BS: Joe McCann

Subject: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:02 PM

Joe's family may yet get justice. Joe was gunned down, unarmed, by British soldiers in Belfast at the height of the Troubles. As he lay on the ground, round after round was pumped into his body. Two of the soldiers, now in their sixties, are now to be tried for his murder (in spite of the protests of a Tory MP, who else?). Another died years ago. Eamon O'Doherty wrote a great song about Joe McCann which was recorded by Christy Moore. I couldn't find the song in the database, but then I'm stupid when it comes to such things. Christy singing the song is on YouTube, likewise my linkmaking abilities are, er, non-existent.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:13 PM

Joe McCann, by Christy Moore

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 06:17 PM

Cheers, Jeri. Much appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 16 - 08:17 PM

I bought the album with that song on it, "The Iron Behind The Velvet," decades ago. It's by no means a Christy-on-his-own job, but I love it. It has Tony Linnane and Noel Hill, among many other great musicians, and I remember, in my stripling days, trying to play along with Andy Irvine's harmonica on Joe McCann. How the hell does he DO that! I did manage to master the reel Mullingar Races though. Christy has always had a penchant for political songs, which I love, but some were a bit too polemical for my taste. This one, though, is one of the best, both in sentiment and sheer quality.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:29 AM

And what do you think the chances are of getting justice for people murdered by the IRA or the families of the disappeared being told where their loved ones are buried ?

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:31 AM

Incidently I agree with these 2 men facing justice for this murder.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 05:09 AM

There were murders on both sides, Dave, as you know. I can't get my head round how to deal with sectarian killings. It's a terribly difficult issue and it won't go away. In this case, though, an unarmed man was gunned down by soldiers who appear to have lost their discipline. We've seen a similar case more recently in Afghanistan. I know that the police and army have a difficult job to do during conflicts, but I feel they must be reined in to make sure that this kind of incident can't be allowed to suggest that they are immune from the rule of law. The context of those soldiers being in Belfast in the first place is, to many, an aggravating circumstance.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:24 AM

I fully agree with you Steve but it wasn't an equal conflict, HM Forces bound by the Geneva Convention and normal rules of war but these didn't apply to the IRA.

And we did let convicted murderers out of prison as part of the peace process.

It is a big dilemma.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:42 AM

Well those rules didn't apply to the Loyalists either.

A lot of the killings on both sides were of dyed-in-the-wool activists. A lot were not. There were many points between. A big difficulty I've always had with the conflict is that I wasn't there to see the social tensions, the family feuds, the discrimination, the segregation, the radicalisation, the shitty living conditions, the repressive constant presence of soldiers in your street, the road blocks and the constant atmosphere of fear. Many of the killings had a context that I can't get my head round, which isn't meant to sound like an excuse for them. There will have been many clear cases of executions rather than killings in fighting. I don't understand the prisoner release either. In this case, it was clearly an execution of an unarmed man by several soldiers. He was an activist and he put himself in harm's way, but that in itself doesn't, and shouldn't, get you the death sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 10:46 AM

And I do think that if you plant a bomb that's intended to kill civilians indiscriminately in a pub or a street, you should be treated as a war criminal.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 12:40 PM

JM had been identified by police and it was reasonable to assume that an active fighter like him would be armed.
That is why the police asked for army support.

Compare the case of John Downey. He was protected from prosecution for a bomb attack on unarmed ceremonial troops that killed four men and seven horses.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 01:08 PM

To a casual reader, one would assume that there was only one side fighting in the troubles - no provocation by the police ing guiding peacful civil rights marchers through mobs of Loyalist stone throwers, no Trick-or-Treat Massacre, no Dublin bombs, no Monograph bombs to collusion in murder by the RUC and the Loyalists, no Bloody Sunday massacre, fo Bimigham Six or Guildfoers Four fit-ups, no Shankhill Butchers, in fact NONE OF THIS happened ....... !!
It took thirty years to carry out an honest inquiry into the Bloody Sunday Massacre, and even today Members of Parliament are complaining that those found responsible are being harassed and those found guilty remain unpunished.
Sinn Fein
Former Loyalist paramility terrorists have gone unpunished and undisturbed despite their names and crimes being widely known.
Sinn Fein hs become an established political party and is having a degree of success so, prior to the last election, Gerry Adams was accused o collusion with criminals - coincidence, of course!!
S.F's star is still on the rise and those accusations have surfaced again - another coincidence, of course   
Hate monger Ian Paisley died peacefully in his beed despite having inceted and encouraged murder and persecution.
The Trupbles wre a bad time from which no side emerged with clean hands - Republicans, Loyalists or the British army and government.
If peace is to be won and maintained, it's time politicians were stopped from using these events as election fodder
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 01:09 PM

Monaghan bombings of course - feckin' spellcheck
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 01:18 PM

Reminds me in many ways of the song "The Irish Navy"

Chorus:
The Clíona, the Maedbh and the Macha.
The pride of the Irish navy
When the captain he blows on his whistle
All the sailors go home for their tea

Last verse:
We are a seafaring nation
Defence of our land is a right
We'd fight like the devil all morning
Provided we're home by the night

The "nationalist/Republican" element insisted that they were fighting a war. To the British it was "aid to the civil power" to maintain the rule of law and order.

