BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Den
Date: 22 May 07 - 11:25 AM

Just back to this after a long weekend away with my family. Long walks with my wife, the boys and our dogs on the beach. A much needed break. Anyway, I see that this NI related thread has done its usual meandering.

Keith if I may I'd like to take up a point with you and it is to do with this statement of yours: "My last was in reply to Den who challenged that BS was even an IRA activist at all." Really, at what point did I remotely suggest that? That would indeed be an ubsurd thing for me to say. I've looked at my posts and can find nothing that I said that would support that statement. Unless you are talking about when I asked for your definition of your statement that Sands was a "very active volunteer". I asked for clarification because Sands spent most of the last nine years of his life locked up in the maze prison. Since we know that he died aged 27, that he joined the IRA aged 18 that would give him about six months of freedom give or take, between prison sentences. In that, he was actively involved in working with his local community Twinbrook, as a tenant association and youth club organizer during the period of his release after serving his first sentence he must have been very busy.

Guitar has made a number of references about birds in conjunction with Bobby Sands. He was a fairly keen amateur ornithologist as it happens. Something else people may not know about him is that he was not sectarian in his views, even after his much maligned treatment at the hands of loyalists. Sands was born in Rathcoole, a predominantly loyalist area of Belfast. He was a keen athlete and ran for a well known protestant club, "the Willowfield Temperance Harriers."

It would be nice if the proposed film were to focus on the events that shaped the life of Bobby Sands. In that way I think it would give us a much better insight into the man be became. Much can be gleaned from his writing if anyone took the trouble to read it. I know there are some pieces available online and many more in print.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 07 - 11:44 AM

Den, when I said he was a very active IRA volunteer, I thought it obvious that I meant when he was not in jail.
As such he would have been armed, so his conviction for posession seems fair to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Den
Date: 22 May 07 - 12:10 PM

There was next to no support for the civil rights movement outside of the nationalists communities of the north of Ireland. The greater UK community has never given a shit (pardon my language) about events pertaining to the plight of nationalists in Ulster. The turning point for the troubles was the murder of 13 innocent civilians in Derry on Bloody Sunday. Up to that point the IRA were a non-force with little to no support. The British army's job has always been to help prop up the protestant state for a protestant people. But this is way of topic.

Keith, Sands was more active in prison than he ever was outside of it. He was convicted with four others on a weapons charge. It has never been proved that Sands was in actual posession of the particular weapon. You still haven't addressed my other point. The point about you misrepresenting what I said above.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:01 PM

Den, you wrote to me,
Now where do we start with your post? Please define, "very active IRA volunteer."
I took that to mean that you did not agree, or why say it?

(And by very active volunteer I meant one who spent many sleepless nights on standby, going on IRA operations, dodging security forces etc.)

I hope you are clear now.
Seems like a pointless quible to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:11 PM

Den, I dispute your statement that the greater UK community never gave a shit...
My experience was different. There was universal support for the US Civil Rights movement and when the NI movement emerged with the same demands, that support naturally went to themm too.
And did not the UK government meet all the demands of that peaceful movement?

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: GUEST,William
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:46 PM

I'm a Scotish Presbeterian; I support the 'Gers and some would call me a bigot. I mention these things because I WILL go and see this movie, because want to know what drives a man (or a woman, in the case of the sufferagettes) to kill themselves in this horrific, degrading fashion for a cause - however misguided they seem to me.

I watched "The Last King of Scotland" to try to understand why Europeans thought Idi Amin was a jocular buffoon and not the psychopathic killer that he was. I was one of those who, at the time, thought his antics were funny until I knew the horrendous truth - I was trying to understand myself!

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Den
Date: 22 May 07 - 02:58 PM

I was questioning "very active." Do you have information the rest of us don't? The UK government's answer to that peaceful movement was to send the Para's to Derry on what became known as Bloody Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 07 - 03:10 PM

Let it go Den.
I listed the things he was engaged in that met the criteria of a very active volunteer. What is your problem with that description?

