Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Winnie Woods. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Winnie Woods. Show all posts
Brandon Sullivan & Winnie Woods  ✒ The Unionist Political Class Betrayed Loyalism – Same As It Ever Was, Same As It Ever Will Be.

Billy Hutchinson has an article out on loyalist blogger Jamie Bryson’s site. In it, Hutchinson explores the clumsy Bryson soundbites that have become ubiquitous of late: the NI Protocol was a result of “threats of violence” from republicans. It is worth reproducing some of Hutchinson’s words in full:

And so it was with the Protocol; inflammatory comments made by the Pan Nationalist Front erroneously warning of the threat of a return to IRA bombs alongside staged stunts by Sinn Fein at the border, this formed the context for the imposition of the Protocol, which according to the most senior judges in this jurisdiction “subjugates” the Union.

Leaving aside the hyperbolic conflation of bombs and ‘staged stunts’ (assumedly meaning the peaceful border demonstrations), Hutchinson’s use of the term “Pan Nationalist Front” (PNF) seems deliberately chosen.

This term became popular in the early 1990s, and was used by unionists and loyalists to describe basically any groups or organisations that had as an aim the reunification of Ireland. So whilst Gerry Adams, Sinn Fein & the IRA were seen as the head of the PNF, John Hume and the SDLP were just as culpable. The PNF encompassed the government of both the Republic of Ireland and the USA (especially the Irish-American lobby) as well as the GAA, musicians playing traditional Irish music and Irish language proponents. Hell, if your chippy offered a cut price fish supper on a Friday, it was in the PNF.

Of late the Bryson, Hoey & Allister triumvirate have issued warnings that former bastions of unionism, such as the judiciary, vast swathes of the civil services, huge amounts of lawyers, the police, Queen’s University and the media, have succumbed to nationalism. The pan nationalist front is ever widening and will surely soon include those Lundies who haven’t bought into the protocol panic and ‘shouldn’t even call themselves unionist’.

These days (as in times past when the ‘Ulster will fight & Ulster will be right’ siren has sounded) you’re either with the hardcore or you’re a traitorous Irish rebel wanting to bring down the precious union by whatever nefarious means necessary.

Hutchinson using the term PNF can be seen in the same spectrum as loyalists claiming that the Good Friday Agreement is null and void at the one end, and unionist politicians refusing to confirm they would accept a deputy First Minister post alongside Sinn Fein First Minister at the other. It’s part of an increasing and accepted failure to recognise an aspiration to Irish Unity as legitimate.

Hutchinson lays the blame for the protocol at the door of basically organised Irishness whilst he ignores the fact it was his own elected representatives and his mother parliament at Westminster who engineered this situation. The attempt to frame this as being a breach of the GFA is cynical in the extreme. If there has been a breach of the consent principle, it has not been at the hands of nationalists living in NI. However, that is who the threat is aimed at when Hutchinson states that the GFA peace treaty, to which loyalist paramilitaries signed up, no longer exists.

It’s a threat. It isn’t subtle. But it is to an extent menacing. It is meant to be menacing. It is meant to be menacing the same way it was menacing during the GFA negotiations when paramilitaries were taking cards off tables and not going away you know. It is meant to make civic society collectively shudder and desperately hope that death and destruction might not be visited upon them because of a failure of politics.

Hutchinson reveals a wanton desperation in his article. The “warning of the threat of a return to IRA bombs” was erroneous – that is, it wasn’t real. Hutchinson doesn’t think that the IRA would have bombed installations at the border, and we think that he’s correct in that assessment. It’s therefore hard to know what Hutchinson is saying here. Is he saying that the British were forced by the mere threat of republican violence into ‘subjugating’ the Union? Doesn’t sound very taking back freedom, Dunkirk spirit of them. Would it not be more likely that M15 & the rest of the lads had a fairly good handle on the threat assessment given they seem to have been at every Real IRA tea party for the last however many years?

Would it maybe follow that they actually subjugated the Union because they (a) don’t give a shit about Northern Ireland and (b) are more interested in all the disaster capitalism that they can profit from now that Brexit is kicking off?

It must be soul destroying to be a loyalist. Who isn’t in the PNF at this stage? The EU? The Tory party? The DUP? They’ve all got to be in it. Bloody hell, at this stage we would not be surprised if Bryson turns out to be a card carrying member. His recent tweet comparing NI to Ukraine certainly seemed the work of a sleeper agent.

