And you dare call me a terrorist, while you look down your gun, and I think of all the deeds that you have done. You have plundered many nations, divided many lands, you have terrorised their peoples, you ruled with an iron hand, and you brought this reign of terror to my land. (The Ballad of Joe McDonnell)
The Irish people are a pretty aggressive race ... just now they (Protestants) think we're their army ... we're just as liable to shoot them as we are anybody else ... the people here are luckiest people in the world, because they've got a British government. If it was anywhere else in the world, there'd be an awful lot more dead people and the army would be a lot more harder. - (Corporal Brown, Parachute Regiment, 1971)
As far as I'm concerned Corporal Brown is a disgrace to the British Army uniform ... going round night after night bullying men, women, and children." (Resident of Clonard, about Parachute Regiment Corporal Brown, 1971)
Criminals and Cowards in the Parachute Regiment, 1970s
Former Traditional Unionist Voice candidate John Ross said about Bloody Sunday:
One Para, and I make no apology for saying it, carried out a very successful operation … A good operation, a job well done. They all came out alive.
They did. 14 unarmed civilians did not. Using Ross’s rationale, the OIRA’s bombing of Aldershot Barracks in 1972 was a good operation. A job well done. The OIRA lost no volunteers, killed a Parachute regiment officer who had been mentioned in dispatches (and who happened to be a Padre), with less civilian “collateral damage” than on Bloody Sunday.
Of course, to view the Aldershot bombing that way is historically ridiculous and morally offensive. But Ross went further, and attended a rally supporting mass killer Soldier F. A speaker at the rally called on the British Government to “enact protective legislation" to "safeguard" soldiers and police.” Despite coming from the Shankill Road, where the Parachute Regiment shot dead two Protestant civilians, John Ross went on:
Right from the outset my regiment has been branded murderers, killers, all sorts. We served with pride, we served with dignity, we were disciplined, we did our duty. Yes, we were a robust regiment, and if you wanted the job done we would have done it. But we were just like any other regiment that served in Northern Ireland in Op Banner.
I wonder what John Ross would think of Corporal Brown?
The Belfast Telegraph reported, 6th December 1972, on “30 paratroopers quitting army” – that is, they bought themselves out. The article noted that two Paras had died in the North. The actual figure was eight, though official records note that not all died at the hands of republicans. Soldier F was charged with murder, but many other Paras, of John Ross’s era and beyond, were charged, and convicted of other crimes, ranging from armed robbery to theft. Three Para’s were convicted of receiving stolen goods and fined, on 5th April 1973. We are entitled to ask John Ross how he feels about the convicts in his regiment. There is evidence suggesting that one of those named in this case did a further eight tours of the North, despite his conviction.
Parachute regiment criminality continued into the 1990s. Whilst Lee Clegg was charged and convicted of murder of an unarmed nationalist teenager the conviction was quashed, he and his colleagues had opened fire on the night. The gunfire resulted in the deaths of Karen Reilly and Sean Peake. Some of his comrades in later years became involved in serious drug-dealing. These soldiers, I believe, are from the same battalion involved in the Christy Walsh case. The Third Battalion of the Parachute regiment around this time were widely condemned for attacks on civilians in Coalisland, which one officer being suspended, and questions being asked in parliament.
The Belfast Telegraph reported, 6th December 1972, on “30 paratroopers quitting army” – that is, they bought themselves out. The article noted that two Paras had died in the North. The actual figure was eight, though official records note that not all died at the hands of republicans. Soldier F was charged with murder, but many other Paras, of John Ross’s era and beyond, were charged, and convicted of other crimes, ranging from armed robbery to theft. Three Para’s were convicted of receiving stolen goods and fined, on 5th April 1973. We are entitled to ask John Ross how he feels about the convicts in his regiment. There is evidence suggesting that one of those named in this case did a further eight tours of the North, despite his conviction.
Parachute regiment criminality continued into the 1990s. Whilst Lee Clegg was charged and convicted of murder of an unarmed nationalist teenager the conviction was quashed, he and his colleagues had opened fire on the night. The gunfire resulted in the deaths of Karen Reilly and Sean Peake. Some of his comrades in later years became involved in serious drug-dealing. These soldiers, I believe, are from the same battalion involved in the Christy Walsh case. The Third Battalion of the Parachute regiment around this time were widely condemned for attacks on civilians in Coalisland, which one officer being suspended, and questions being asked in parliament.