The UK government's answer to the Civil Rights movement WAS to meet all their demands. The Paras were there on peacekeeping duty, and it went horribly wrong on Bloody Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Shaneo
Date: 22 May 07 - 03:17 PM

If the movie only concentrates on the last few weeks of his life ,then it's going to make pretty grim viewing , as this was the time of the dirty/blanket protest ,

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 22 May 07 - 03:57 PM

You're right there - I'm hoping for more than that. Den said:

It would be nice if the proposed film were to focus on the events that shaped the life of Bobby Sands.

There are lots of things that a lot of us don't know about Bobby Sands and I, for one, would like to know more about him as a person and about the events that led to such commitment (whether we consider it misguided or not) to a cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 22 May 07 - 06:45 PM

Well, Teribus, as I see it, we differ on this, I believe the war in Ireland was part of the cold war in the later 20th century, and that it was fought by many well intentioned people on both sides, most of whom had no idea of the real politic behind the violence. You, (correct me if I am wrong) believe that the Irish are simply evil minded and murderous, as the Zulu were barbaric, the people of India where murderous and evil except for little devoted Gunga Din, and the stalwart British soldier faced all with the rules of the cricket pitch, and every so often Irish trawlers suddenly - nets taught, began to speed backwards on their own through he ocean and dive, killing their crews... I am not convinced of this. I also believe that British subs DID try and avoid Irish trawler nets, but I also believe they violated Irish territorial waters for the same reason Britain violated international conventions against torture in Ireland. Perhaps I believe in a more balanced world than you do ... but as I said before that makes horse races. I promise not to force you to see the Bobby Sands film... Sin e doigh

Is mise, le meas
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Teribus
Date: 23 May 07 - 06:20 AM

"There was next to no support for the civil rights movement outside of the nationalists communities of the north of Ireland." - Den, 22 May 07 - 12:10 PM

I don't know where you were at the time Den, certainly in the UK there was widespread support for the NICRM and the hardline "Unionsts", Ian Paisley in particular, were treated as a bit of a joke and objects of derision. Mind you I can only speak for myself and those I knew at that time.

InOBU please do not put words into my mouth then attempt to take me to task over them.

"You, (correct me if I am wrong) believe that the Irish are simply evil minded and murderous" - InOBU

I will correct you InOBU. When have I EVER made such a statement or claim - If you cannot find an example of me having done so, you at least should retract that statement and apologise for having made it. I certainly do believe that the paramilitaries who were active in Northern Ireland, mainland UK and elsewhere were evil minded, murderous bastards and evidence to support that point of view is plain to see.

I do not believe that I have ever stated an opinion on the Zulu nation. In their heyday they were regarded, by many, as being barbaric, they actually traded on that reputation. Maybe you should read a little of their history, particularly that of their founder Shaka Zulu, read about what he did in the aftermath of his favourite wife's death (It most certainly was not pleasant, or the action of any civilised human being). Also take a good look at his attitude to vanquished foes born from his own experiences when he and his mother evaded an attempt on his life.

India, again I have not mentioned India in this thread, but you and other Americans that I have heard on the subject, seem rather ill informed. For a start India was never a British colony, your original thirteen states were, take a look at the differences. India was not brutally suppressed by the British, if you believe that it was, can you please explain how less than one thousand civil servants were able to administer the entire sub-continent of more than 350 million people for the best part of 200 years. India at the moment is poised to become a world super-power, it is debatable that it (India) economically will surpass the Chinese purely by dint of the fact that more Indians speak what is commonly accepted as being the international language. The foundation of India's economic potential was British investment in India during the days of the Raj.

