Showing posts with label Collusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Collusion. Show all posts
Aide-Memoire ★ Written by Aaron Edwards.

The publication of the Operation Kenova report into a British spy network inside the IRA has left one trail to run cold: Collusion in the murder of Loyalists.

It all started with a meeting I held with a source in a flat in Portadown.

It was the summer of 2015 and I was in the town to interview people who were close to the former mid-Ulster UVF commander, Billy Wright.

These interviews would form a key component of my book, UVF: Behind the Mask.

It was an eventful trip.

I met one person who had been part of Wright’s ‘team’.

I also met a former loyalist prisoner who had been friends with Wright. He made a quip about hardline loyalists “always meeting the same fate.”

He then told me the story of the prominent Belfast UVF commander, John Dowey Bingham.

Bingham had been assassinated by a Provisional IRA death squad on 14 September 1986 at his home in Ballysillan, north Belfast.

The former prisoner said he believed Bingham would have survived the attack if he had received the medical attention he required after he was shot.

He further alleged how the police, who promptly arrived on the scene minutes after the shooting, “let John bleed out.”

Apparently local people believed the IRA hit team had been permitted to enter the area “under the watchful eye of the RUC.”

I said I’d look into the case, if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

I assumed such claims were more likely to be fiction, rather than fact.

When I got back to Belfast I asked a contact if he knew anyone in John Bingham’s family who would speak to me about his murder.

My contact made arrangements for us to meet a relative of Bingham’s: John’s daughter, Elizabeth Bingham.
Elizabeth Bingham at the graveside of her father, John Dowey Bingham.

We met in mid-November 2016 and talked at length about her father’s murder.

I shared with her the allegations I’d heard in Portadown.

She asked me if I could help her find out more about what really happened.

I agreed.

And thus began one of the most detailed open-source investigations I’ve ever been involved in.

I didn’t know it at the time but it would take us into the heart of allegations of collusion between the British state, the Provisional IRA and, perhaps most damningly of all, the complicity of so-called loyalists in the deaths of their own comrades.

The Life and Death of John Bingham

John Dowey Bingham was a life-long loyalist and a senior UVF commander from Ballysillan.

It has been widely reported that Bingham was responsible for directing terrorist activities in the 1970s and 1980s.

In an interview with one of Bingham’s associates in Belfast for Behind the Mask, he told me, “John was the quintessential terrorist but I would have followed him to the gates of hell.”

Bingham was arrested and charged on the evidence of UVF supergrass Joe Bennett.

The supergrass trials subsequently collapsed and those detained were released.

Loyalists freed after the collapse of the supergrass trials in the 1980s. John Bingham (front in striped shirt and jeans) smiling. Centre left in polo shirt is Frenchie Marchant, also believed to have been murdered by British agents in the IRA.

Bingham promptly returned to UVF activities.

In the words of his close friend George Seawright, he would become a “legend in his own lifetime.”

Emily O’Reilly of the Sunday Tribune met Bingham in the summer of 1986 and described in detail what led Seawright to make this claim. Her dispatch makes for fascinating, albeit grim, reading.

After Bingham’s death he became the subject of wild allegations, particularly from the veteran Guardian journalist Nicholas Davies, some of which now seem preposterous.

In death Bingham’s reputation grew in the telling, with Davies and others accusing him of collusion with the British state.

Little did anyone know how the collusion they alleged did actually exist but not in the way they alleged. Rather, it existed between the British agents inside the Provisional IRA and their handlers.

In fact, it would later transpire how it was the main reason for John Bingham’s murder.

Reopening A Cold Case

For decades the public knew very little of the facts relating to John Bingham’s violent death.

They knew Bingham had UVF connections.

They knew he had been implicated in the supergrass trials.

They also knew he had been assassinated by the IRA in 1986.

And that was it.

All the rest was speculation.

My first task was to establish the basic facts of his murder.

I knew the best way to do this was to request the release of the inquest file on John Bingham.

This had been under lock and key since the Coroner’s Court returned an open verdict in the late 1980s.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I managed to force the release of the file in 2016. I received a copy in the post.

Oddly, perhaps even intentionally, the file was never listed as open on the PRONI catalogue.

In order to share it with Liz, I enlisted the help of seasoned researcher and campaigner Clifford Peeples to help walk her through the process of obtaining a copy of the file.

After he consulted on the Bingham file with Liz, Clifford found serious discrepancies in the legal documentation.

Very simply this took two forms.

First, there was evidence of the getaway vehicle used by the IRA having been tampered with.

The white Renault used in the murder had been found a short time later in Jamaica Court in Ardoyne.

Back then it was standard protocol for the RUC to call in the local Army Ammunition Technical Officer (ATO) to clear suspect vehicles of any potential dangers such as booby trap devices.

Crucially, the ATO from nearby Girdwood Barracks reported in his deposition how the car keys were still in the ignition.



The Getaway Vehicle with Keys in the Ignition - Now You See Them . . . 

However, after a stint in the RUC impound the ignition of the car was tampered to make it look like it had been “hot wired”.



NowYou Don't!

The second discrepancy was potentially the most serious.

It involved the murder weapons.

In the The Bingham Report, Peeples linked the weapons used to other killings carried out by the Provost.

In a rudimentary link analysis of the firearms and ballistics, he was able to conclude the high possibility these weapons were part of the same dump used by the IRA in killing their own people.


Elizabeth Bingham (centre) at the launch of the report into the murder of John Bingham, June 2017.