Billy doesn’t explicitly say who a threat is aimed at (got to love that plausible deniability) But what he does say is this:

So, when a young loyalist generation comes to me and says ‘the threat of violence was good enough to prevent a land border, why shouldn’t the same not apply to a Sea Border?’, what am I to tell them?

Well, one might imagine that your first step, as you said you would, would be to outline the horrors of the past and explain no one would ever want to live through such times again. Maybe try to explain how brutal and depressing that time was. How pointless it was. How nothing was won and much was lost. How countless mothers lost children. How people still wake up screaming. Tell him how hate-traumatised generations here and you were one of the shining lights that said no more and led people out of that horrible mess. Tell your loyalist friend that everyone should be invested in fairness and equality and peace and violence can never be tolerated. Tell him to become involved in civic politics and discussions.

You could further say that you believed the threat of republican violence wasn’t real? That it was “erroneous”? Maybe tell them that once violence is introduced into a society like Northern Ireland, it can spiral into dystopia? That if one armed group (be it republican, loyalist or state) attacks a community, then it is highly likely that that community will fight back? Maybe, and we're being deliberately controversial, tell him that despite the “loyalist backlash” cliché, the republican backlash was significantly more violent, wide-ranging, and destructive?

Maybe tell them that it’s highly likely that he’ll spend decades in prison, and that, contrary to some myths, loyalists were captured and convicted far more frequently than republicans. Tell him that a fifth of all victims of the last loyalist campaign were politically uninvolved Protestants murdered in mistake for politically uninvolved Catholics, and that even if he kills the “correct” politically uninvolved person, and not spend decades of his teens, 20s, and 30s in jail, he might end up in a feud and die at the hands of fellow loyalists, his name conflated with criminality, and ignored by the British press.

You might also wish to point out that it was not so much the threat from M15 infiltrated dissident republican groups - who have very little support amongst the pan nationalist front - that prevented the imposition of a land border it was statecraft. It was nationalist politicians and groups (the PNF if you will) lobbying the EU & America & reminding them of their responsibilities under the GFA and having them remind the British of their responsibilities.

You could have a chat with your young loyalist about the failure of unionist politicians to represent the views of their constituents who are so dismayed by the protocol. What were they doing when they made Brexit their hill to die on? Why did they throw their lot in with the hard right of the Tory Party instead of with the people of NI? Why did they not agree arrangements that would have avoided a protocol?

You could reassure the young loyalist that the failure of unionist political class has led to this juncture, not his nationalist neighbours who pose no threat and that working people, no matter what class or nationality have much more in common with each other than they ever will with ruling class. Remind that young Loyalist of genuine working class progressive views, Billy.

However, Hutchinson deserves genuine credit for this:

The truth is, beyond the obvious point that we will always - in all circumstances - discourage all young (and not so young) loyalists from engaging in any form of violence.

But then, as so many politicians before him, he gives himself a bit of plausible deniability before getting out the dog whistle, and saying:

we have no real answer to the proposition that the threat of republican violence has led to seismic constitutional change being imposed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.

Despite the fact that this statement is simply factually incorrect, it does raise an interesting point – Hutchinson charges that the protocol was “imposed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.”

Why not call for a referendum, then? What is wrong with political means? Why not test if it carries the consent of the people of Northern Ireland?

Instead, Hutchinson says this:

It is obvious therefore that for the maintenance of peace and stability it is vital for the Protocol to be removed, in order to demonstrate that the threat of violence should never have been rewarded. That is a wrong which must be righted.

This seems rather like a threat of loyalist violence if the protocol is not removed. Aside from the almost comedic hypocrisy (poll after poll rates the protocol as rating fairly low as an issue of concern), we are entitled to ask exactly how and where that violence will occur?

What is also left unsaid is what would happen if the protocol is removed. What Billy is saying is ‘put a hard border up between NI and the South’, get rid of the GFA. Let’s get back to the days when unionists dominated civic society. The realisation that this is seriously unlikely to ever transpire makes those of us - and it’s a hell of a lot - in the pan nationalist front nervous because of the questions that it leads to: 

Who will loyalists attack? What will they do? Who is their enemy? The Pan Nationalist Front is all encompassing. You might not even not you were a member until after you gave been targeted.

How many “young loyalists” will risk decades in Maghaberry, with no prospect of early release under an amnesty, for killing people who had nothing to do with enormous own-goal scored by the halfwits in the DUP cozying up to a nest of vipers in Westminster?