Well if you are fighting a war then expect to be hit at any time on any day. Joe McCann knew that and that is why he ran when ordered to halt. He was a known "Official" IRA Commander and combatant. The choice to run was his and his alone and he paid the price for it. The members of the Patrol ordered to assist the police had no idea at all whether he was armed or not - sensible and sane course of action when armed security forces order you to halt is you halt, keep your hands where they can see them and remain very, very still. Joe McCann did none of those things and he was a man who must certainly have known the risks.

Pity the man responsible for bringing these charges, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness's former lawyer was not so discerning when looking into the case of Gerry Adams paedophile brother - no case to answer my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 01:26 PM

And who was in charge of it all but Edward Heath.
HEATH who according to an ex MI5 agent was turned to work for the GERMAN SECRET SERVICE Shortly after the second world war, who according to this agent was blackmailed because he was a sexual pervert who liked young boys.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8 now this may or may not be true.
WHAT IS INDISPUTABLE IS THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE AT THE TIME OF BLOODY SUNDAY .IN MY OPINION HE SHOULD BE CHARGED POSTHUMOUSLY AS A WAR CRIMINAL.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 01:56 PM

Your post GSS is undisputable evidence that some people will believe absolutely anything that feeds their own prejudices.

Tell me GSS in what capacity did the German Bundesnachrichtendienst seek to employ a demobbed Lt-Col in the Royal Artillery? Shortly after the Second World War Reinhard Gehlen organisation had it's eyes fixed very firmly eastwards.

Liked the "now this may or may not be true" after you have made your scurrilous accusation (Believe me I am no fan at all of Ted Heath, the man was a traitor for lying to the British electorate in 1973)

The charge of War Criminal for "Bloody Sunday"? Does that mean the entire leadership and membership of the PIRA should be similarly arraigned for ordering "Bloody Friday" and other bomb attacks - the charge of course being the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Recently the Police have stopped all investigations into the baseless accusations against Sir Edward Heath stating clearly and unequivocally that there is no case to answer and that no substantive evidence exists to support any of those accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:03 PM

"To the British it was "aid to the civil power" to maintain the rule of law and order."
Empire Loyalist crap
It did not start off as a ware = it began with PEACE MARCHERS demanding better conditions for Catholics
Those marchers were directed though mobs of stone-throwing Loyalists
I fact, the conditions that gave rise to the decades of inequality, anti Catholic rioting, boycotting of Catholic Labour, inequality at the ballot box,
Thatcher didn't help by handing the Republicans 10 martyrs on a plate - obviously not having learned the lesson of 1916
It's virtually impossible to put a date on the beginning of The Troubles, but one of the first atrocities to be carried out was that by the UVF led by ex- British Army man Gusty Spence - the bombing of a Catholic Pub on the Shankill Road
It is significant that most of the Old Republicans chose the political arena while the Ulster Paramilitary have been making a name for themselves attacking immigrants and refugees.   
Another lesson not learned has been that if you draw a line across a country, you are signing the death warrants of future generations - even our flag-waggers should know that.
And still you people refuse to acknowledge the peace and reconcilliotion is what is going to settle Ireland, not revenge taking.
You've had a list of examples of Loyalist crimes and atrocities - are people entitled to demand justice for them?
It really is time you people realised that the Empire is long dead, and good riddance to it - it's archaic hatred such as demonstrated by Teribus that have kept the hostilities alive.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 03:10 PM

And no - there is no comparison with what happened during the Irish Civil War and the shooting down of unarmed innocent people in Derry - they we soldiers who were assasinated, THESE ARE CIVILIANS
To compare that is to justify Lidice - killing people demanding freedom
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Dec 16 - 04:34 PM

You are in denial, Teribus. Running away never warranted being shot to death then having your body repeatedly pumped full of lead as you lie on the ground. It was a summary execution by three out-of-control soldiers who had illusions of immunity, unlike Joe McCann, who did indeed know the risk he was taking. You were taking risks too when you were were ploughing the briny in the Caribbean as you defended the planet against Cubans, remember? Refuse to seek justice and you end up making martyrs. Anyway, we'll see what the court case says.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 04:41 AM

This from the Irish Times:

At the time former Irish Times journalist Henry Kelly reported that local eye-witnesses were adamant that McCann was shot when he ran away after being challenged to halt by soldiers. He was unarmed.