These revelations were explosive.

Under normal circumstances though they might have been ignored.

Clifford’s report formally made the claim of collusion between the British state and its agents.

Fortunately, there was now a mechanism available for Liz and her family to have these assertions tested.

In 2016 the PSNI launched Operation Kenova to investigate the involvement of a British agent inside the IRA, codenamed “Stakeknife”, in the murder of up to 40 people.

Most of these killings related to the IRA’s Internal Security Unit known as the “Nutting Squad,” of which Stakeknife had risen to become second-in-command.

It was enough circumstantial evidence to persuade the newly appointed investigation lead, John Boutcher, to ask for the Bingham case be taken on by Op Kenova. This was formally agreed with the PSNI Chief Constable.

In assisting Liz with her search for justice, we helped her compile evidence, which she then presented to the Kenova team.

Liz was also ably assisted by her solicitor, John Greer, of Reavey and Company on the Shankill Road.
Liz Bingham (centre) with a relative of another alleged Stakeknife murder
victim and their respective legal representatives © Aaron Edwards

Yet, the path engaging with Kenova was fraught with difficulties.

Liz faced serious obstacles in her search for justice.

The time taken by Kenova to complete their work was one such obstacle. The passage of time, as we all know, made securing evidence and testimony more challenging.

Another obstacle was resources. On this point the dedicated family liaison process put in place by the Kenova really paid off. It gave Liz a point of contact to assist her through the criminal investigation process.

Ironically, these constraints paled into insignificance when it became clear the main obstacle was from the opposition of certain members of Liz’s own community to her search for justice.

“Stay away from those people”

One of those people who sought to deter us from investigating John Bingham’s murder was the late PUP spokesman Ken Wilkinson.

Ken was one of those curious individuals who joined the UVF later in life after a short stint in the part-time C Company of 1/9 UDR in Antrim.

Ken was renowned for having been involved in an incident in the mid-1990s in which an off-duty RUC officer was assaulted.

He was subsequently handed a two-year suspended sentence for doling out a nasty beating to the officer at Antrim’s British Legion Club in November 1995. After kicking and head-butting the policeman, Wilkinson told him, “You fucking speak or mention this to anyone and I’ll have you shot!”

Judge James Brady recommended Wilkinson “stop getting drunk and stop assaulting people.”

Coincidentally, another loyalist, Billy Wright, was jailed around the same time for 8 years for similar threats to kill.

Ken had a reputation for throwing his weight around.

He was known for acting as an unofficial envoy for the UVF Brigade Staff, a role which frequently brought him into conflict with others.

He could be blunt, abrasive and, at times, overly aggressive.

I was reminded of it first-hand when I took a phonecall from him in late June 2017.

After giving me a dressing down - I assumed for something he had heard and not read in my latest book, UVF: Behind the Mask - Ken became increasingly agitated.

He ranted about “some of those people” who I was “associating with” who, he said, I needed to know weren’t to be trusted.”

“Stay away from those people,” he repeated. “Billy Mitchell would be turning in his grave if he knew who you were hanging around with now,” he said, losing his cool as he raised his voice at me down the phone.

I must confess, I wasn’t sure what Ken was getting at.

Then it clicked.

Liz had published her report into the murder of her father a few weeks earlier. Around the same time I launched my book on the UVF.

Still, I found it odd that a member of the PUP - who I’d known for years - would ring me out of the blue to give me “some friendly advice” regarding “this business about John Bingham. I’m handling it, right,” he said pointedly and hung up.

I’m still puzzled as to why loyalists would want to discourage other loyalists from investigating the death of a loyalist. I’ll return to this point in a later post.

The key point in all of this is what really mattered for Liz was finding out the truth.

And Kenova assured her they’d get to the bottom of her father’s murder, one way or another.
Where is the Justice for Loyalist Victims?

John Bingham’s death proves that a paradox exists in Northern Ireland.

That someone widely reported as having been a “perpetrator” can also be regarded as a “victim.”

This is, of course, a highly controversial statement, as the current Justice Minister Naomi Long has recently discovered.

But it is a point of view shared by the family members of IRA and INLA members killed during the Troubles.

These families have continued to lobby the British state for the truth about the unsolved murders of their loved ones.

Victims families are a powerful lobby group.

That much is certain.

What is also certain is they are divided.

Deeply divided.

Just like Northern Irish society, politics and culture more broadly.

Speak to loyalists who have been involved in supporting campaigns for truth around the murders of loyalists and they will tell you of a “two-tiered justice system” in play.

They point to the absence of legacy investigations into perennial atrocities like the Shankill bomb of October 1993 and a range of other cases. They also point to the way the PSNI and courts treat loyalists who find themselves caught up in the criminal justice system.

Their belief is they have no automatic right to expect justice.

Liz Bingham was one of those sceptics who believed the law, as my late grandfather, a lifelong loyalist himself, used to say was “crooked.”

But she never gave up on demanding justice for herself, her family or her community.

She worked constructively with the Kenova team.

Finally, it seemed to pay off.

On 27 August 2019, Liz sent me a WhatsApp message. She was quietly confident her father’s case was being expedited and moved to prosecution stage:

I’m waiting on the PPS making a decision. Boutcher seems to think it will be soon. He says if they don’t publish he will release a document to me and into the public detailing the whole truth about my dad’s murder so either way I will get the truth and so will the world. He says he knows from start to end every detail and who did what when, he says there is no unanswered question as he has it all. Just sitting waiting on the call. Patience isn’t my thing but I think I’m handling it well as can be expected.