On the Irish trawlers, I believe that it was you who tried to convey that they were being pulled under by the dozen by evil 'Brit' submarines placing "listening devices" on the seabed to keep track of Soviet submarines. I, on the other hand, referred you to, and quoted from, a report issued by an independent body who had studied the issue (Celtic League) which concluded that in total over a period of 20 years there were twenty incidents where submarines may, or may not, have been involved in the disappearance of fishing vessels from Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. Those twenty incidents did not all occur in Irish waters. As to violating Irish territorial waters I would be interested in hearing why they would do such a thing? I know for certain that we (The RN) did violate Russian territorial waters during the "Cold War" having been there and done that, but that was because there, there were things we wanted to look at and listen to. Hell's teeth anything similar in Ireland all one would have to do would be to buy a ferry ticket and go off as a tourist. The Celtic League's report however did draw attention to the fact that at the end of the Cold War and the dismemberment of the USSR and the subsequent withdrawal of US and Soviet submarines from the waters of the British Isles the number of incidents declined "dramatically" (Their expression).

On torture, holding ones feet to the fire, you claim to know people who were tortured by the 'Brits', people who have told you of their experiences - Good for them. Now do you know any who were tortured by any of the paramilitary organisations who were active during "The Troubles", they all most certainly did torture people, but the main difference was that people tended not to survive the process. At the time the UK Government could be hauled to the court at Strazbourg, the paramilitaries could not. But as a lawyer InOBU you should be aware that things have changed, and that now members of the likes of the INLA, PIRA, UDF, et al, can. Which explains SF and the PIRA's stance regarding the abduction, torture and murder of Mrs Jean McConville - you see that is not covered by the GFA, her murder is still on the books and Mr Adams may yet be brought to account for it as I believe that he most certainly gave the order sanctioning the "operation".

A more balanced world Lorcan? From what you have written you wouldn't know one if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 23 May 07 - 08:00 AM

Dear Teribus
Well ... to bring this back to value of film as communication... I see we need a film, not only about Bobby Sands, but about Jillianwalla Baud, where the India which was not brutally suppressed by the British was the site of the unprovoked murder of Shiks by members of the British army, who, following orders machine-gunned a crowd in a plaza ... well, maybe it was provoked, the British had ordered the Shiks to crawl on their bellies in the plaza, and when they did not they were shot. Bangladesh was, once part of the Indian subcontinent, and there in what was India at the time, Lord Ridley, Trivellian (same Trivellian who did not allow famine relief to be given freely in Ireland during the famine) and others gently administered the territory. They burned the cotton fields and destroyed the seeds of the Bangladeshi cotton, a unique cotton, compared to silk, and the source of Bangladesh being the riches territory on the subcontinent. They replaced it with jute, and destroyed the weaving industry, to make sure that the jute was rased to be worked elsewhere, under British control, reducing Bangladesh to the poverty from which it has never recovered. Ridley stated that a united Bangladesh was a threat to British economic domination, and he partitioned Bangladesh, the first time, it was later partitioned by the British again ... gently mind you... Britain behaved in India, very much as they did in Ireland, beginning with the supposition that they were always both right and well intentioned.
The argument that torture justifies torture is simply wrongheaded. It leads to the argument, who started it first? Rather than creating a world where no one tortures, we spend years in fighting the struggle of the last outrage. One does not look at one's own nations role in creating the environment which torture occurred, and does one's duty without thought that you might be serving a government which is committing crime rather than legitimate statesmanship. This is one reason why, I never joined any military, not would I. I went to war with a camera and met with, and spoke to both sides with equal love and attention. I never met the "mad dog" IRA man, bent on killing out of hatred. Rather, I met many young men and women, who were picked up and tortured under the special powers act, and sought a way to end a host of injustices in their nation. I met British soldiers, in the "Troops Out Movement" who for a variety of reasons, worked to end British military involvement in Ireland, some who felt outrages were being committed by their comrades, others who simply felt it was a policy which could not work. I met at least one former Military Intelligence officer, who lost faith in what he was doing, felt it was immoral and based in lies, I met British soldiers who felt they were there, doing the right thing for the right reasons, and desperately wanted to put their lives in the way to bring about peace and kill if they had to, I met Loyalists who felt the violence of other loyalists was wrong, and others who felt it was right. What I have never seen, is a war which was fought for the reasons expressed, including WWII. Not a single death camp was liberated as part of the war plan ... and as soon as the war ended, the US began to protect highly placed nazis to help in the cold war.
Film seems a much better way to bring about understanding and social change, than using bombs, torture, guns, submarines, and all the other tools of war including censorship.