All of this is a matter of public record.
Rioting, Collusion, and Thuggery in the RUC Reserve
Unfortunately not readily available to the public is Brian Nelson’s prison journal. In it, Nelson describes how he is introduced to an RUC Reserve officer named Paul Ross (I have no idea if he’s a relative of John Ross: Ross is a common surname) in the mid-1980s, who had UVF connections through marriage, and who was to act as a conduit for information being passed from other RUC members to the UDA. Nelson recounts how he spent an evening drinking with Paul Ross and others until, some hours later, Ross pinned Nelson’s wife against a wall by the throat in a sudden and unprovoked attack. Nelson jostled with Ross, and phoned the RUC who arrived and, as Nelson put it, made clear they’d be taking no further action against one of their own.
A convicted loyalist paramilitary contact didn’t like Paul Ross, calling him a “snarly peeler.” The same loyalist paramilitary source said that Paul married the sister of a very prominent UVF member on the Shankill. I couldn’t independently verify this, but it fits with Nelson’s account.
The Belfast Telegraph reported, on 21st July 2000, that:
The article continued:
Rioting, Collusion, and Thuggery in the RUC Reserve
Unfortunately not readily available to the public is Brian Nelson’s prison journal. In it, Nelson describes how he is introduced to an RUC Reserve officer named Paul Ross (I have no idea if he’s a relative of John Ross: Ross is a common surname) in the mid-1980s, who had UVF connections through marriage, and who was to act as a conduit for information being passed from other RUC members to the UDA. Nelson recounts how he spent an evening drinking with Paul Ross and others until, some hours later, Ross pinned Nelson’s wife against a wall by the throat in a sudden and unprovoked attack. Nelson jostled with Ross, and phoned the RUC who arrived and, as Nelson put it, made clear they’d be taking no further action against one of their own.
A convicted loyalist paramilitary contact didn’t like Paul Ross, calling him a “snarly peeler.” The same loyalist paramilitary source said that Paul married the sister of a very prominent UVF member on the Shankill. I couldn’t independently verify this, but it fits with Nelson’s account.
The Belfast Telegraph reported, on 21st July 2000, that:
An ex-RUC officer has been ordered to pay £250 compensation to a woman whose arm he bit during a late-night entertainment cruise.
Paul Ross, aged 42, from Old Forge Park, Newtownards, denied assaulting the woman and two men after alleged sectarian remarks were made during the cruise on the Stena HSS. The incident happened a year ago when Ross was a full-time police reservist.
Resident Magistrate John Clery said he had listened to confusing accounts of what happened and that was inevitable because of the amount of drink that was taken. He said he was satisfied that retribution was afflicted on Ross and that he was seriously assaulted. But I am also satisfied he initiated the fracas and that he lunged at Mrs Brennan with his mouth … he is fortunate not to be facing a more serious charge in relation to that assault.
It is not clear from the article is the officer convicted of this offence was sacked from his position in the RUC.
What is abundantly clear is the rampant criminality, petty and otherwise, endemic within the British Army during the Troubles. I believe that the Parachute Regiment were only the most outrageously criminal of the regiments deployed during Operation Banner. John Ross should be free to mourn his regiment’s dead – the Paras paid a heavy, heavy price - at least 52 were killed by the IRA, and many more than that grievously injured. But to attempt to airbrush out the murders, torture, thieving and thuggery of the Paras comes across as a calculated insult to nationalists across Ireland. Perhaps it’s intended that way.
⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys.
No reflection on the author's attempt at trying to bring balance to some of his previous misplaced favorable representation of Unionists and the RUC specifically, but this article probably doesnt even scratch the surface. Speaking from personal knowledge -the Paras and other regiments robbed whatever they could steal during house searches --I dont think our house was ever searched that something wouldn't have been stolen no matter how vigilant we were. There probably isnt a shop along the Falls Road that wasn't broken into and all their cigerettes stolen. The shop burglaries had a retribution aspect because I remember Arthur Fagan, Fagan's Newsagents, telling my father how the Paras told him they would be back to rob his shop for refusing to sell them cigerrettes. Fagan's were robbed a few times.
