know to describe the group or class of people who have a certain political outlook or alligence. I used and if anyone wants to interpret my motives to be purely abusive that's their rational but doesnt touch upon where I am coming from.


      AM/Steve R

      Re: some of your comments serve to do exactly what you are accusing me off.

      One of the easiest ways to contradict a lie or misrepresentation is to state a fact and not allow a lie to become the truth, but by allowing the truth to remain the truth.

      To say, but Brandon is critical of loyalism does not negate the issue. Throughout the Conflict, the RUC was predominantly sectarian and anti-Nationalist -and never predominently decent -the 2 are mutually exclusive. Law-abiding unionists, started the Conflict and kept it going -so called moderate unionists often couched their language to direct loyalists to target Nationalists without repercussions for their role. Brandon does not view unionism as a 'ruthless entity' for the reasons I have stated above and elsewhere. The idea that 'law-abiding unionists' were unfortunate victims caught up between 2 ruthless entities is just jaw dropping.

      Perhaps either of you can propose a more acceptable term to replace Castle Catholic instead of making a more qualified statement to avoid the term then I will work with it. Like I say it is the only term I know, even if it is a derogotory term.

      If common identifiers like Castle Catholic are to be censored then identifying people as touts should be discontinued when there are other more neutral terms for that class of people. I am not going to rehash my reasons for how I have come to see Brandon in a certain light but neither you nor AM have said anything to show that I have misjudged him.



      Delete
    13. Not sure that brings any more clarity to your point, might even obscure it.

      At the heel of the hunt it was a dilemma of your own making.
      You didn't need to call him any names. It would have sufficed to say in your view he was wrong and point out why.

      Castle Catholic has not been censored on this blog. But it is a term that should be applied appropriately rather than thrown out as a pejorative towards an argument we disagree with.

      Much like the use of tout - few would ever resort to using it against somebody expressing a different view in discussion. And if it is to be employed it should never be used loosely.

      Delete
    14. AM
      A plurality of narratives does not negate the other -but injecting things that are not true or accurate does. I have never heard of any Nationalist express the view of law-abiding unionists were victims between a ruthless Brit government and the IRA. I have legitimately argued that the Unionists created their own problem -they drew Brit government involvment and contributed to the rise/re-arming of the IRA. They were a ruthless force in theoir own right which Brandon has a tendancy of whitewashing.. no serious review of loyalism could be made if one did not consider how law-abiding unionists, cheered them on, guided their hand and set them loose on the Nationalist community.

      And for someone who is allegedly opposed to violence --I just dont get that when he suggests that rather than target Black " could they not target more deserving personalities?" My understanding of what 'more deserving personalities' means Nationalists, preferably republican but any taig will do. I understand you have read more of his work and probably dealt directly with him but NONE of what you have to say in his defence is even close to how he has come across to me -in the plurality of narratives we can both be right about the same person. I have not misrepresented him -I have quoted back what he writes, just like his suggestion above that the Brits could have targeted somebody more worthwhile for assination.

      Delete
    15. AM

      As you commented above "It is used more as a smear than a description." On this occassion I used it descriptively, and I have not seen or heard anything to change how I would describe him, its not my fault it is the only term used to identify that group of people, You might be inside Brandons head but your not inside mine, so I know how I used it and why I used it.

      Re: being inside Brandons head, I say that because you are speaking for him, I quote, "I don't think he forgets any of it at all. I feel he believes that as a result of republicans being the ruthless enemies of the British state, and seemingly responsible for more killings than any other single entity, the impact on the wider unionist community was going to be considerable." Will the whole concept of his sympathy requires one to forget or ignore the history of law-abiding unionists and how ruthless an entity they were.

      His answers and your answer on his behalf do not take into account the origins of the 6 counties, the Brits hands-off approach to unionist rule and how they treated peaceful civil rights marchers --law-abiding unionists were the biggest contributors to the start of the Troubles as (Ive pointed out above. Law-abiding unionists might even be said to be the original 'ruthless entity' and not passive victims stuck between the IRA and Brits as Brandon bemoans. This isnt about different perspectives or narratives -facts are facts and the truth is the truth and his revisonism to clean up unionism an its evils is just nonsense.