All the best
lor

PS You are right, it was wrong of me to put words in your mouth, and I apologize for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 07 - 08:28 AM

Nice to see that the US has learned by what they accuse Britain of in it's running of a particular holiday camp in Cuba. I could make comments about black kettles and pans but I can fully understand the needs of the armchair generals and fundraisers in Boston and New York to justify the continued animosity towards Britain. Blame Britain for all the worlds ills and you can sit smugly in those Irish bars and clubs while your own administration continue the imperialist legacy elsewhere.

It still seems rather funny to me that none of the Old Country supporters on this thread chose to support or comment on a thread on the peace process. That's tha way of the world I guess...

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:33 AM

Hi Dave:
I read the peace process thread, and I think I might have commented on it... have to look back. As to US torture, I have not only spoken out about it in US political forums, I spoke out about it on this thread. The topic of this thread is about a film about Bobby Sands, if you look back, you will find I said there should be such a film for the very reason you mention, that we learn from the past to inform the present and the future.
All the best
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:42 AM

Bye the bye, Dave, I have no animosity towards Britain. I spend a lot of time in England, and am quite happy there. This does not mean I believe the British Government is without fault, anymore than I think the government of the US or Ireland is without fault. I love my country quite a bit, and because of that, I often hold my country up to the light, when the government commits illegal and inhuman acts. I am Anglo Irish and proud of our often troubled past. We did terrible things, but, we also did some great things, that is what human history is about. I don't say Britain is responsible for all the ills of the world, there is plenty of blame to go around, and the US has more than its share, as does, Russia, Belgium, China, Japan, Germany, Denmark, even mild old Canada... a place very dear to my heart. It seems there is a sense that if you don't say that Bobby Sands was a blood thirsty mad dog killer, that you are a support of NORAID and more. The world is much more complex than that. You might be surprised if you met some of the people who you assume so much about here.

All the best
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 07 - 11:30 AM

Good man, Lorcan. At least you accept that most governments seem to be the same. Shame not everyone can see it is the administration rather than the people of a country that is most often at fault. By your own argument though there are also people who seem to believe that if you don't agree that Bobby Sands was a hero you are a bastard brit who would like nothing better than to enslave the world under the imperialist yoke once more. I don't think that either perspective is true.

What, by the way, do you think I am assuming so much about people here? I have not assumed anything, just pointed out that a thread about the troubles attracts more than double the contributions than a thread about peace attracted. I would rather people draw their own conclusions but mine is simply that people in general would rather talk about violence than peace. I find that very sad.

Good luck with your quest to educate us all anyway:-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 May 07 - 11:35 AM

Oh - and by the way - You did not contribute to the peace thread. I could be wrong but I don't think there was a single contribution from the pro-republicans across the water.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 23 May 07 - 11:50 AM

Hi Dave:
Good man, yourself. I'd say we are pretty much in agreement on your latest points. I think there are things which are maters of fact, a person's intellect, etc., and others that depend on where one stands, one person's hero is another person's fool. I believe there are well meaning British people who think Sands was not a hero. I think if many of them had a chance to have met him, they might have had a more complex view of the man, they might not, where we grow up has a lot to do with shaping how we look at the same event, the old Rashamon syndrome. I rather approach things with an open mind ... part of being a Quaker is to really listen to someone, with as little judgementalism as one can muster ... not always easy.

As to the thread about peace in Ireland. I really must look back and see if I commented on it. I lived in Ireland in the seventies, and part of the eighties, and so my knowledge of the people who lived and fought then is more a matter of comment from experience than my knowledge of the present peace progress, which I know of from reading others, rather than my own witness. During the eighties and into the nineties, I worked on cases involving extradition to Britain, and that kept me up to date with stories presented by the British and US government and the responses of individuals and organizations -- and so my knowledge of those times was rather up to date. I have great hopes for peace, but more, peace that informs the future so that we don't make the same mistakes again. We seem not to be able to do that well ... learning from our past. South Africa seems to be doing that very well, though not perfectly -- we are, after all human ... most of us.