"An eye-witness to his death says that when he did not stop for soldiers he was shot at and hit in the leg, then he staggered and fell, after which a British soldier fired as many as ten rounds of live ammunition," Kelly reported.

Following the HET report of 2013 his family asserted that he could and should have been arrested rather than shot."

1: He was shot when he ran away after being challenged - Joe McCann's choice.

2: No-one apart from McCann himself could have known that he was unarmed.

3: The eye witnesses state that he was shot, that those shots fired hit him in the leg i.e. they were not shots aimed deliberately to kill. The eye witnesses also state that after being hit he continued in his attempt to escape then he fell as more shots were fired.

4: Totally agree with McCann's family - "he could and should have been arrested rather than shot" - i.e. Joe McCann should not have tried to evade arrest by running away.

On the subject of denial Shaw what would you have done in his place? I know what I would have done. I would have obeyed orders for a start and moved South not stayed in Belfast as McCann did. I would have steered clear of Police check points (But informers had alerted the RUC that McCann would be in the area). I most certainly would not have made a run for it, having been ordered to halt, knowing that armed police officers and soldiers were present and ready to fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 05:18 AM

That's just surmise and empty bluster from an apologist for the army. Let's wait for the court verdict, after which I may remind you of your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: DMcG
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 05:31 AM

Totally off thread, really, but one of those odd twists of life and I think it quite interesting.   I am told my step-grandfather was quartermaster in the Post Office in Belfast 1916 and killed there by the (neutral term hard to come by so let's stick with) fighters for independance. And my actual grandfather's family were active in the attacks on that side. It is odd to think one may have unknowing killed the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 06:46 AM

"Recently the Police have stopped all investigations into the baseless accusations against Sir Edward Heath stating clearly and unequivocally that there is no case to answer and that no substantive evidence exists to support any of those accusations"
to quote mandy rice davies they would wouldnt they.
The Establishment cannot be seen to admit that a prime minister possibly could have been a paedophile. Teribus, I suggest you re read my post, here
And who was in charge of it all but Edward Heath.
HEATH who according to an ex MI5 agent was turned to work for the GERMAN SECRET SERVICE Shortly after the second world war, who according to this agent was blackmailed because he was a sexual pervert who liked young boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8
now this may or may not be true.
WHAT IS INDISPUTABLE IS THAT HE WAS IN CHARGE AT THE TIME OF BLOODY SUNDAY .IN MY OPINION HE SHOULD BE CHARGED POSTHUMOUSLY AS A WAR CRIMINAL.
it is indisputable that Heath was in charge. can you read Teribus?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 07:39 AM

Of course they would say that GSS, especially after having upwards of over 120 officers of five police forces finding absolutely nothing.

The final conclusion of the IPCC report into the Wiltshire Constabulary's investigation into allegations concerning Heath:

"Having analysed all the evidence, it is my opinion that there is no indication that any person mentioned in this report committed a criminal offence or breached the standards of professional behaviour."

Answer my question GSS if as you state Heath should be charged as a war criminal does the same go for those in the Paramilitaries who ordered bombing campaigns? After all what is sauce for the goose should also serve as sauce for the gander - TRUE??

Unlike the POTUS the Prime Minister is not the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom - the Sovereign is. By the way on the goose and gander theme and Bloody Sunday - anybody that thinks the whole truth about that day is known are only deluding themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:03 PM

Jim,
no Trick-or-Treat Massacre, no Dublin bombs, no Monograph bombs to collusion in murder by the RUC and the Loyalists, no Bloody Sunday massacre, fo Bimigham Six or Guildfoers Four fit-ups, no Shankhill Butchers, in fact NONE OF THIS happened ....... !!

It happened.
Some perspective.
Nationalist paramilitaries were responsible for 58% of all deaths, Loyalist Paramilitaries 25% and security forces 12%.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:32 PM

"Nationalist paramilitaries were responsible for 58% of all deaths, "
And Loyalist in collusion with the British Government who ran a repressive, anti-Catholic regime for half a century where the direct cause of it happening.
You might just as well say "58% of all deaths, Loyalist Paramilitaries 25% and security forces 12%." - happened if you care to take it out of context.
You don't judge these things on numbers if you have any sense - you try to find out why they happened.
The 12% of deaths carried out by security forces were committed in the name of the British people
They "happened".