      Delete
    16. Nothing substantive there in relation to the core issue: Brandon ventured an opinion you did not approve of and your response was to call him names when you could as easily have avoided the pejoratives, played the ball and not the man. Calling him names added nothing whatsoever to the point in you sought to make and might have served to obscure it.

      Delete
    17. AM
      Every single post I made was to challenge his false narratives -or suggestion that law-abiding unionists were victims caught between 2 ruthless entities -I state a fact when I say law-abiding unionists were ruthless entities all on their own. He tends to downplay historical fact with revisionism. When he voluntarily disclosed his origins there is only 1 discriptive term for nationalists who undermine the true account of Irish history in favour of a Brit/Unionist version. I have already spelt out who all fall under the umberella term of law-abiding unionists --and after all these exchanges he has never taken the oppurtunity to say that he did not mean it that broadly. End of story.

      Delete
    18. To my eye every attempt to justify the name calling has fallen short of the mark. You can continue trying to defend it but at some point it just runs out of steam. Had you gone about it the way you posed your last comment to him - a straightforward attempt at rebuttal, it would not have raised an eyebrow. My advice for what it is worth is to avoid obsessing over debates on the internet. They are the soup of the day and change the next day.

      Delete
    19. "law-abiding unionists -that is all inclusive from the UDA up to Judiciary. "

      Christy I don't think is all inclusive and I'm not sure Brandon would either? Maybe he wasn't clear but I don't want to put words in his mouth. It's a bit like thinking that all the PUL community just woke up one day and started to hate the CNR with absolutely no reason nor provocation; it's neither accurate nor nuanced. Even at the height of the conflict we were acutely aware that we Loyalists were in the minority in the wider law abiding Unionist community. This is the reason why I'm scathing in relation to the Duppers, Uppers and Twaddlers. Some of us had no pretense's regarding legality but were quite aware the middle of the road, live and let live majority would be horrified at what went on. I know you've been shafted totally by the State and I am on your side to clear your name but back then we had no access to the plethora of information we have now. The small times we did you could count on one hand. And when common ground was found friendships started even between Hughes and Bates, and I'm aware of several more in prison and out. Brandon and I have had scathing dialogue on this blog too but I respect his position and efforts even if I disagree with plenty of his sentiments. That's not a crime. Perhaps the term "Dissenter" would be more palatable to you? He sure as shit ain't no PUL whitewasher!!!

      Delete
  6. Riveting piece Brandon. Glad you brought more clarity to what Clive told me in Edinburgh. It really does peel away a layer of the veneer of the manner in which the British did business in the North.

    ReplyDelete
  7. How William Black confirmed the rounds were British munitions is a bit of a stretch. Everybody back then were using all types. And why use a cumbersome and toothless bolt action .22lr rifle if the ability to be armed with a semi automatic sidearm was there? I suspect the black family did themselves no favours when moving from the Woodvale to Lenadoon. He rubbed more than a few people up the wrong way from the UDR, regular BA and local Loyalists. Certainly the thought would have occurred that he had sensitive intelligence from the UDR then moved to Lenadoon. Why he thought that was going to go unanswered especially after pissing off a spook op is more the mystery to me. I'm not convinced it runs much deeper than that for his card to be marked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He most likely moved into the Blacks Road end of it Steve. I doubt he was living right in the middle flying his union jack every twelfth!!

      Delete
    2. AM,

      Yeah even I don't think he was that suicidal! But my point still stands.

      Brandon,

      It's a little before my time and in the West but I'm still asking around for you. My comments are just what jumped out at me from your (excellent) piece.

      Delete
  8. @ Steve R

    "He rubbed more than a few people up the wrong way from the UDR, regular BA and local Loyalists."

    Do you recall anything about it the time or hear anything?