And for what? Loyalists will lose their fight against the protocol, as they have lost every fight they started since Drumcree. It’s just such a shame that it all has to be framed and a fight & one side having to win lest there be disastrous consequences for them.

It’s worth reciting the fights that loyalists have lost: Drumcree; Harryville; Holy Cross; the 2005 riots (what were they about?); the Flag protests; and now the protocol. Each of these tactical catastrophes alienated the only people who can maintain the union: voting nationalists.

Unfortunately it seems it’s the only way to attract support for the union is to declare - once again - its under the worst threat ever, ever, promise this time the pan nationalist front are really coming for us.

Maybe Hutchinson should drop the “Progressive” part from the PUP and accept they’re as lacking in vision as the rest of the tragic has-beens that constitute contemporary political unionism.

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

⏩ Winnie Woods is a recently retired housewife with an interest in human rights & politics.
 

Wise Up, Billy Hutchinson!

Winnie Woods  ✒ Someone born at the time of the first IRA ceasefire will be 28 this year. Younger Nationalists and republicans no longer have to justify what happened during the conflict, and now more freely say that they want a united Ireland. 

Kate Hoey’s now infamous comments last week spoke of welcoming the encouragement being given to young loyalists to further their academic and professional ambitions. Tangible evidence of this encouragement is difficult to find, but what is clear for all to see is that Joel Keys has been warned by the PSNI about his safety. The threats, and widespread abuse on social media, have come from his own community. There is an Ulster Unionist Party candidate from the Falls Road, from a Catholic family and with a grandfather murdered by loyalists. He has not been threatened. Interestingly, he graduated from Ulster University with a degree in journalism.

On the Falls Road, working class politics are visible and dynamic, coming through on murals etc. It’s not the same in East Belfast. Many of the murals there are concerned with territory, not with politics. The last thing that the Unionist political classes want is an educated Protestant working class as they are going to realise that they have been sold a pup.

Following Hoey’s assertion that Nationalists are dominating professions (citing law, journalism, and public service as examples) and using this domination to push their nefarious agenda towards a united Ireland, prominent Unionist MLA Jim Wells appeared on Talkback on (6 January 2022).

There is so much to pick apart about Jim Wells comments on Talkback. In this part of the world everyone is used to politicians blithely throwing out statements that in other parts of the UK or Ireland, or any civilised place, would end a career. Wells focused on the 1947 Education Act as being the cause of the problem. It didn’t have to be done, he said, but good old Lord Londonderry with the benevolence with which his class is known, faced down opposition and allowed Taig schools to be funded, and this had ‘laid down the foundation for a very well educated middle class which has then fed through to domination in the courts and other professions.’

What is interesting to me is why the likes of Hoey and Wells fear the well-educated Catholic / Nationalist middle class.

If the union is so appealing and only someone who is prepared to vote against their own interest would vote for a united Ireland why is this Catholic/Nationalist middle class to be feared? Surely they would be persuaded to the Unionist view and would be a massive voting bloc who would help secure the union indefinitely? But they mostly aren’t persuaded. And it’s not because of tribalism or a romantic view.

People in professions who are doing fairly well at life generally favour the status quo. They are worried about mortgages, their own children’s education and so on. The problem, as Hoey knows, is that reunification now feels like more of a status quo as it would be a return to a more appealing union in the EU.

Unionists have never, over the course of the last 100 years, sought to make the union appealing to Catholics or Nationalists. During these recent discussions, both Hoey & Wells did the usual ‘not all Catholics are Nationalists: some of the biggest Unionist are Catholic’ messaging. Most people don’t give a damn about religion and would give even less of a one if it wasn’t still being used as method of othering. I am Catholic but went to a Protestant (or state) school, swore allegiance to the Queen of England in Girl Guides, wore a poppy when they were sold in school and had maybe one Catholic friend when I was growing up. I was in a Unionist town, and my parents had pragmatically decided to raise us to fit in with the majority around us. If the Northern Ireland experiment was going to work on anyone it should have worked on me. I never saw the RTÉ toy show, and was far more familiar with British culture than Irish. On a family holiday when I was a teenager I was asked by an American if I would use a British or Irish flag and I said British. The problem was, to the PUL community that I was living amongst, I was still a Fenian and that was made clear to me in a load of small ways. I am not complaining or saying it was a difficult - it was just part of my experience but it was there.