ReplyDeleteThere is probably no way of knowing how many people were criminally beaten on the street -in that regard the Paras and Marines competed against each other between which of them cracked the most Paddy's heads. As each Regiment replaced the other on a new tour of duty of west Belfast the incoming would regularly boast how they would be worse than their competitors.
Nothing criminal any British regiment did in Nationalists areas occured in any 'Blind Spot' ... It was more a case of knowingly turning a blind eye because the criminality was all part of makiing Nationalists pay for the IRA -many Unionist politicians regularly accused the entire Nationalist community as being supporters of the IRA and deserved any security force harrassment or abuses they got. I think the title might have more to do with the author's 'soft spot' for any insignificant 'decent' unionists and members of security forces who feel their existence should be known. The reality remains, the decency of elusive decent Unionists was a 'black out' at the time when their existance might have mattered.
I've spotted a typo: the second sentence of the final paragraph should read: "I believe that the Parachute Regiment were only the most outrageously criminal of the regiments."
ReplyDelete@ Christy
Your accusations are getting boring, and they tend to deflect from debating the actual issues that I write about. Which is a real shame, as some of your commentary is relevant and interesting. I remember Fagan's shop well, for example.
It may interest you, but more likely you're unable to rid yourself of the totally flawed perspective you have of me, that reading about your own case led to me researching 2 Para and their antics around the time of your own case. That's how I discovered that some of them got heavily involved in drug-dealing.
It's easy to write paragraphs of personal experience, or critical opinion, against certain personalities or organisations. It's also easy to dismiss. It's harder to conduct research, organise it thematically, and try to link it with a current debates. I challenge you to consider which will have more historical or educational value.
What I wrote above was not an "attempt at trying to bring balance to some of [my] previous misplaced favorable representation of Unionists and the RUC" it was actually a few interesting and historically important facts that I felt should be in the public domain.
It might be more satisfying for you personally if I simply recounted numerous unreferenced, even vague, accusations of brutality against the British Army and the RUC, but what would be new about that? What would it add to the discourse?
The way I presented the information in this article, posed as questions to an *actual* security force apologist, ex-TUV candidate John Ross, was intended to expose the inane double standards held by him and people like him.
typo corrected
DeleteBrandon
ReplyDeleteThen be bored... your suggested Unionist blind spot implies that had the known they would have acted differently. They were well aware of security force criminality and abuse. Their view was that all Catholics supported the IRA and all Catholics were equally deserving of any criminality or abuse they suffered. To suggest that Unionist tolerance of security force criminality was due to a 'blind spot' is just not historically true. Unionists even cheered the criminality on -as I point out the criminality had a retribution aspect to it.
I note you express a willingness to debate so long as your revisionism is to go unquestioned... Says you... but Im not inclined to ignore your false or misleading narratives. While I can accept that there may have been decent unionists or RUC but they did nothing that earns their place in history that when the troubles story is told they should not be pumped up as some sort of unionist force of decency. There were no anti-sectarian marches to Belfast city hall at a time when nationalists were not permited to march there. The existance of decent cops or unionists is more to be understood as a concept than it was a meaningful reality. So if you find it boring that I call you out on your subtle attempts to revise history with your baseless excuses for unionists and cops then too bad. Unionists were 100% sectarian and there is no 'but for a blind spot' they wouldnt have been. And yes Unionists they were 100% sectarian -those who werent rabidly cheering on security force criminalty we call decent,that was the best we could hope for.
@ Christy Walsh
ReplyDelete"While I can accept that there may have been decent unionists or RUC but they did nothing that earns their place in history that when the troubles story is told they should not be pumped up as some sort of unionist force of decency."
What are you contributing to the historical record of when the story of the Troubles is told? I'll say it again, this entire article was about holding to account an *actual* apologist for state sponsored murder, and with a blindspot for uniformed criminality.
John Ross's opinions on Bloody Sunday and the Parachute Regiment are his attempt to rewrite history. Using facts taken from the public record, and using his own logic to justify a notorious republican bombing resulting in multiple civilian fatalities, I exposed Ross for what he is. And you're objecting to that? Why?