Subsequently Liz received the following WhatsApp message via one of the family liaison officers a few months later:

Today 2/10/19 I delivered a series of case files to the Director of Public Prosecutions (NI) seeking charging decisions in relation to a number of Operation Kenova murder investigations and other related serious crimes.

Prior to this becoming a matter of public record I wanted to inform you personally Elizabeth that the case of John Bingham features as one of the files that has formed part of this submission. I recognise that as a result of this significant update you and your family may have a number of questions of me.

In the first instance your dedicated Family Liaison Officer XXX will endeavour to answer your questions.

Please be aware however, that due to the legal sub-judice he may not be able to answer specific questions relating to your loved one’s investigation.

In the coming weeks myself and Keith Surtees will be arranging appointments to meet with you personally where I hope we will be able to answer any remaining questions you may have.

And after that the lines of communication seemed to run cold.

We now know why.

In the publication of the final Kenova report the following lines of inquiry were investigated by the team with respect to the Bingham case:

FRU handlers were aware of the identities of those involved in the murder shortly after it was carried out.


FRU handlers failed to pass the relevant intelligence to the RUC SB.


An intelligence report containing the names of the suspects was removed from the relevant Army file.


One of the suspects involved in the murder was a FRU agent.


One of the suspects involved had been observed on a number of occasions in the area near to the scene in the days leading up to the attack.

Despite these very serious allegations, the PPS decided no-one was to be held accountable for John Bingham’s murder.

No one.

Let that sink in.

After an exhausted investigation by Liz Bingham and the compilation of evidence of criminal culpability by the Kenova team, the state decided not to seek prosecutions of those individuals who may be responsible.

Liz Bingham died in May 2023 and did not live to see the outcome of the Kenova investigation with respect to her father.

John Bingham’s surviving family had duly notified on 1st April 2024 of the:

‘no prosecution’ decision taken on the additional John Bingham murder file ‘which named three civilian suspects who were all alleged to have been members of PIRA, but which did not involve any alleged connections to the agent Stakeknife and was therefore dealt with separately by PPSNI. No public statement was made in respect of this decision, but the family of the victim were informed of the reasons for it by letter.

A Legacy of Spies

Today there are many families reeling at the news of how, after £47.5 million being spent on Op Kenova, nobody has been charged.

Well, to be exact, only Freddie Scappaticci, the second-in-command of the IRA’s infamous “Nutting Squad” had been charged. Ironically, his crime was not in relation to the murderous activities he was involved in but in relation to extreme animal pornography.

Incidentally, this is the kind of deviant activity enterprising spooks the world over utilise as leverage in their pitch to recruit agents.

As far as the Kenova report goes, we are led to believe Stakeknife became an agent because of the promise of money, his hatred for the IRA leadership and security for his family.

The former Military Intelligence Officer Ian Hurst and journalist Greg Harkin, who originally brought the Stakeknife case to public attention, have questioned the professional competence of the Kenova team.

Writing in the Irish News on the morning of the report’s release, they alleged it amounted to little more than “fairy tales.”

In fact, having written a book on intelligence matters involving the running of Agents of Influence inside the IRA, I would say the victim’s families likely have more questions today than when this major investigation started a decade ago.

One thing is certain though.

Whatever we now know about the British state’s complicity in the IRA’s killing of suspected informers, we still know a lot less about their killing of loyalists.

Crucially, we know next to nothing about the involvement of agents and informers inside loyalist paramilitary groups who acted with the same impunity as Stakeknife.

Will there be an ‘Op Kenova’ style investigation into these serious allegations?

I won’t hold my breath.

Aaron Edwards is the author of critically acclaimed books, UVF: Behind the Mask and Agents of Influence: Britain’s Secret Intelligence War Against the IRA. His next book, Enemies Within, on the use of secret agents inside the UDA/UFF, will be published by Merrion Press in 2026.

Stones Left Unturned 🪶 Op Kenova, Collusion And The IRA Assassination Of John Bingham

Christy Walsh ✍ I’ve taken the extraordinary step and lodged an application to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) flagging the unlawful conduct of the Court in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases.  

Rule 39 of the ECtHR Rules of Court is only available in the most exceptional cases, often used to prevent someone being extradited to a country where they would be at risk of being tortured. But it is also available where the very administration of justice is at risk and the Convention rights of many people could collectively be violated. KRW Law estimate that the outcome of proceedings on 25th November: “will therefore impact scores, if not hundreds of cases”. Mr Justice Humphreys\ handling of the Frizzell and Lundy Cases satisfies the ‘imminent risk of irreparable harm’ requirements. Here is summary of the application:

The Applicant makes this request as ‘any other person concerned’ under Rule 39(1) of the Rules of Court. Those whose Convention rights are in imminent risk of irreparable harm after 25th November, 2024, are not Applicants in this application. But neither is the European Court of Human Rights being asked to make a finding against the United Kingdom on their behalf. The outcome of 25th-30th November Hearings, in Northern Ireland, will be on a scale that could pervert the course of justice for hundreds of Families, causing imminent risk of irreparable harm to their rights under Articles 2 (right to life); 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment); 6 (right to a fair trial); and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. The Court is asked to exercise its discretionary power, on its own motion under Rule 39(1), and, as an interim measure, remind the United Kingdom to observe the Convention rights of the Plaintiffs by following its own national laws, specifically, sections 6, 7, and 9 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, and Order 126 of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (NI) 1980. Without lawful jurisdiction to do so, the domestic court has effectively afforded immunity to suspected killers as a necessary precursor for the removal of collusion as a probable verdict against the State for its involvement in the murders of its own citizens. 
However, the Applicant's article 6 Convention rights have been violated, and he has exhausted all necessary domestic remedies under Articles 34 (Individual applications) and 35 (Admissibility criteria) of the Convention for this application. 