Part of the reason I felt like this was of course the usual name-calling, but I was growing up in a pretty middle class environment and I was never chased or beaten up or anything. Instead I would notice the side-eye to me when someone would say ‘my dad says all those ones at Bloody Sunday were in the IRA’ or ‘the priests hide guns in Belfast/’ It still makes me cringe that I would agree with such stupid statements, young teenager or not. But it felt like it was a test at the time and I didn’t want to face the consequences of failing it. Increasingly, nationalists are not only accepting these challenges, but confidently and easily rejecting them. This will not regress, and will only get more pronounced.

Ben Lowry remarked that Queens University is a cold house for Unionists and backed this up citing the number of students wearing GAA tops round the place. I too found it shocking. I was shocked that they were brave enough to be wearing a top that would have attracted, at the very least, a good degree of negative attention in my town.
 
⏩ Winnie Woods is a recently retired housewife with an interest in human rights & politics.

The Unintended Consequences Of Unionist Domination – Part Ⅰ

Brandon Sullivan & Winnie Woods ðŸ”–team up to deconstruct the testimony of a former RUC member.


Part Two - From Sectarian Thuggery to Outright Terrorism

Armstrong wrote that although him and his colleagues knew who the IRA were, and that they would beat and torture them, they could never convict them. One wonders if this is because in Armstrong’s dysfunctional, abusive, sectarian mind-set, politically uninvolved nationalists were indistinguishable from IRA members. Later events lend credence to this theory. However, in the chapter with the misnomer title “The Terrorist Lawman” Armstrong acknowledges his decision to “throw his lot in with the Protestant terrorist organisation.” 

Armstrong, in common with many loyalist paramilitaries, described shooting up and bombing pubs in Catholic areas as “terrorising the terrorists.” In this case, Armstrong is claiming to have terrorised the South Armagh bridge of the IRA. Students of the Troubles will understand how inane this claim is. What is true, however, is that Armstrong and others terrorised law-abiding Catholic communities in Armagh. Anne Cadwallader in her detailed and meticulously researched book Lethal Allies noted that many of the politically uninvolved Catholic families targeted were aspirational, business-minded, often upwardly mobile people.

The instances of Armstrong seeking out Catholics to harass and beat up are simply too numerous to recount, and the obvious pride he takes in recounting his “Mickey hunting” makes a mockery of any claims to bona fide Christianity, except perhaps a version from many centuries previous. There is also a confusing claim of allowing a bomb to detonate in a Chinese take-away.

On p40 of his book, he openly admits to what would later be described as “collusive activities” which involved some senior RUC members saying to others that named, identified IRA men’s assassinations would result in investigations that were “far from exhaustive.” Interestingly, immediately after this, he noted that most Protestant terrorists confessed under little duress, and this contrasted with his “grudging respect” for the IRA men who stayed silent being put through the “wrack of mental and physical torture” meted out to them by him and how fellow RUC officers. Armstrong goes on to note his “hatred” for the RUC CID who secured convictions against loyalist paramilitaries. Former RUC officer and convicted murderer John Weir also claimed that senior RUC officers turned a blind eye to the criminal and terrorist actions of their junior ranks.

After a trip to New York in 1978 during which he and fellow RUC officers indulged in fighting, cocaine use, and hard drinking, he returned to his duties, whereupon shortly afterwards the South Armagh brigade attacked two RUC officers, one of whom was found dead, and the other confirmed missing. The missing man was Billy Turbitt, and was in fact already dead, but his body hadn’t been released. Using the modus operandi employed in the murder of pharmacist William Strathearn, Armstrong and another RUC officer decided to call upon a Catholic Priest pretending to be parishioners in need of assistance. They then kidnapped the elderly man, a former member of the RAF, with the intention of holding him hostage to secure the release of Mr Turbitt. Armstrong heeded Ian Paisley’s call to release the priest who was physically unharmed. Analysing Paisley’s motives for calling for Father Murphy’s release are outwith the remit of this review, but it could be a worthwhile exercise.

A fellow RUC officer named Willy in the book, and who may or may not be Billy “The Protestant Boy” McCaughey, named Armstrong as being part of the gang who kidnapped Father Murphy. Sergeant Armstrong finds himself in the Crum, where he quickly finds God, invents some bullshit reason about how he can be a man of God but still not confess to all of this crimes, and is ridiculed by the IRA’s commander in the Crum as “not being able to do his whack.” He’s also threatened by the IRA with assassination inside, which as we shall see, were not idle threats.