So, I don't even think one is a "bastard brit who would like nothing better than to enslave the world under the imperialist yoke" if you don't wish to see a film about Bobby Sands. I tend to watch films which reflect a variety of points of view, and give them their due ... for example, "Dances With Wolves," which I watched with Lacota friends who found it racist and at times funny when it did not mean to be ... but, I would say it was a great piece of film making, a ripping yarn, but that it did not really inform much about the reality of interaction between the Lacota and White Americas. Others came to wish to learn more about the Lacota from seeing it, and in that, it was a good thing the film was made.

Cheers back at ya Dave, and if you get to New York, give me a shout and we'll go out for a pint, and as you're the guest, talk music or politics, your choice...

Lor         

PS, and if me bands playing someplace, and you can stand the Uilleann pipes, you're on for a night of music

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 23 May 07 - 12:04 PM

Hi Dave:
I looked up the peace thread. Well, there was one, pro-republican, though I would not have put things the way he did... You'll notice that when I wrote of Irish law, as to the North being part of Ireland, I was writing about the time that Sands was arrested. I delivered a paper in Ireland about Irish American Travellers (Pavees - "Gypsies") at Trinity Law School, (The Racialization of American Irish Travellers as Gypsie) a few years ago, and found, as I had heard, Ireland to have changed dramatically in the past decade. What effect this will have on potential for reunification, we will see. It is a different Europe today, and even though Britain holds on to the Pound while Ireland has abandoned the Punt, it is a different Britain as well. In point of fact, in the past ten years, I spent much more time in England than in Ireland, and have seen the differing attitudes towards Ireland as the peace process evolves. Even so, I don't feel called on to write about the peace process ... other than to say, I don't feel as some who commented from the States, that religion played a big part on the republican side, most Republican volunteers I met, were not very devout in their faith, though some were. All accepted me, as a Quaker with family Protestant roots, for myself without any thought to my religion (as did my Irish American Catholic wife ).

So, there it is... I have great hopes for peace, but I have little in the way of expectation of how that peace will look.

All the best
slan
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: GUEST,Big Mick
Date: 23 May 07 - 12:47 PM

Dave, I have posted on the peace thread today. Thanks for pointing that out.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Den
Date: 23 May 07 - 12:56 PM

"I listed the things he was engaged in that met the criteria of a very active volunteer. What is your problem with that description"?

A charge of possession of a weapon doesn't equate to very active in my book.

"The UK government's answer to the Civil Rights movement WAS to meet all their demands".

Unbelievable. Of course you fail to mention that in order for NI nationalists to be treated equitably in terms of a fair election system, an end to gerrymandering of electoral boundaries, an end to the perceived discrimination in the allocation of public sector housing, the repeal of the Special Powers Act etc. They would have to hold public demonstrations, be beaten and killed in some instances and all to have a piece of what the rest of the UK population has always enjoyed. And then have internment without trial visited on them.

And finally the coup de gráce. Your interpretation of the targeting and systematic killing and maiming of unarmed innocent men women and children is a peace keeping mission that went wrong.

You know folks I think that, that will be it for me. This place has taken enough of my time over the last while. I think its time to pull the plug, there's a lot more interesting things going on in the world and I should go do them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 07 - 03:13 PM

No Den, a charge of posession does not say much, but one who spent many sleepless nights on standby, going on IRA operations, dodging security forces etc. says it all.
Bobby Sands was an IRA fighting man. A soldier of Ireland. Of course he posessed a gun. Did you think he was more a shillelagh man? A rolled up newspaper?
Yes, the Civil rights movement had a struggle, as did the US movement. And yes, their struggle should never have been needed. And yes it took much longer than it should.
Internment was nothing to do with it though. That was a disastrous reaction to PIRA's armed struggle for a unified Ireland.