I had the right to a proper response to the points of law I put before Mr Justice Humphreys in an application to intervene in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases. The Families also had the right to know the answers on the points of law. As intervener, I have no right to appeal or review of Humphreys J’s failure to answer the issues put before him. That meant I had exhausted all domestic remedies and I had a direct path to the ECtHR. The ECtHR cannot make findings on behalf of anyone who is not an applicant (the Families at risk of being victims of the perversion of justice on massive scale). But, under Rule 39(1), the ECtHR can act on its own motion (copied below) and caution the UK to be careful lest these cases apply to the ECtHR after the damage has been done if the NI Courts continue to act unlawfully toward Legacy Families. On 22nd July 2024, I made an application to intervene in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases. Closed Material Procedures are not lawfully available in Legacy Cases. Even though Mr Justice Humphreys arbitrarily refused my application, my attempted intervention resulted in His Honour disclosing 2 valuable pieces of information on 31st July 2024:

  1. Humphreys J revealed that he issued CMPs declarations on his own unsolicited motions. Despite not being lawfully entitled to do so, His Honour did not give the required statutory notice under Section 6(10) of the JSA and Rule 126, Order 21(1)(a) of the RsCJ 1980 (SF, p.15) so the Families could have challenged the impropriety.
  2. Collusion in murder is a criminal act that ought to result in prosecution. For example, Alan Oliver is considered a prolific serial killer of many innocent Nationalists and is not participating in the proceedings, as is his right, to protect himself from self-incrimination. The evidence of his involvment in at least 3 murders is overwhelming but Humphreys J, figuratively speaking, has his back. On 26th April 2021, default judgment was entered against Oliver for his part in the murders of; Brian Frizzell, Katrina Rennie and Eileen Duffy. Without lawful jurisdiction to do so, His Honour has prejudged the outcome of the Hearings by effectively giving Oliver and the other Defendants immunity from criminal liability in the future: “No such jeopardy exists as the direct effect of these civil actions.” Oliver has already been found liable for 3 murders in ‘these civil actions’ and Humphreys J has no lawful basis to guarantee he will not be prosecuted afterwards. And whatever word formulae Humphreys J comes up with could then affect hundreds of other Legacy Cases. Logically, a verdict of collusion has been removed as a possible outcome of the Hearings with probable intention that it will apply to hundreds of other Legacy Cases.

Without getting bogged down in the legal technicalities and complexities that about sums up my Rule 39 application to the ECtHR. The following is the text of Rule 39(1):

Rule 39(1). The Court may, in exceptional circumstances, whether at the request of a party or of any other person concerned, or of its own motion, indicate to the parties any interim measure which it considers should be adopted. Such measures, applicable in cases of imminent risk of irreparable harm to a Convention right, which, on account of its nature, would not be susceptible to reparation, restoration or adequate compensation, may be adopted where necessary in the interests of the parties or the proper conduct of the proceedings. (emphasis added)

See.
 
⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Urgent 🪶 Hundreds Of Legacy Families Could Be Cheated Out Of Justice

Christy Walsh ✍ Open Letter To The Pat Finucane Centre And Relatives For Justice.🪶

Time is running out and this letter comes as a public challenge to the PFC and RFJ to say if I am wrong about Mr Justice Humphreys’ unlawful use of CMPs in the Frizzell and Lundy Cases?

I understood your initial concern about re-traumatising Families. Re-traumatisation is a valid consideration but, I believe, most Families would prefer to know the truth than to have their Cases sabotaged after decades of legal struggles.

Families are being failed and misled but have a right to make informed decisions. I think it reasonable for the PFC and RFJ to state publicly if I am wrong and help remove any confusion or upset my assertions may have caused any Family. But if you agree with my assessment then you ought to do what is within your power to help prevent the potential for one of the biggest perversions of justice in NI history.

The PFC and RFJ have the capacity to give the Families independent assessment on whether my assertions are correct. Given the proximity of the Trials, it would be inexcusable and unforgivable if PFC and RFJ's continued silence contributed to the unlawful removal of collusion as a potential verdict in hundreds of Legacy Cases.

Expert legal opinion from KRW Law is that the outcome from the Frizzell and Lundy Cases “will therefore impact scores, if not hundreds of cases”[1] Logically, the only consistent common denominator for hundreds of murder cases separated not only by geography, but decades, is the role 'collusion' played in the murders. 

Many Legacy Cases involve security force collusion with loyalists to obtain, transport and distribute guns from South Africa. Even if we accept the plausibility of Security Forces' claims they lost track of the weapons at a convenient juncture, at issue in these proceedings is what steps were taken to try re-locate the shipments and prevent their bulk distribution or individual use in any murders. The Security Forces endeavoured to help arm Loyalist Paramilitaries and losing track of the shipments is still consistent with the overall plan. It looks like nothing more than an attempted built in deniability clause – the start and end objectives are achieved; Loyalists got, and used, their weapons with Security Force assistance. It is easy to see the value to the State of a verdict of collusion being removed as a possible outcome in November, with consequential knock-on effect in hundreds of other Legacy Cases.