It seems that you're taking offence with the title of my piece. I'll tell you something mundane, and I'm curious of it's the same for other writers. This article was titled DRAFT Para RUC TUV until I sent a draft to AM for publication, when I spent a few seconds wondering what title I could come up with that would get it read by the greatest number of people. The title I came up with was "Unionism’s Blind Spot: Criminality In The Parachute Regiment And RUC."
It's as mundane as that. I wanted as many people as possible to read John Ross's ridiculous apologia for murder, and to expose that cop who bit a woman on a ferry, and picked a title that I thought would get the most traction. I didn't do those things in pursuit of softening the historical narrative on unionists and the security forces. You're accusing me of that.
Another little fact that you may, or may not, be aware of. The content and the title are my words, but the little descriptor is usually AM's words. In my pieces on the IRA's campaign against security force contractors, AM had the following: "With the first in a two part series looking at Provisional IRA targeting of civilian contractors servicing the British Repressive State Apparatuses."
I wouldn't typically use the term "British repressive state apparatus" when writing here, not because I object to the term, or don't believe they existed, but because I try to keep things as neutral as possible. I wasn't at all unhappy with what AM wrote (and AM, please don't change it, and this isn't meant as a criticism), but over time, and after a more bombastic start to writing on this blog, I tempered my language.
You're perfectly entitled to criticise my work, but it's somewhat baffling. Because I published this piece, a couple of thousand people will know about an RUC man who bit a woman on a ferry, and another one of the same name who supplied Brian Nelson with information (according to Nelson). Isn't that what you want? Security force criminality, and unionist hypocrisy, exposed?
Brandon - I don't take it as a criticism but would not object even if it were. The thing about criticism is to be able to live with it and not have a meltdown because we are disagreed with. A good boxer will feel the sting of a punch but how they respond is the key issue.
DeleteMy own view is that the piece is good enough to survive the criticisms made of it. My mind wasn't changed by Christy's focus on the blind spot angle. There was far too much in the piece for it to be captured in a still shot.
Keep writing and may Christy keep responding. It furthers the blog's mission.
Brandon
ReplyDeleteThe piece was very well written and researched as a targeted piece against 2 individuals. My objection with your writing is that you consistently slip in subtle comments similar to how the Brits and Unionist explained state abuse as just a few bad apples -in this case you highlight a couple of bad apples and ignore the bigger picture -the state abuses and to some extent the criminality was state sanctioned as part of the war effort. Journalist Barry McCaffery conducted an investigation into the UDR -year on year he found that 10% of weaponary was being handed over to Loyalists. The Brits and Unionists did nothing to stop the flow of weaponary so we can assume it was part of the Brits strategy. There was a whole infrastructure of institutional loyalty and solidarity right across the board... other than life convictions of Loyalists, Loyalists were generally treated much more leniently than Nationalists -for the same offences that Republicans were getting 7 -20 years --Loyalists often got 4 year suspended. It may seem unrelated but the fact that up to 90% of Loyalists in hard line areas were illiterate served the Brits --and its just a thearoy of mine -but Loyalists are so heavily involved in the drug trade I feel that's how their services were being rewarded and it also served to control them.
You put a lot of effort into your work and it baffles me why you seem to have cognitive bias to suggest the RUC or Unionists as a whole were not as bad as the facts support. The few bad apples narrative was just PR/propoganda spin back then and now.
@ Christy
ReplyDelete"You put a lot of effort into your work and it baffles me why you seem to have cognitive bias to suggest the RUC or Unionists as a whole were not as bad as the facts support."
I've said a few times that the RUC was irreformable. It no longer exists. Hundreds of them were killed, thousands were wounded. For every Continuity RUC type like William Matchet there are numerous credible critics. Debate rages on this blog about whether or not the IRA won. I think one battle that Unionism lost was over the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The IRA exacted a severe price on the Force, and whilst they received a Posthumous George Cross, the RUC, outside of Unionist circles, is a disgraced, discredited and disbanded force. I don't dispute any of this. I also don't feel any need to repeat it, except when being accused of somehow being soft on the RUC. In blunt terms, the CNR community, took on, fought, and beat the RUC. The CNR community, are still here, and getting stronger.