Finally, Bloody Sunday was as I said , horrible, but it was not "the targeting and systematic killing and maiming of unarmed innocent men women and children "

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: guitar
Date: 24 May 07 - 03:47 AM

Don't argue with these people, they are not interested in the truth

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 24 May 07 - 07:24 AM

Hi Guitar:
That is a rather interesting comment. I went into a war zone with a camera, spoke to soldiers and paramilitaries, civilians on all sides, tried to being the story of what I found to a nation where there was no press censorship from a nation where press censorship was enforced at the point of a gun - several press photographers were shot at by the British army - warning shots over their heads, well... it it was not an interest in the truth, what do you think I was doing there? Truths don't just sit on the surface of any situation, one must dig, search out, and in doing so one learns that there is not a single truth, there are truths and there is honesty. All any of us can hope for is honesty.
So, if you think my repeted call here for a truth and reconcilliation process is a lack of interest in THE truth, as it might not yet by YOUR truth... well, what can I say?
All the best
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 24 May 07 - 08:14 AM

I always remember one article I read about Bobby Sands which stated "This IRA gunman from................................." - it just stuck in my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: guitar
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:36 AM

fine

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: guitar
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:36 AM

OK

Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 07 - 11:22 AM

Guitar, saying things like "Don't argue with these people..." makes it even harder to have a reasoned debate.
There are always reasons why people feel as they do.
I know that you always say sorry afterwards, but the damage is done by then.

InOBU, I think that you got things mixed up again. There has been no press censorship here since WW2.
Misguidedly, for a time certain voices could not be broadcast, but all the words were still broadcast and published.
In all the years of the Troubles, I do not recall any journalist being shot.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Teribus
Date: 24 May 07 - 11:31 AM

All my experience with the media, journalists including photo-journalists is that they usually have their copy all weighed off before they leave the office - to hell with all the bullshit about "seeking truth", the only version of the truth that they seek is the one their editors told them to go out and find.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Wolfgang
Date: 25 May 07 - 05:52 AM

"Renunification will follow soon"

(I'm sorry, I know it is just one of those typos that happen to all of us at least twice daily, but I can't resist laughing.)

Isn't that exactly what all the loyalists and unionists feared when Martin McGuinnes became minister of education in 1999: All their children in school being educated by nuns?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 25 May 07 - 08:33 AM

Hi Teribus:

It was not legal to photograph the troops in the North of Ireland while I was working there... warning shots were sometimes fired over the heads of journalists... as to censorship here is a part of an article, and the URL, do read the whole thing, but I included some quote, followed by my own experiences...

http://www.newstatesman.com/200010160026

You think there is no pre-publication censorship in Britain? Tony Geraghty's experience suggests otherwise


"A British civil servant in the Ministry of Defence writes a letter to the UK's biggest publisher, "strongly urging" him not to release the paperback version of a book already on the shelves in hardback. The publisher complies, even though the request is just that: an invitation to change course, with no legal backing.The MoD writes again two months later: "We do not feel we can condone paperback publication . . . Having made our concerns known . . . we do not intend to take any further action." A grateful publisher then prepares to release the paperback, a year later than expected. It has just appeared. The British, with no written constitution or First Amendment (short of the European Human Rights Act) to safeguard freedom of expression, hardly noticed this extraordinary exercise of censorship.The book in question is The Irish War, of which I am the author. My experience is a chilling lesson in the use - or, rather, misuse - of the judicial process to bully publishers, editors and authors in the UK. The trouble started two months before the hardback edition appeared in October 1998. The legal department of HarperCollins (my publishers) received a telephone call from a retired rear-admiral occupying room 2235 in the MoD's main Whitehall building. He would later claim that, although on the ministry's payroll, he was not an MoD official. He was acting, he said, as secretary of a committee known as the Defence Advisory Notice Committee (a unit answerable to no one in particular, created ostensibly to advise writers and publishers about security issues). The committee, an official study concedes, "is, in effect, one man - its secretary"
The admiral did not reveal that he was also working on behalf of a shadowy MoD department known as the Secretariat, Home & Special Forces, run from rooms 5106 and 5107 in the same building. His concern was that my references to the work of the SAS and other special forces in Northern Ireland might jeopardise security. He requested sight of the unpublished manuscript.I vetoed that suggestion, conscious that the D-Notice office has a disreputable history of betraying writers innocent enough to trust it. Its former secretaries include Colonel Sammy Lohan, paid £500 a year by MI5 for passing on "titbits" from the Fleet Street newspapers. I myself had received the uncensored, unpublished proof copy of Mark Urban's book Big Boys' Rules - another analysis of special forces' operations in Northern Ireland - after he had entrusted it to the D-Notice team for vetting. ...