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:35 PM

ANTI CATHOLICISM - PROTESTANT ULSTER
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 12:43 PM

The first Killings in the Troubles were carried out by the UVF in 1965 (in raids led by an ex- British serviceman)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 01:54 PM

"And Loyalist in collusion with the British Government who ran a repressive, anti-Catholic regime for half a century where the direct cause of it happening." - Jim Carroll

As part of the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922, having been promised Home Rule in 1914 and again in 1920, Northern Ireland became a devolved self governing province of the United Kingdom. As such it had it's own Parliament but also elected and sent Members of Parliament to sit in the House of Commons, where, oddly enough, they were forbidden to bring up or debate any matters concerning Northern Ireland. That doesn't sit too well with Jim Carroll's ill-informed assertion that the British Government exercised any, let alone undue influence in how Stormont ran the internal affairs of Northern Ireland.

As to the percentages of those killed and by whom, they form a well worn path:

Killings by Military and Paramilitary Groups 1969-2001
Republicans: 2060 (58.6 percent)
Loyalists: 1016 (29.2 percent)
British Forces: 363 (10 percent)
Others – Unknown: 89 (2.2 percent)
Total: 3528
(CAIN – Sutton Index of Deaths. Appendix : Statistical Summary)

If those 363 killed by security forces were committed in the name of the British people. In whose name were the other 3,036 killed? The paramilitaries who carried out those killings certainly had no mandate at all from the people of Ireland (North or South).

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 02:46 PM

Teribus. Edward Heath was in charge he was responsible, for the bloddy sunday massacre as far i know the IRA WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BLOODY SUNDAY MASSACRE,IF YOU CAN PROVE THEY WERE PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:06 PM

And you ignore the causes of this war as did Keith
Repetition of the figures proves nothing - the first killings were carried out by the UVF.
The "other killings" were the result of half a century's prejudice and abuse by a British Government in Stormont
Numbers mean nothing - reasons for the conflict do.
Whatever killings paramilitaries carry out is on their own heads, The British government is responsible for the actions of the army
THE BRITISH ARMY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 03:53 PM

GSS - Edward Heath was in charge of the British Government and as far as I know nobody either planned nor organised the events of Bloody Sunday. While in charge of the British Government he was not in charge or command of the British Army units present in Londonderry that day. I think you have great difficulty in proving in any court of law that he, as Prime Minister was culpable. However, the same could not be said of the paramilitary organisations responsible for killing 3,036 people. Tell me GSS why are you so coy about addressing that side of the equation? Something to do with the fact you live in Ireland?

Because of certain guarantees granted to former PIRA members who testified and gave accounts before Lord Saville and restrictions relating to what they could be questioned about, as you say nobody knows the part they played in the events of that day. My guess is that we will never know.

"The first Killings in the Troubles were carried out by the UVF in 1965 (in raids led by an ex- British serviceman)" - Jim Carroll

Funny and rather odd that statement of yours Jim because as far as the British Army goes the start of their involvement was August 1969. The blip in "Loyalist" paramilitary activity in May 1966 (NOT 1965 as you claimed) that you refer to was due to an anticipated rise in "Nationalist/Republican" paramilitary activity as a result of "celebrations" associated with the 50th anniversary of the Easter Week Rising.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Dec 16 - 06:30 PM

Edward Heath was in charge of the British Government and as far as I know nobody either planned nor organised the events of Bloody Sunday." ABOUT TIME YOU CHECKED AND DID SOME RESEARCH

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 02:50 AM

Perhaps instead of shouting GSS you should do some research yourself.

The Conclusions of Lord Saville's Report into the events of "Bloody Sunday" are as follows:

Chapter 5: The overall assessment

5.1 The early firing in William Street resulted in two wounded casualties, neither of whom was doing anything that justified either of them being shot. It is possible that the soldiers concerned mistakenly believed that they had identified someone posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. Equally, each of those soldiers may have fired, not believing that his target was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, but only suspecting that this might have been the case.

5.2 The soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside did so as the result of an order by Colonel Wilford, which should not have been given and which was contrary to the orders that he had received from Brigadier MacLellan.

5.3 With the exception of Private T and with the probable exception of shots Sergeant O said that he fired at someone on a balcony of Block 3 of the Rossville Flats and which, (despite his assertion to the contrary) did not hit anyone, none of the firing by the soldiers of Support Company was aimed at people posing a threat of causing death or serious injury.

5.4 We have concluded that the explanation for such firing by Support Company soldiers after they had gone into the Bogside was in most cases probably the mistaken belief among them that republican paramilitaries were responding in force to their arrival in the Bogside. This belief was initiated by the first shots fired by Lieutenant N and reinforced by the further shots that followed soon after. In this belief soldiers reacted by losing their self-control and firing themselves, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and failing to satisfy themselves that they had identified targets posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. In the case of those soldiers who fired in either the knowledge or belief that no-one in the areas into which they fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat, it is at least possible that they did so in the indefensible belief that all the civilians they fired at were probably either members of the Provisional or Official IRA or were supporters of one or other of these paramilitary organisations; and so deserved to be shot notwithstanding that they were not armed or posing any threat of causing death or serious injury. Our overall conclusion is that there was a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline among the soldiers of Support Company.