You are aware I have been voicing my concerns about the unlawful use of CMPs in Legacy Cases for some time. So much so I gave up on both your inaction to, singlehandedly, take the extraordinary step of lodging an application to intervene in the interests of justice. You will be aware, Humphreys J did not address my legal arguments but was dismissive and misleading in his written decision.[2] His avoidance should have motivated you both. My arguments remain relevant and available; they are re-set out here in a Pensive Quill article: ‘Stop The Removal of Collusion As A Verdict In Legacy Cases’[3])

You are aware, inquests and civil proceeding are prohibited from making findings of criminal culpability but ought to be cognisant of any criminal cause or matters. Mr Justice Humphreys has already ruled out any possibility of criminal accountability for the Defendants even if they are responsible for the 4 murders: “No such jeopardy exists as the direct effect of these civil actions”. That is a highly irregular and improper conclusion for Mr Justice Humphreys to make - worse still, he has done so months before actually presiding over the scheduled 5 day civil trials this coming November. Justice for the Families depends on observance of the rule of law and Mr Justice Humphreys is disregarding it, it appears, to ensure the Families are denied justice. It should also be noted how Mr Justice Humphreys was not helpful toward the Special Advocates when they informed His Honour that they did not have access to all the withheld evidence. And I would not trust a Special Advocate to act in my interests to begin with when they are not my legal representative and their fiduciary duty is to the state agency from where they take their instructions.

You will be aware several NI Judges have recently discontinued legacy cases on recommendation of public inquiries being more suitable venues. Those recommendations were probably influenced by Baroness Hallett’s views on how to handle sensitive material where Closed Material Procedures and excluding grieving families is not a legal option. Baroness Hallett had been appointed to conduct an inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess after she sprayed herself with military-grade nerve agent Novichok in mistaken belief it was perfume. Because sensitive national intelligence was involved the Baroness recommended that the government convert the inquest into a public inquiry:

A statutory inquiry would permit me to allow some evidence to be heard in closed session from which members of the public and core participants may be excluded. Although such a closed hearing would, in usual circumstances, be undesirable, the national security concerns in this case mean that the sensitive evidence is likely only be able to be examined and tested in a closed hearing, or not at all.[4]

Even in civil proceedings, Mr Justice Humphreys may have been motivated to use CMP declaration to unlawfully get around Public Interest Immunity provisions out of the same concerns expressed to the Home Secretary by Baroness Hallett:

If these proceedings remain as an inquest, most of the content of the documents will have to be excluded by operation of Public Interest Immunity. 

Use of CMPs illicitly lets secret evidence be underhandedly used against the Families in secret proceedings His Honour has 1) excluded the Families from; and, 2) improperly absolved the Defendants of any criminal culpability in the murders.

I understand your initial reluctance to become involved but the clock is ticking and the consequences of Mr Justice Humphreys mishandling of the Frizzell and Lindy Cases could be catastrophic for so many Families. I feel you each have a moral responsibility to Families who trust your advice involving matters of collusion and legacy cases.

I trust the PFC and RFJ will soon make the right decision.  

  1. KRW Law Press Release: Hearing Listed To Determine State Liability For 1988 Loyalist Weapons Importation | KRW Law-LLP - Human Rights Lawyers.
  2. Humphreys J’s Judgment on Frizzell Intervention Application. 
  3. The Pensive Quill, 12th October 2024. 
  4. Baroness Heather Hallettt letter to Home Secretary Priti Patel MP, 29 July 2021.  
⏩ Christy Walsh was stitched up by the British Ministry of Defence in a no jury trial and spent many years in prison as a result.

Collusion 🪶 Time Is Running Out

RTE 📺Written by Vincent Kearney. Recommended by Christy Walsh.

19-June-2024

A lawyer representing families of 18 victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings has warned the Irish Government that they will take legal action if gardaí do not cooperate fully with an inquiry into allegations of collusion by RUC officers.

The Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI) is examining the activities of a notorious loyalist group, known as the Glenanne Gang, which has been linked to more than 120 murders during the 1970s.

Based in south Armagh, it consisted of members of the Ulster Volunteer Force, RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment.

In addition to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 its members have been implicated in the Miami Showband massacre in 1975, as well as bombings in Belturbet, Dundalk and Castleblayney, and dozens of murders in Northern Ireland.

Police Ombudsman Marie Anderson has confirmed that An Garda Síochána has not responded to requests for access to intelligence material about the attacks in Dublin and Monaghan in which 34 people died, including an unborn child.

No one has been charged in connection with the bombings.

Relatives of the victims, and many others, believe the killers were assisted and protected by members of the British security forces.

Continue reading @ RTE.

Government Faces Legal Action Over Response To RUC Collusion Inquiry

Paper Trail ✒  Secret British Army documents prove just how close its agents were to Ulster Defence Association (UDA) leaders and UDA “Romper Room” killers in the winter of 1972.

 

The previously unseen British Military Intelligence files lead families to question why the killers were not stopped long before many other Catholic civilians died at their hands.

Paper Trail has been working with a number of families whose loved ones were murdered by the UDA’s notorious G4 Romper Room killers led by Ned McCreery and British soldier Albert “Ginger” Baker in 1972.

G4 referred to Number 4 Platoon of G Company UDA in the Lower Newtownards Road area of East Belfast. In these British military files, the gang is also referred to as the Young Newtons.
Romper Rooms

They have a particularly dark space reserved in our shared history due to the terrible deaths they gave their victims in “Romper Rooms”.