The search, by six MoD police detectives (including a woman to keep an eye on my wife) lasted almost eight hours. Everything, including the dirty washing, was examined. The computer, my diary, many of my files (some unrelated to defence) were removed. We then set off for the local police station, in rural Herefordshire. The arresting officers did not know where to find the station, so I found myself guiding them. The station officer did not know how to record my arrest on his computer. As he explained: "We don't get many official secrets cases in Leominster." "Try 'Miscellaneous'," I suggested. It worked. I could now be safely locked in a cell, between long periods of interrogation. I was released after five hours.About 150 miles away, HarperCollins's west London office was also being raided and searched, but no arrests were made. In Surrey, Nigel Wylde, a friend who had won the Queen's Gallantry Medal for defusing IRA bombs in Northern Ireland, was also lifted and questioned, as my alleged source.For the next 360 days or so, I was on police bail. In May 1999, I was charged with breaching Section 5 of the 1989 Official Secrets Act: the first time this law had been exercised. I made a single appearance at Bow Street and faced an Old Bailey trial, plus two years' imprisonment and financial ruin.

_________________________________

Back in the late 80s, if I remember, I was co-producer of a TV news program, "Behind the Headlines, on WNYC, with a fellow George Augustine. One of the episodes received calls from the British consulate, when civil rights lawyer and former president of the New York City council, Paul O'Dywer, interviewed NORAID organizer Martin Galvin. He promised pressure to get the show pulled, warning that WNYC would not get access to British media. Censorship happens (even in the US) through a number of methods, some of them by government pressure, some of them by application of law.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 07 - 10:19 AM

So we are talking about requests to delay publishing in soft back what was already freely available in hardback. Requests not to give publicity to a fundraiser for guerrilla fighters against an ally (No one has the power to deny access to British media)
Polite, unenforcible requests.
To describe that as "a nation where press censorship was enforced at the point of a gun " is dishonest and unworthy.

There was a reason why soldiers did not like to be photographed.
The IRA had a policy of identifying individuals, tracking them down and executing them in their homes in front of their families.
Remember, UDR soldiers were local men and many died in those terrible circumstances.

Soldiers might threaten to confiscate film, but they were not allowed to fire warning shots in such circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 25 May 07 - 10:34 AM

Hi Keith:
No, we are talking about arresting journalists and turning their homes inside out, going through their notes, and everything else they own... here in the US, not only do we have press freedom under the 1st amendment of the Constitution, but we have a right not be be arrested by the state under the circumstances mentioned in the artical above, the fourth amendment - rather under siege by the present administration, I am afraid.
I don't I have heard of the IRA tracking down British soldiers in their homes, on the other hand, Irish lawyers such as Patrick Finucane and Rosemary Nelson where killed under circumstances very like those you mention above.
All the best
lor

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 07 - 10:51 AM

US journalists can not be arrested when suspected of crime or consorting with criminals?
(The activities of the paramilitaries were regarded as crimes here)

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: InOBU
Date: 25 May 07 - 01:06 PM

No they can't for consorting, suspected of a crime is a different matter. Interviewing anyone is not seen as a criminal activity. The gray zone is around protecting sourses. But, recieving state secrets, for example, there is a lot of protection, traditionally, under the protection against prior censorship. So, for example, the pentigon papers, which were published revieling secrets about the Vietnam war, and help end out involvement by showing the illegal invation of Cambodia, among other secrets, were protected by the first amendment. The harm government secrets can do, often outweighs the good... as we are finding out in the present war.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 07 - 02:43 PM

Just the same as here then.
To search through your stuff like that they would need a warrant for which they would have to convince a judge that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion.
And our judiciary is even more independent than yours is.