At his trial for kidnapping Father Murphy, Lord Lowry gave him a suspended sentence, taking into account his RUC record (which detailed numerous disciplinary infractions as well as citations), and his being a recipient of the Queen’s Gallantry medal. Lord Lowry was a complex figure, who the same year as giving Armstrong a suspended jail term, also freed Gerry Adams in court.

Armstrong describes his humiliation at having to sign on for the dole, and also details an IRA operation, which was foiled, aimed at assassinating him at the dole office. One of the would be assassins died at the hands of the security forces, and others are convicted. He doesn’t’ say who.

The parts of his book dealing with the religious conversion are so boring and far-fetched as to be virtually unreadable. But one part does stand out. He describes “being at the scene” of a gun and bomb attack on an unnamed bar (presumably the Rock Bar), where the bomb failed to explode: only the detonator goes off. This supposed man of God named this chapter “Unfulfilled Potential” and, offers up the failure of a bomb aimed at murdering civilians he was sworn to protect whilst breaking the laws he was paid to uphold as an analogy for the unfulfilled potential of those who could be “saved” by converting to his faith.

Armstrong was a member of the Elim church. The same one as former UVF man, and alleged mass-murderer, Alan Oliver. One doesn’t have to be a hater, harasser, and killer of Catholics to join the Elim church, but if you are, it doesn’t appear to be held against you.

A telling example of the sincerity of this low-life’s legacy and religious conversion is his stating that he has spoken to “almost all” denominations of Christianity about the importance of becoming saved.

One can guess at the group of Christians he hasn’t preached to.

As frequent readers of this blog know, I can often be found asking for nuance to be extended to the RUC. That this man, and many others, led a wide-ranging campaign of sectarianism, ranging from thuggery to torture to kidnapping, murder, and bombing is a damning indictment of the force. That it was decent, professional RUC officers who brought this wretched man to court is in some ways a blessed relief.

The difference in quality and content of their character, along with professional effectiveness and propriety could not be more striking.

The fortitude, integrity, dignity and humanity of the many survivors and relatives of those attacked by the likes of Armstrong stands in stark contrast to the boastful, immature, self-serving nature of the ridiculous but sinister author of this book. It is a slim book, full of the deluded beliefs of a man who in any other society would simply have been the drunken fool picking fights at the end of a night out.

Gary Armstrong, 1991, From Palace To Prison. Published by Freedom Publishing. ISBN-13:978-0947852849

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

⏩ Winnie Woods is a recently retired housewife with an interest in human rights & politics.

Confessions of a Uniformed Ulster Bigot @ II

Brandon Sullivan & Winnie Woods team up to deconstruct the testimony of a former RUC member.


Part One – Thrilling Willie McCrea; Gary Armstrong’s dysfunctional start in life, raw sectarianism, and beginnings in the RUC

I read this mercifully short book written by one of the RUC officers convicted in relation to crimes committed by those associated with what became known as the “Glenanne gang.” I am reading it in the line of duty, so to speak, as it will become part of a larger research project. In 1991, the loyalist campaign of sectarian murder was steadily increasing after a lull in the 1980s, pausing for a ceasefire, unreciprocated by the IRA who apparently increased the tempo of their attacks, during a session of political talks.

The front cover shows Armstrong having received a decoration from the Queen, and underneath that - and demonstrating his penchant for being associated with terrorists, so long as they are the Catholic murdering type - is a quote from Willie McCrea. He describes the book as “thrilling.” McCrea called for parts of Eire to be bombed by the RAF, and also Crossmaglen, in 1986. Despite this support for indiscriminate attacks, he was outraged when the IRA machine-gunned his home in 1994. Inside the book is another endorsement from another supposed man of God, praising Armstrong, whilst acknowledging that he could be difficult, forthright, and “controversial.” I couldn’t’ help but notice the parallels with the as yet not retracted (despite invitations to do so) praise for the troglodyte bigot and paedophile David Tweed, for whom the most reactionary unionist politician have only positive things to say.

Other recipients of medals from the Queen include the killers of unarmed Irish civilians Soldier F, and Dennis Hutchins. To be fair to Hutchins and F, though, they didn’t end up convicted terrorists. Armstrong did, but as far as I know, wasn’t stripped of his honour.