5.5 The firing by soldiers of 1 PARA on Bloody Sunday caused the deaths of 13 people and injury to a similar number, none of whom was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury. What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.

Now if the Saville Inquiry into the events is to be believed as far as the actions of the security forces are concerned (They after all were the only people required by the Inquiry to give a full account of their actions before, during and after the event) Please tell me GSS where in his conclusions does Lord Saville state any of the following:

1: That orders to fire on the protesters came directly from the Prime Minister.

2: That there was anything at all to substantiate any claim that the soldiers of 1 Parachute Regiment, prior to their entry into the Bogside, were given deliberate orders beforehand to kill anyone.

As stated previously - on the basis of evidence - you have great difficulty in showing that Prime Minister Sir Edward Heath was culpable of any crime in relation to the events of Bloody Sunday.

As for your rather naïve assertion that he must be guilty because he was "in charge" - "in charge" of what? who? On the day the troops deployed in the Bogside were under a very clearly defined operational chain of command - On the day the man actually "in charge", actually in operational command was Brigadier Pat MacLellan, who was cleared of any wrongdoing as he was under the impression that Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford (Commander of 1 Para and directly responsible for arresting rioters and returning to base) would obey the orders he had been given. Lieutenant Colonel Derek Wilford, however, directly disobeyed the orders given to him via the chain of command and committed 1 Para Support Company without informing his superiors.

Were the OIRA and PIRA present and armed in the Bogside that day? Yes they most certainly were.

Did the soldiers come under fire from an OIRA sniper? Yes they did, see 5.3 above. This fire was claimed by the OIRA to have been retaliatory in reprisal after Lieutenant N fired warning shoots but this claim of retaliatory fire was rejected by the Inquiry as it required forethought and planning to place snipers.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:54 AM

due to an anticipated rise in "Nationalist/Republican" paramilitary activity as a result of "celebrations" associated with the 50th anniversary of the Easter Week Rising.
"On 7 May 1966, a group of UVF men led by Spence petrol bombed a Catholic-owned pub on the Shankill Road. Fire also engulfed the house next door, killing the elderly Protestant widow, Matilda Gould (77), who lived there.[18] On 27 May, Spence ordered four UVF men to kill an Irish Republican Army (IRA) member, Leo Martin, who lived on the Falls Road. Unable to find their target, the men drove around in search of any Catholic instead. They shot dead John Scullion (28), a Catholic civilian, as he walked home.[19] Spence later wrote "at the time, the attitude was that if you couldn't get an IRA man you should shoot a Taig, he's your last resort".[19] On 26 June, the same gang shot dead Catholic civilian Peter Ward (18) and wounded two others as they left a pub on Malvern Street, Belfast.[18] Two days later, the government of Northern Ireland declared the UVF illegal.[18] Shortly after, Spence and three others were arrested.[20]
In October 1966, Spence was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Peter Ward, although Spence has always claimed he was innocent.[2] He was sent to Crumlin Road Prison. During its 12 July 1967 march, the Orange lodge to which he belonged stopped outside the prison in tribute to him.[21] This occurred despite Spence having been officially expelled from the Orange Order following his conviction.[22] Spence's involvement in the killings gave him legendary status among many young loyalists and he was claimed as an inspiration by the likes of Michael Stone.[23] Tim Pat Coogan has described Spence as a "loyalist folk hero".[24] The attack was however repudiated by Ian Paisley and condemned in his Protestant Telegraph, sealing the earlier split between the two.[25]"

These murders were the first examples of bloodletting in the troubles

"Were the OIRA and PIRA present and armed in the Bogside that day? Yes they most certainly were."
No evidence has been produced that they were and there was no evidence of arms apart from those used to gun down protesters
This is now officially recognised as the massacre of innocent people, though the culprits have yet to be punished for those murders.
The cause of the Troubles dates back to 1922 and the near half century of prejudice and injustice that followed it.
The Republican violence was inspired by police-supported brutality by Loyalist in response to peaceful demonstrations.