The torture chambers became known as “Romper Rooms” in UDA parlance after the children’s television show and “rompering” referred to the vicious beating and torturing of victims prior to their murder.

The gang was responsible for multiple murders from the summer of 1972 to the late winter of 1973.

Continue reading @ Paper Trail.

British Soldiers, British Agents And The UDA's Romper Rooms

Brandon Sullivan ✒ I recently chanced upon a series of films on YouTube – Firing Line, with right-wing intellectual William Buckley interviewing a series of political leaders from Northern Ireland.

A 22 year old Bernadette Devlin dealt masterfully with Buckley, who later on in the interview was flanked by some Tories straight out of central casting. John Hume was asked questions by Nell McCafferty, Vincent Browne, and Kevin Myers, after the initial interview with Buckley. It was the question that Myers asked that led to me to researching a few violent days in 1974. Myers questioned Hume’s opposition to internment without trial, given that one of the alleged murderers of SDLP founding member Paddy Wilson was off the streets and in Long Kesh. This is probably a reference to John White, who later confessed to, and was convicted of, the savage double murder of Paddy Wilson and Irene Andrews.

Myers said to Hume that there was “violence yesterday” and the date he referred to was the 11th February 1974. I decided to have a look at the events of that day.

11th February 1974

The day before the Buckley/Hume interview, as reported in the Belfast Telegraph, two men armed with a sub-machine gun and a pistol leapt out of a Hillman Minx call (stolen from an RUC officer in Rathcoole the previous month), and opened fire on a car containing five Catholic civilians on their way to Abbey Meats, where they were employed. One 16 year old male died that day (Thomas ‘Tucker’ Donaghy), and wounding the other four occupants of the car, one of whom, 18 year old Margaret McErlean, died of her injuries a week later. The gunmen’s bullets also struck a car behind the intended targets, seriously injuring two young people: Marion Rafferty, and her boyfriend, Mark McGowan, who was the son of a Newtownabbey unionist councillor.

The car had been waiting for them for a period of time, reported as an hour in the contemporaneous press, and half an hour in Lost Lives. The RUC were on their way to the scene when the shooting happened, responding to a call from a security guard from Abbey Meats.

13th February 1974

The day after Buckley interviewed Hume, a meeting took place between the Northern Ireland Office and UDA leaders Andy Tyrie and Hugh David Cecil “Davy” Payne, and a senior NIO official, James Allan. Allan brought up responsibility for recent sectarian murders by loyalists. Payne and Tyrie not only denied authorising the murders, but claimed to have no idea who was responsible. Kevin Myers was not the only person thinking about the internment of John White. Davy Payne challenged senior NIO official James Allan about White’s continuing detention, blaming the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Francis Pym, for this, claiming that Pym had told the SDLP that the man responsible for murdering their colleague, Paddy Wilson, was imprisoned. A minute taker at the meeting noted that Payne “hovered in a rather crazy way by Mr Allan declaring that even he, Davy, had been accused of this murder.”

We can only speculate on the effect that Payne’s “hovering” had on Mr Allan, but it does seem that Allan, and the NIO, were concerned with loyalists murders.

The aftermath of the Abbey Meats murders

Lost Lives reported that the UDA members suspected of the murders at Abbey Meats were interned. A man, William James Miskelly, then 27, of Rathcoole stood trial for the murders in January, 1982. He was found not guilty but was, however, jailed for eight years for taking part in a “UDA ambush of an army patrol” in 1973, in which a soldier and a civilian were injured. Miskelly was also found guilty, along with two other UDA men, of robbing a bank. Associates of Miskelly were found guilty of burning down a cinema in Rathcoole. It is unclear what motivation lay behind that particular brave blow for Ulster.

Six months after the Abbey Meats murders, Miskelly was one of 30 UDA men arrested as they returned from Ballymena to Rathcoole, having ransacked the town, murdered two Catholic brothers, and assaulted and intimidated other Catholics unfortunate enough to encounter the lawless loyalists whose orgy of violence was apparently part of the Ulster Worker’s Council strike. Miskelly, then 19, was charged with grievous bodily harm of Brendan Byrne, who was 45 years old, and murdered along with his brother Sean in front of other members of the Byrne family. Miskelly was part of a group of loyalists who had decided to attack Catholic pubs to intimidate them into closing during the UWC strike. So drunk were this group of sectarian thugs that they did not notice a police car following them, and they continued into a roadblock, where the RUC arrested all of them. Miskelly was jailed for three years for wounding Brendan Byrne, presumably before he was murdered. Most of the other men involved in the drunken, sectarian violence were sentenced to two years. One man, Thomas McClure, was convicted of murdering the Byrne brothers.

The RUC did a pretty good job of rounding up the Rathcoole UDA, even if it took them a few years to put Miskelly, and others, behind bars for a considerable period of time.

In 2013, the Irish News carried an article that made two allegations. The first was that a UVF member convicted of multiple murders as part of the “Shankill butchers” could have been involved. The second allegation, was that:

Staff at the meat plant had reported a suspicious car sitting close to the entrance of the factory for more than half an hour before the shooting took place. However, police didn't arrive on the scene until the gunmen had already fled.

The article also said that “the RUC investigation was raised at the time by then MP Gerry Fitt in the House of Commons who demanded an inquiry” and “Paul Butler of Relatives for Justice said: "There has been concern that the killing of Thomas Donaghy and Margaret McErlean involved collusion.”