The Cassel report has this to say about Gary Armstrong:

Gary Armstrong — RUC sergeant, given a two-year suspended sentence in relation to the kidnapping of a Catholic priest, Father Hugh Murphy, in retaliation for the murder of a policeman. Armstrong was named by Judge Barron as one of the group of RUC members who carried out the gun and bomb attack on the Rock Bar.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I reject the notion that the RUC was a purely sectarian force, and that whilst it needed essentially abolished and rebuilt, it contained decent and fair-minded officers. This book not only makes such a defence more difficult, it also, in my opinion, goes some way to explaining why the RUC were targeted with such ferocity and frequency by republicans. Simply put, the bigotry and abuses of power perpetrated by this man and his comrades, albeit whilst “policing” areas of mounting security force casualties, could do nothing but increase support for the IRA.

Given what else this man is guilty of, it seems almost churlish to criticise his writing style, but he is an appalling writer, and not a man of any obvious intelligence. There is no nuance, wit, tact, or style. He CAPITALISES often, usually when emphasises his being SAVED (by the Free P’s, naturally).

Armstrong spends a little bit of time talking about his childhood, themes of poverty, “staunch Protestant” parents, but not the abstemious types. They seem chaotic and feckless, more interested in socialising than parenting, and Armstrong was mainly raised by his grandparents. He attended the Royal School Armagh, where he was bullied for his poverty, and got involved in pretty crime and general thuggery; themes that would continue until his finding God. His father and brother were convicted for attacking “Roman Catholics”, and Armstrong, despite his private education, failed academically, comparatively, and seemed to be acting out violently in response to his bullying at the hands of wealthier Protestant classmates.

And then, aged 18, this son of a feckless sectarian criminal father was accepted into the RUC. Posted to Newtownhamilton, his land rover was hit by IRA bullets very shortly after he had joined. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given his parental influences, Armstrong’s analysis of the IRA attack was “to see the potential within the Roman Catholic community in Newtownhamilton for my murder.” This is followed by as asinine claim that he would “went on the offensive but was careful to be as even-handed as possible” against the IRA. This alleged care would not last long.

Armstrong describes the South Armagh IRA picking off security force targets regularly, which is true (this was 1972 and onwards), and also describes, but exaggerates, the support for these actions by “the Roman Catholics.” He also describes his friend and RUC colleague, George, being shot dead, and his deep upset at this. He admits to his first crime following this killing – and his description of it reveals his broad, sectarian, and frankly self-servingly idiotic outlook:

I grabbed a man I believed to be a terrorist, or at least a supporter, and pushed him out of the window of a bombed out building opposite the station.

As a result of his “apparent hatred” his “sympathetic superiors” promoted him, without passing the requisite exams, to the Special Patrol Group, based in Bessbrook.

He describes his joy at seeing, on the first night out with his new unit, his comrades stop and beat and kick “two young men outside Armagh.” He doesn’t mention if they were “terrorists” or “supporters” but we can assume they were not Protestants.

Armstrong’s blind bigotry runs through this book. He seems proud of it; his supposed Christian faith seems not to preclude him from vainly describe how violently effective a harasser of Catholics he was. His own words capture this better than I can:

Roman Catholics, especially young militant ones, were fair game, and the number of times I satiated my appetite for revenge on their persons are too many to record – hospital records bear witness. 

One is left wondering how many were inspired to join for support the IRA as a result of these actions.

He goes on:

My hatred was running amok as a I turned my attention to making the life of the one other policeman who was a Catholic in our squad a real misery. He eventually emigrated to Canada.

Fellow RUC bigot, murderer, and criminal Billy McCaughey recounted tormenting this Catholic RUC man by dangling him outside of a land rover. It should be recognised, however, that the investigation that landed many of these RUC low-lives into prison was conducted by other RUC officers, dedicated professionals, not twisted bigots. I am following some leads as to the makeup of this team, and will most likely write more at a later date.

Like the recently deceased bigot and paedophile Davy Tweed, Armstrong also harassed Catholics bullied people, and played rugby. Armstrong says it was a release for his hatred of Catholics and describes some violent sectarian assaults he committed. He also talks about heavy drinking, drug-taking, and committing numerous assaults.

Gary Armstrong, 1991, From Palace To Prison. Published by Freedom Publishing. ISBN-13:978-0947852849

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

⏩ Winnie Woods is recently retired housewife with an interest in human rights & politics.

Confessions Of A Uniformed Ulster Bigot @ Ⅰ

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)