"During 12–17 August 1969, Northern Ireland was rocked by intense political and sectarian rioting. There had been sporadic violence throughout the year arising from the civil rights campaign, which was demanding an end to discrimination against Irish Catholics. Civil rights marches were repeatedly attacked by both Ulster Protestant loyalists and by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), a unionist and largely Protestant police force.
The disorder led to the Battle of the Bogside in Derry, a three-day riot in the Bogside district between the RUC and the nationalist/Catholic residents. In support of the Bogsiders, nationalists and Catholics launched protests elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Some of these led to attacks by loyalists working alongside the police. The most bloody rioting was in Belfast, where seven people were killed and hundreds more wounded. Scores of houses, most of them owned by Catholics, as well as businesses and factories were burned-out. In addition, thousands of mostly Catholic families were driven from their homes. In certain areas, the RUC helped the loyalists and failed to protect Catholic areas. Events in Belfast have been viewed by some as a pogrom against the Catholic and nationalist minority.[1][2][3]"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 04:02 AM

Back on topic. The charges that have been brought against Soldiers A and C will be tried in due course in a Criminal Court of Law. A large part of that law is precedent, the relevant one in the forthcoming case will concern a certain Lee Clegg, sentenced to life imprisonment in 1993 for shooting two "joy riders" who crashed through a vehicle check point in September 1990. He appealed his conviction and was released on licence in 1995 having spent four years in custody. He was cleared at his retrial in 1998. It took him a further two years to be cleared of a lesser charge and he is currently seeking £400,000 compensation for wrongful imprisonment.

The police in Northern Ireland have always been armed and during the period known and commonly referred to as "the Troubles" police patrols and check points were supported by armed soldiers. You do not put armed security officers on the street without first giving them the authority under given circumstances to use those weapons. The incident happened in April 1972, so if it is accepted that there was a "Shoot-to-kill" policy in operation for known members of paramilitaries then that is how the ROE must be viewed as should the fact that it was not just an RUC/Army check that McCann ran from but one consisting of RUC Special Branch and British Troops specifically put in place to arrest him as the result of a tip off. It is also equally obvious that people who do stupid things and take foolish risks in such dangerous situations and circumstances basically deserve Darwin Awards and must accept the consequences for their own actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:20 AM

Saville Report - Volume 1 - Chapter 3

3.10         At about the same time as Colonel Wilford sent this message, two soldiers of Machine Gun Platoon fired between them five shots from the derelict building on William Street, shown on the map below. Their target was Damien Donaghey (aged 15), who was on the other side of William Street and who was wounded in the thigh. Unknown to the soldiers John Johnston (aged 55), who was a little distance behind Damian Donaghey, was also hit and injured by fragments from this gunfire.

3.11         Shortly after this incident a member of the Official IRA (Given the cipher OIRA 1) fired a rifle at soldiers who were on a wall on the side of the Presbyterian Church. The shot was fired from a position across William Street. We set out below a map showing the area in which these casualties occurred and the position from which OIRA 1 fired.

3.12        The shot fired by OIRA 1 missed soldiers and hit a drainpipe running down the side of the Presbyterian Church. OIRA 1 and another Official IRA man with him (OIRA 2) insisted that this shot had been fired as a reprisal for the shooting of Damien Donaghey and John Johnston. We were not convinced of this, although we considered on balance that the IRA shot was fired after the wounding of Damian Donaghey and John Johnston. In our view these two Official IRA members had gone to a pre-arranged sniping position in order to fire at the soldiers; and probably did so when an opportunity presented itself rather than because two civilians had been injured.

Now I suppose in his usual fashion Jim Carroll will say that I have just made this up but the source and reference has been given and the evidence to support the above was given under oath to the Saville Inquiry.

Jim Carroll said:

"No evidence has been produced that they were and there was no evidence of arms apart from those used to gun down protesters"

The above totally refutes that claim of his.

Oh and as far as Jim Carroll's claims go here is another one from the Saville Report - Volume 1 - Chapter 2:

2.3   On the 14th August 1969, after there had been particularly violent clashes between civilians and the police in Londonderry, the authorities brought into the city units of the British Army as an aid to the civil power, in other words to restore law and order. The British Army was in the city in this role on Bloody Sunday.

In an earlier post I stated:

"The "nationalist/Republican" element insisted that they were fighting a war. To the British it was "aid to the civil power" to maintain the rule of law and order." - Teribus


Jim Carroll responded:

"To the British it was "aid to the civil power" to maintain the rule of law and order." - Teribus

Empire Loyalist crap

No Jim the extremely well informed view of Lord Saville and a simple matter of fact.