19th February 1974

A telegram was sent by someone in the UK Government to the US State Department, the objective of which seems to have been soliciting for business for Abbey Meats. The telegram goes on:


“NEWTOWNABBEY AREA IN GENERAL HAS HISTORY CONSIDERABLE

VIOLENCE SINCE 1969. THERE 24 MURDERS OF POLITICAL NATURE

SINCE 1972. TWO OF THESE WERE WORKERS AT ABBEY MEAT PLANT

WHO KILLED FEBRUARY 1974 AND WHO, ACCORDING RUC, HAD HISTORY

IRA INVOLVEMENT. RUC OFFICIALS ASSERT IT HIGHLY UNLIKELY

AMERICAN CITIZENS POTENTIAL TERRORIST TARGETS NEWTOWNABBEY.

THEY STRESSED AREA ABBEY PLANT PATROLLED REGULARLY PARTICULARLY AT

BEGINNING AND CLOSE BUSINESS."

Promoting businesses is standard diplomatic soft-power politicking, of a type carried out by diplomats across the world. This work is obviously made much harder for government entities in a situation where people are being killed and bombs are going off. This will be entirely lost on troglodytes like William James Miskelly and Thomas McClure, but is true. But what caught my attention was the RUC asserting that the two murder victims had “IRA involvement.”

Neither Thomas Donaghy nor Margaret McErlean were members of the IRA. Ms McErlean’s brother, John, was a member of the IRA’s Third Battalion, and died when a bomb he was making with two other IRA members exploded prematurely. Ms McErlean’s father, John Joseph McErlean had been in the UDR, and the territorial army. Mr McErlean was convicted of firearms offences, but the judge accepted that he was not part of any illegal organisation, and commended him for his “service to the community.”

Collusion is a term that appears frequently in the media. I think it has been used so often as to be close to meaningless. The RUC arriving on the scene after the murderers had fled the scene of the Abbey Meats murders could be because of a number of reasons. Working backwards, the UDA team would have had to have been colluding with a number of people, possibly from emergency services dispatchers, to logistics managers at a local RUC station.

But the RUC apparently did say that the two politically uninvolved teenagers murdered by the UDA had “IRA involvement.”

Could this be true? There is no evidence to prove this. Did the RUC believe this? Did the RUC actually express this belief to the authors of the telegram to the US State Dept? Could the US State Dept have taken reassurance that two murdered members of staff at a meat plant they were considering using were republican paramilitaries?

It could well be that UKG and/or the RUC made a call that besmirching the name of two murdered Catholic teenagers was a price worth paying for the possibility of winning contracts that improved the crippled economy of Norther Ireland. Or, it could have another explanation. Investigating the content of the telegram seems more worthwhile than speculating over why it took an RUC patrol more than half an hour to investigate a suspicious car, during one of the most violent years of the Troubles.

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

Loyalist Murders, NIO Diplomacy, RUC Actions ✑ February 1974 Revisited

Matt Treacy ✒ writing on the anniversary of loyalist war crimes in Dublin and Monaghan assesses their impact.
 
On This Day 17 May 1974: The Dublin-Monaghan Bombings Was Used To Terrorise The South: It Worked.

Firemen are pictured assessing the damage at a small garage on Parnell Street
Photo Credit: Irish Photo Archive

I was ten in 1974. It was the year that I mainly remember for the fact that Dublin won the All-Ireland and I had been at my first big game – although not my first ever game – in Croke Park, when they beat Cork in the semi-final.

The other main memory I have is of the day of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. It was a sunny Friday afternoon, and we were all out on the road in Greenhills messing about surrounded by the neighbourhood dogs. Friday was a big day, because my Dad who was working on Nassau Street used to bring us home magazines and comics and other treats assuming he and Paddy Campbell had collected from their customers.

Greenhills is about five miles from the city centre but we heard the explosions at 5.30pm, or so we believe we did. Then there was something approaching panic as radio reports told where the bombs had been detonated, and suddenly the noise of children and dogs had abated and the road was taken over by anxious families waiting for fathers and mothers and siblings to return from work.

My mother must have been particularly worried given that one of the bombs had exploded close to where my father’s tailoring shop was on Nassau Street. There were no buses to the city because of a strike, and it seemed like hours before people started to arrive home having mostly walked.

An hour and a half later, another bomb exploded in the centre of Monaghan. In total 34 people were killed. It was immediately suspected that the bombs had been planted by loyalists who were in the midst of a general strike against power sharing. However, the Ulster Volunteer Force did not claim responsibility until 1993.

That claim was only made in response to growing suspicions backed by substantial investigative findings, that the loyalists responsible had at the very least been security forces informants. The UVF statement was a combination of machismo, threats and – very possibly given their ongoing manipulation by elements of the intelligence services – deflection from any attribution to RUC Special Branch or British intelligence.

Given what we know of the involvement of loyalists who were also part of the Glenanne death squads, and their connections to the various branches of the state, some involvement at several levels in the Dublin-Monaghan bombings seems to be pretty certain. The Mitchell farm at Glenanne was central to the bombing operation.

There is also the fact that Garda files from those years are sparse, and that for many years it would seem that the relatives of the victims were treated by Garda Special Branch as politically suspect, a smear that was upheld by most of the political and media establishment in the Republic.