And all this is nothing to do with press censorship so will you now take back that nonsense about censorship at gunpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: ard mhacha
Date: 25 May 07 - 03:51 PM

InOBU, The nationalist people in the north of Ireland believe you, after all we have had our homes pulled asunder for being on Gaelic Football committees, all it needed was a word from the RUC and the jack-boot brigade arrived with their incomprehensible accents while their light-fingered squaddies helped themselves to whatever took their fancy.
My advice to you InOBU would be, let them dwell in their ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 May 07 - 04:19 PM

My thoughts exactly, Ard. One of the expatriate folks that live in my area was a Catholic woman from Newry. She presents an entirely different view from what the British apologists do.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 07 - 05:45 PM

Ard, please don't leave us to dwell in ignorance.
If there was press censorship I would like to know about it.
Was that your experience?
Were no Republican publications available in the North?
(Unfortunately I will be off line for a few days, but I will read all about those armed censors when I get back)

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: ard mhacha
Date: 26 May 07 - 01:07 AM

I REALLY DO GIVE UP.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: guitar
Date: 26 May 07 - 06:19 AM

now come on Guest now you mustn't upset people now

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Raptor
Date: 26 May 07 - 07:21 AM

Yeah guitar good for you not wanting to upset people.


This whole thing reminds me of the Gibson film about the Christ.
Yeah it did happen but we don't want to acknowledge it because we might be seen unfavorably.


I wonder what reation would arise from a new apartheid film.


If you don't want to see the film then don't but quit letting this be the reason that we start fighting on the cat further.


The troubles were terrible. Quit keeping score!

The hatred you still hold is the same hatred that got so many killed.


Enough with the sniping

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 07 - 12:08 PM

I will answer my own questions then, since no one else will.
There was no press censorship in the UK, including NI, enforced at the barrel of a gun or anything else.
The Republican publications, An Phloblacht and Republican News were published and were freely available in the North(they had more problems publishing in the South) even though they were used as a mouthpiece by PIRA, and for Army Council announcements.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 08 - 07:22 PM

I love you, Bobby.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 16 May 08 - 11:24 AM

screened in Cannes

A year after the start of this thread the film has now been screened in Cannes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: GUEST,Boulder D.
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:06 PM

Seems to be a hard hitting film set in an turbulent era. I see Over 100,000 people attended his funeral. He was also elected to the Westminster Parliament. Margaret Thatcher seemed to hit the ball into her own net over this one. At the time of his death there were memorial services held in almost every state in America. He has become an icon among a younger generation. He appears on as many shirts as Che Guevara !

Would really like to see the film, I enjoyed Michael Collins, The wind in the barley and another one about the Irish troubles which I can't recall the title of.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: maire-aine
Date: 16 May 08 - 12:58 PM

Thanks for the link about Cannes. Maybe some day it will make it to the US.

M

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Stu
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:04 PM

"There was no press censorship in the UK, including NI, enforced at the barrel of a gun or anything else."

There certainly was. Thatcher banned the broadcasting of Sinn Fein leader's voices I seem to remember. It was exposed for the farce it was when they had a bloke who sounded just like Gerry Adams syncing to your man on the telly - the words could be broadcast, Just not the sound of Adams' voice.

Subject: RE: BS: Bobby Sands hunger strike film
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 16 May 08 - 01:16 PM

Yes, I remember that. I was living in England at the time. The telly got around it by using actor's voices, and all it did was make everyone listen REALLY CAREFULLY AND PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to this stuff we weren't supposed to be hearing. Talk about a censorship campaign backfiring...