By the way Jim where in your first Wiki cut'n'paste is there anything to dispute my claim about the reason for "Loyalist" activity in 1966? I see no mention of NICRA.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

The consequence was that he had bullet after bullet fired into his body as he lay on the ground. We do not have summary executions by soldiers without trial in this country. On that occasion he had not put himself into the firing line. Context is everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Iains
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

Not directly relevant, but a little additional background that concerns not just "The troubles" but had wider implications for the UK.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/unorthodox-warfare-dirty-wars-counter-insurgency-the-legacy-of-general-frank-kitson/5563318

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM

The topic involves why these things happened - you were happy to discuss it when you thought you were winning something
I'm getting a bit pissed off with you and your mate's anti-Irish racism (perhaps they are all thieving scum of the earth as well as the Arabs?)
Answer the points
The first deaths in The Troubles were the killings by the UVF - just as the first guns introduced into 20the century Irish politics were those shipped in by the Ulster Unionists - this horse you're backing is an extremely violent and repressive one.
No weapons were ever proved to have been at the Bloody Sunday massacre other than those used by the Paras to gun down fourteen unarmed civilians
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:37 AM

And Savilles "particularly violent clashes" referred to the attacks by the RIC who sided with the Loyalists by herding marchers into the hands of stone - throwing mobs.
1969 RIOTS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:08 AM

Steve Shaw - 19 Dec 16 - 05:23 AM strange post that.

Taking points in context and in reverse order:

1: "On that occasion he had not put himself into the firing line." - Joe McCann put himself in the "firing line" as you put it, the second he joined the Official IRA and took up arms and became Officer Commanding the Official IRA's Third Belfast Battalion.

2: "We do not have summary executions by soldiers without trial in this country." - I think Jim Carroll, Raggy and a few of the other "usual suspects" will be interested to hear that. They seem to be of the opinion that there is a tradition of it. But I agree 100% that we indeed do not have summary executions by soldiers without trial in this country. Joe McCann a known "combatant" with quite a reputation was not summarily executed, he was shot attempting to escape lawful arrest. Joe McCann's track record at the time of the incident was as follows:

On 22 May 1971, McCann's unit ambushed a British patrol, killing one soldier.

McCann led a unit which captured 3 UVF members in Sandy Row. The UVF had raided an OIRA arms dump earlier that day and the OIRA announced they would execute the three prisoners if the weapons were not returned. McCann eventually released the three UVF members because they were "working class men like yourself".

on 9 August 1971 when his unit took over the Inglis bakery in the Markets area and fortified it after the introduction of internment without trial by the Northern Ireland authorities (see Operation Demetrius). They defended it throughout the night from an incursion by 600 British soldiers, looking to arrest paramilitary suspects

In early February 1972, he was involved in the attempted assassination of Ulster Unionist politician and Northern Ireland Minister for Home Affairs John Taylor in Moira, County Down.

In another incident he and a comrade were standing outside a Belfast cinema to purchase tickets for the film Soldier Blue when McCann spotted a British Army checkpoint. He drew his gun and fired at the soldiers before running away laughing.

This was the man the RUC Special Branch and the Army were hoping to catch. How many chances would you give him were you in the boots of either of those soldiers Shaw? McCann obviously regarded himself as a combatant commander engaged in a war, who thought any target that presented itself was fair game. When confronted by members of the security forces and ordered to halt he decided to make a run for it, his decision, his choice. To live all he had to do was stand still, he was given an option, now tell us what chance did McCann give any of his victims.

3: "The consequence was that he had bullet after bullet fired into his body as he lay on the ground." - According to eye-witnesses the first shot fired hit McCann in the leg indicating that whoever fired was not intent on killing McCann. He staggered then fell with the soldiers presumably continuing to fire on the same point of aim. Firearms training received would tell the soldiers to continue firing until their target stopped moving. It was only after the incident that soldiers A and C knew for certain that McCann was unarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM

"They seem to be of the opinion that there is a tradition of it"
Stop lying again - it was reported to have happened by soldiers who were risking their lives in the trenches - liars, according to you
And still no references to the cause of the Troubles and none expected
Jim Casrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 10:26 AM

Jim,
And still no references to the cause of the Troubles and none expected

This is the answer Cain provides,

"What is the main cause of all the trouble in Northern Ireland? Is religion a big part of it?
The conflict in Northern Ireland is usually explained in terms of the different constitutional aspirations of the two main sections of the community in the region. Many Catholics consider themselves to be Irish and are Nationalist in political outlook, that is, they would like to see the whole (nation) island of Ireland reunited (and independent of Britain). Most Protestants consider themselves to be British and are Unionist in political outlook, that is, they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the (union of the) United Kingdom (UK) of Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. "

So the problem was that the majority of the people did not want to be part of the Republic, but the Republicans were determined to force them to be by murder and intimidation, since they would never vote for it.
The Troubles ended when the demand for a united Ireland was dropped.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 10:29 AM

"reported to have happened" - well I suppose that that is a quantum shift from categorical statements and hysterical rants that they DID happen.

The cause of the troubles? Appalling governance by the Unionists in Northern Ireland, who refused to move with the times, not helped in any way whatsoever by a bunch of nationalist/republican eejits with guns and explosives who strangely got it into their heads that violence could unite Ireland - possibly got that daft notion from another bunch of nationalist/republican eejits who tried the same thing 100 years before.