    I've got more info that adds context - will probably do another piece. This feedback is useful as for brevity I left out stuff about his ID-ing the munitions and extra info about his move. The Vincent Brownie piece is four broadsheet pages of dense info, coupled with the military and RUC and political logs - shed load of info, and more to come.

    The pissing off local loyalist angle is interesting.

    Also: do you know anything about UDA/UDR man Jackie Todd? Feel free to email me direct, would be good to connect anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Christy Walsh

    You won't be able to find me saying any of the things you've claimed I've said. Like I said, if you give me a direct quote, I'll donate a fiver per quote to the republican organisation of your choice.

    Some of the hardest research I've done came out of criticism on this blog - I was criticised for not researching the sectarian murder of Protestants by republican elements. So, I did it.

    So here's a direct suggestion - give me something that you feel hasn't been explored relating to the RUC. I'll see if I can find something out about it. Up to you. But seriously, drop the RUC apologist schtick. It's tiresome. I pointed out the fact that they statistically convicted more loyalist paramilitaries than republicans, and this seems to upset you and one or two others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon

      I dont know where you got your statistics from, nor do I recall ever being upset over it -in fact it doesnt even make sense to me because more H-Blocks were needed to house Republicans than Loyalists?? What I think you might be referring to is, as Ive heard said, loyalists were more likely to be serving murder sentences than Republicans. But that does not mean that that more loyalists were convicted of murder than Republicans -it simply means within the Loyalist prison population they had a proportionately higher number of life sentence prisoners whereas the statistics change for the Republican prison population because they had a lot more people and with diverse conviction types from punishment beatings, hijacking etc than Loyalists had. What partially explains that is Loyalists often got suspended sentences -particularly on possession of weapons charges. 4 year suspended sentences were not uncommon -if I remember correctly -Mano Marley got 18years and a loyalist got 4 year suspended sentence on the same day for similar offence -possession of a weapon. I think in 1992 the number of sentenced Republican prisoners was around 200 -the lowest ever throughout the Conflict. I have no idea how many Loyalists there were. Whereas, around 1994, there were more Loyalist remand prisoners for the first time than Republican.

      I would be interesteed to see these statistics and their source?? -and I dont see why they would upset me even if the numbers crunch like you suggest. I do know 1,874 Nationalists and 107 Loyalists were interned so it would be interesting to see how they flipped those kind of partisan numbers when it came to convictions.

      Delete
  10. @ Bleakley

    I'm starting to really look forward to your comments. You seem to have a forensic knowledge of the conflict.

    "The author observes that were much more murderous characters on the "loyalist" side running amok with the full knowledge of the authorities and indeed leadership figures in the PIRA weren't targeted for assassination when the British state certainly had the means to do so."

    I think the MRF were driving to stoke up the campaigns of sectarian murder, and so killing the actual Captain Black would have been counter-productive. I don't believe John White was an agent, informer, or asset in the 1970s (though he was later on, post 92), but I do believe that his associate (and brother-in-law) Davy Payne had a degree of state cover. It is, however, odd that they didn't kill more lethal Provos.

    Regarding the 1990 INLA ambush - I think it was probably a security force f*ck-up to be quite honest. I recently watched the documentary about it. The more I read about "special forces" the more I think they weren't really that special at all. I'm pretty sure the IRA killed more than UKG have acknowledged.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the kind words!

      As for the issue of the IRA supposedly killing British Special Forces members and the government denying it... this is has long been an article of faith for republicans but I'm not certain. Surely something would have come out by now? Or do I underestimate the power of the Official Secrets Act? To be fair, the government in recent years has blocked attempts to unmask informers from the 1910s-1920s conflict period.

      There is precedent for the British Army obfuscating the impact of attacks though; the Army were very sensitive to the propaganda value of IRA attacks on helicopters and *always* denied that they had been shot down (only "landed as a precautionary measure" or in severe cases the Army press euphemism was "forced to land"). A few years ago former RAF pilot David Morgan recounted how on April 15, 1976, a Wessex helicopter was struck by an RPG-7 rocket over Crossmaglen; the RAF publicly dismissed the IRA had scored anything bar a glancing blow, in reality the airframe was seriously damaged and the helicopter brought down. To further the deception the RAF repainted an intact Wessex with the same airframe number.