I'm glad the RUC is gone. I won't stop researching their work, and some of that work is laudable. A former RUC officer helped me research the RUC officer I mentioned in my piece above.
From my perspective, a black and white narrative is uninteresting. I'm interested in tensions within the RUC, and between the RUC and the PUL community. Certainty, such as "the few bad applies narrative was just PR" only goes so far in terms of research.
It didn't really occur to me until earlier on in this debate. When I wrote articles, my target audience is probably small u Unionist, or someone unfamiliar with the conflict. Most of my articles have been critical of loyalism or the security forces, yet most of my critics are republicans. I'm not sure what that says, but it's saying something.
Brandon
ReplyDeleteHad you left out the erroneous suggestion that security force abuse or criminality occured in a unionist blindspot the piece would otherwise have been an excellant article. But you made it partisan and you indicate recognition that your "target audience is probably small u Unionist, or someone unfamiliar with the conflict." I do not underdstand your pro-unionist angle to revise history and suggest that they were something they were not. Unionists were all for a lot of the stuff that gets attributed to the few bad apples and the bad apples were held in high regard in unionist communities. Unionists were never hapless victims caught between the IRA and Brits as you have suggested before. They did not have clean hands in the conflict anymore than any other protagonist and they were never decent about it.
Christy/Brandon.
ReplyDeletethese type of articles, to my mind, bring in a level of nuance to the narrative that usefully gets away from one dimensional perspectives. There is a great book on the Fermanagh pitchfork killings by Edward Burke called An Army Of Tribes. What made it so good it that the author builds layer upon layer of motive, context, behaviour while trying to ascertain at each point where responsibility for decisions lay. He does all that without ever leaving the reader to feel that the killings were excusable. Well worth a read.
While a believer in Occam's Razor - 'entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity' - establishing what is necessary for a more fuller understanding is itself a necessary function of analysis.
@ AM
ReplyDeleteArmy of Tribes is a brilliant book. I did a bit of follow-up research into some of the characters depicted in it. One of the murderers is still alive, apparently, and living in Auchterarder, an affluent town in Fife. Others stood trial for armed robbery in Edinburgh. Ultimately, I couldn't find enough information to get something worthwhile out of it, unfortunately.
In terms of bringing nuance, I think some of the most powerful writing comes from those who remove explicit condemnation and through publishing background on victims lay bare the unjustifiable nature of many killings. I'm thinking specifically of Gareth Mulvenna's work on the murders of Jimmy McGerty and John Francis Corr. The writing is such that polemic is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive.
Martin Dillon's book The Shankill Butchers, whilst undoubtedly remaining popular and being of some historical value, suffers from supposition that is weak and easily disproved. Steve Bruce, Balaclava Street and others have offered critiques of Dillon's work that are difficult to counter. Upon sentencing one of the Shankill Butchers, the judge said: "The facts speak for themselves and will remain forever a lasting monument to blind sectarian bigotry."
Setting facts out dispassionately is, to my mind, highly effective. I'm currently reading Burnt Out: How the Troubles Began by Michael McCann. A thorough and detailed account of the assaults on Catholics in 1969, a major weakness, in my opinion, is the use of loaded phrases such as "pogrom" which, whilst I may agree applies, show partiality. McCann also focuses too heavily on security force involvement. The result is a book that will simply add further context to a version of history to a cohort that has made their mind up. I don't think it could convince a sceptic. And that's a shame, as it is a fine, forensic work.
I am confident that I know more about both men I have written about above, as I do about many of the individuals that I write about, but cannot prove, so cannot publish.
I didn't offer any condemnation myself in the piece published here, but the words in the verse of The Ballad of Joe McDonnell I quote above could be presented to John Ross. The Clonard resident condemned Corporal Brown as being a disgrace to the British Army uniform. That suggests to me he's an ex-serviceman, or someone who has a degree of esteem for the British Army. Therefore, to my mind, his words carry far more weight than mine.
Ironically, writing opinion pieces takes me far, far less time than the research piece. I could knock a thousand words condemning loyalism as irreformable easily. Much more difficult to understand or explain it.