It seems incredible now that it took a quarter of a century for the Irish state to establish an official enquiry. The Dáil record in which representations by Tony Gregory, Joe Costello and a small number of other TDs were almost dismissed with contempt makes for sorry reading. What became the Barron Report was published in 2003 and concluded that British state agents had been involved at some level, but that their efforts to get to the bottom of this had been hampered by the refusal of the British to hand over documents on the basis of national security concerns.

The report’s conclusions with regard to both the British refusal to cooperate and the missing Garda files is pretty damning:

As the Final Report from the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights on the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings observed: .


2.19 In the opinion of Mr. Justice Barron, the fact that the Inquiry never saw original intelligence documents and was only allowed access to sixteen pages of a summary of the documents, was a hindrance to its work.

2.48 One of the most extraordinary revelations contained in the Barron Report is that there is an amount of official documentation, which has disappeared. Given that this was the largest atrocity in the State, it is astonishing that better care was not kept of these documents and there exists no complete explanation as to their whereabouts.

Among the Garda Special Branch files that “could not be located” were ones labelled “Dublin bombings,” “IRA activities,” and two related to suspect cars pertinent to the bombing investigation, and to a file concerning an apparent suspect. Another missing file concerns the appointment of a Special Branch detective, which some believe is part of the cover up of one Garda who was strongly suspected of colluding in various incidents with the northern and British security forces, most likely as a paid agent of one or other. Whether he had any connection to the bombings remains conjecture.

The object of the bombings of course was to frighten people in the south and to undermine any support there was for the IRA. Another motivation was to encourage the Irish state to take more draconian measures against the IRA. Both of those aims were successful. Two years before the bombings, our road had many black flags on houses after Bloody Sunday.

I remember my Dad and one of our neighbours with packets of Christmas cards to be sent to IRA prisoners in Mountjoy and Long Kesh. After 1974 there were few who were openly republican, and those who were had regular visits from Special Branch in their little Ford Capris.

For Dubliners, the bombings brought home what was taking place less than 100 miles up the road. Many more people were to die before it ended. And like all armed conflicts most of the victims died needlessly for no worthwhile outcome.

The report of the Oireachtas Committee also records some of the harrowing memories of the victims.

Mr. John Molloy also detailed the scene of the Parnell Street bomb. He felt he was:

looking into hell from what he saw. People were lying on the roads moaning, with bits of pieces of bodies here and there.

So great was his trauma at witnessing these scenes that he did not realise that he had been injured in the blast himself and was in need of medical attention.

Kevin O’Loughlin spoke of the agony of waiting for his mother to arrive home, knowing that her route home from work along South Leinster Street coincided with one of the bombsites… He recalled how his father eventually found his mother’s body in the morgue where he identified her. Because of the horrific nature of her injuries, the rest of the family were prevented from viewing her body.

I did not see my mother’s body when she was killed and I have no memory of what she looked like. She was wiped off the face of the earth in the eyes of myself and my brother. One day she was there and the next she was gone.

Ms. Marie Sherry described being injured in the Parnell Street bomb and stated that her physical injuries were nothing when compared to the mental turmoil that she has suffered since:


I can only describe my life, particularly in my 20s and 30s although not so much now, as one of constant alert. For weeks and months after the bombs I used to go home and say, ‘Mum, any news on those people who did the bombing? Was anybody charged?’ There never was news. There were no names. Nobody was charged. I lived my life thinking ‘These guys are walking around. They could be sitting beside me in the cinema. They could be on the bus. These guys are free to do the same thing again’. It was just awful and it ruined my life. I did not want to go into town to socialise with my friends, I did not like being in a pub and I did not like being at the cinema … Only when one has been through it can one realise how horrific it is to live one’s life like that. I wish it had never happened. It was just awful.

Mr. Thomas O’Brien told the Sub-Committee of the anguish suffered by members of his family following the murder of his brother, his sister-in-law and his two nieces in the bombings:

My father died in 1972 and when Johnny, Anna, Jacqueline and Anne-Marie died, my mother was heartbroken and she is still. Johnny was the eldest brother of 11 and I often wonder what the two kids would be now. They would be in their 30’s and could be married and so on. We will never get over it.

Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of 
the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland.  

Dublin-Monaghan Bombings Used To Terrorise South

From the Loyalist blog It's Still Only Thursday, a piece which featured October last asking questions of republicans about collusion.

The Irish republican narrative has apparently shifted yet again. No longer content with allegations of so-called “collusion” in certain incidents, mostly in the assassination of prominent republicans, the narrative shifted to “collusion in most cases“. Unhappy that this did not sufficiently smear Loyalism, or the Security Forces, they now seem to be heart set on a complete and total rewriting of history, now presenting armed Loyalist groups as being nothing more than mere “proxies of the British state”, armed, organised, funded and directed by the Army, MI5, UDR, RUC and even the RUC Reserve.

This ludicrous, almost laughable, narrative is so fantastical, so evidently false that I contemplated scrapping this blog post. What could be funnier and more entertaining than watching Irish supremacists, especially the online troll variety, tie themselves up in knots trying to defend such a ludicrous fairy-tale?

As comical as it is however, I feel that it is important to forensically tear apart such tall-tales. Irish republican extremists have so successfully rewritten Ulster’s recent past over the last 20 years or so that (personally) I feel that to leave any of their myths unchallenged is something of a dereliction of duty.

Continue reading @ It's Still Only Thursday.

➽ Follow It's Still Only Thursday on Twitter @0nIyThursday

30 Questions Republicans Can’t (Or Won’t) Answer About Alleged “Collusion”