      Delete
  11. @ Christy Walsh

    The cut and thrust on this blog has changed my thinking, and ways of writing, and ways of seeing thing. In the spirit of open debate, I looked closely again at your comments.

    You have something of a point here:

    "Every single post I made was to challenge his false narratives -or suggestion that law-abiding unionists were victims caught between 2 ruthless entities -I state a fact when I say law-abiding unionists were ruthless entities all on their own"

    I would certainly agree that *some* law-abiding unionists were ruthless entities all by themselves. I think many abused the law to further their sectarian agendas. For too long the law was allowed to be used to abuse nationalists.

    I'll concede that the point I was trying to make would have been better served with a moral judgement that ignored how "law-abiding" a person was when abiding by the laws of the day could still allow petty harassment and (until 1992) membership of a loyalist paramilitary group, the UDA. I was writing it again, I'd change it to "ordinary, peaceful, non-sectarian unionists, of whom there were many."

    You can look up stats for republicans and loyalists charged with murder here: https://cain.ulster.ac.uk/issues/violence/bruce.htm


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BS

      I appreciate the clarity above. Steve R suggested that you did not mean to be so all encompassing --but when I think of that -so I have given thought to negligible section of the unionist community that one cant define because largely they never made themselves known. When they are that obscure or elusive then really they dreally dont earn any place in the annals of history.

      You do realise that the term Unionism is itself problematic --the only -non-sectarian unionists I can think of were Alliance -they were only non-sectarian in so far as you had to support the union -the only good Catholic was a unionist Catholic so to speak.. Make no mistake, they hated Nationalists and Republicans every bit as much as those in the DUP.

      I have not checked the link yet but if the stats only include murder convictions --Loyaliststalked more freely with cops because they did not see any clear lines of separation -they thought they were all on the one side.

      Delete
    2. SB

      I solved your statistical mystery --its when working with statistics with different variables. In the years studied 90-100 loyalists were convicted whereas 190-230 Republicans were convicted for the same peried.

      As follows: "republicans killed 386 people while loyalists killed only 69" ..... "the RUC's conviction rate for republican murders was between 50 and 60 per cent while that for loyalist murders was between 90 and 100 per cent.[7] To put it simply, the RUC finds it a lot easier to catch loyalist killers."

      Delete
  12. @ Christy Walsh

    When you write this:

    "...They were no passive observers, they volunintarily chose their lot and dirtied their hands in variety of ways ranging from bigotry and discrimination to everything else inbetween, up to and including murder and collusion in murder?"

    You literally repeat the rationale for hundreds of sectarian murders of Nationalists by loyalists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BS
      But the above quote was confined to those who fell into the 'law-abiding unionists' category that you had singled out as deserving of your sympathy.

      Delete
  13. @ Steve R

    I've heard an entirely different account of the Hole-In-The-Wall-Gang ODCs being killed on the Falls, and that it was a targeted operation. I'm openminded about the who, what, where, when of it all.

    @ Bleakley

    I was surprised at the official fatality count for Operation Banner - over 1400 British soliders killed, and the IRA directly responsible according to the MOD for about half.

    Special Force squaddies killed would have been claimed as members of their host regiment anyway.

    I'd say that the IRA probably killed more UK special force soliders, but probably fewer than they imagine.

    Very interesting about the helicopters. John Crawley's take on the IRA's actions against them is very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brandon - this double series has been one of the most popular in recent times on the blog. I hope you develop it.
      I too heard the targetted assassination of the three men angle. I was just a bit dubious as to the reason they were supposedly killed.
      Mark Thompson of Relatives For Justice would probably have a good insight on what really happened as his brother was killed there and he has a history of getting behind the myths that the British put out and exposing them.

      Delete
    2. Brandon,

      All fallen SAS soldiers are memorialised on the Regimental Clock at Stirling Lines. Whether they're also claimed by their original unit I'm not sure, but they are definitely remembered there.

      Delete