Had the nationalist/republican paramilitaries had the sense to do what the Official IRA did in 1972 (i.e. Just leave it to peaceful protest by the NICRA) then you'd be a damned sight closer to a united Ireland than you are now, more than 3,500 people would still be alive and 47,000+ would not have been wounded and maimed for life.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 10:47 AM

"Is religion a big part of it?"
You have given my understanding of what happened - is it accurate or not, and if not, why?
If it did, it cannot but have had an influence on it
As you haven't linked to your claims, we'll never know, will we
By past experience - you've put your own twist on it as you always do
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 11:08 AM

Jim,
As you haven't linked to your claims, we'll never know, will we
By past experience - you've put your own twist on it as you always do

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/faq/faq2.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 11:47 AM

A one page summary of fifty years of history from a British University
You have to be joking!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:11 PM

You are the joke Jim.
The CAIN service is the most respected source of information on that period of history.

You are probably the only person in the world who imagines they know more about it.
As I say, a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:21 PM

I have lived in the Republic for 26 years and have never been initimidated by anyone, I cannot make any comment about IRA activities in Ulster, I have never been there, and any information is second hand through the establishment media, so i consider myself not particularl;y well informed on the subject, i do not like to comment on things that i am not well informed about

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 12:46 PM

There you go – from the Washingtom Post
It says more in one sentence that Teribus's 'History of Ireland for Idiots' link.
Which of the below do you disagree with?
I don't know more than the writer of that document - but I do know you can't explain away documented history with a few paragraphs that don't attempt to cover the period
Jim Carroll
Beginning of 'The Troubles'
Relative calm followed the Ireland Act of 1949, which created the Republic of Ireland in the south. By the 1950s, even Catholics in the North, still securely tethered to Britain, seemed ready to accept equality rather than pushing for securing a more united Ireland, scholars note.
But that changed after Northern Ireland's Catholics organized a large demonstration protesting discrimination in voting rights, housing and unemployment in 1968. A police crackdown followed, sparking months of violence and a reemergence of the Republican movement.The subsequent bloody riots between Protestants and Catholics marked the beginning of "The Troubles," the euphemism for the period of violence that would continue for years in Northern Ireland.
One of the most infamous acts came in 1972, when British paratroopers opened fire on a group of Catholic demonstrators and killed 14 people. Soon after "Bloody Sunday," Britain disbanded the parliament and would impose direct rule on Northern Ireland for the next 26 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 01:03 PM

Even before independence
Belfast Riots in July 1920

The immediate causes were the shooting of Smyth in Cork (he was from Banbridge) and the tensions arising from the 12th July (fanned by Carson). The more long term causes were fears about jobs by Protestant workers. Parkinson notes that unemployment was 26% in Belfast at this time after post-war depression. Protestant workers felt they were taking their 'own' jobs back.

Parkinson says there was about 93,000 Catholic workers in the city at this time (Parkinson (2004), pgs 33-35) and he estimates that around 10,000 workers expelled including several hundred female textile workers. He says that most of the expulsions occurred within the first few days but some intimidation did occur into the following month and even into early September when Catholic workers would be forced out of work for refusing to sign 'loyalty' documents. Also, included were about 1,800 Protestant trade unionists and socialists who were also expelled from their work – the latter were called 'rotten Prods' by the unionist leadership (Parkinson (2004), pgs 35-36 & 328). Parkinson further estimates that over the period of the conflict in Belfast (i.e. up to summer 1922), over 20,000 Catholics were displaced (Parkinson (2004), pg 62).

Parkinson also says that there is little evidence that Unionist Party had organised expulsion but that the Unionist leaders failed to condemn them. Carson was later to express his 'pride' in the actions of his shipyard 'friends' (Parkinson (2004), pg 31). He goes onto say "members of the BPA and other loyalist splinter groups undoubtedly benefited from easy access to their considerable arsenal and were certainly responsible for the initial industrial expulsions and several sectarian murders. Although the unionist establishment may not have co-ordinated the campaign of violence, it is undeniable that the Belfast authorities had been bracing themselves for an outbreak of communal disturbances during the summer of 1920." (Parkinson (2004), pg 309) He goes on to say that the more incisive deployment of troops in Belfast would have probably reduced the level of violence. McDermott says that "There is no significant evidence that the unionist leadership ordered the expulsions from the shipyards … but … the expulsions mark the beginning of what … the whole of the nationalist community called the 'pogroms'." (McDermott (2001), pg 33)
The response by a number of prominent nationalists and republicans in the North in August (including Sean McEntee; Denis McCullough; Bishop McRory and Rev John Hassan) is to set a 'Belfast Boycott Committee' which aims to force Belfast businesses to take back expelled Catholic workers by pushing a vigorous boycott of all goods produced in Belfast. They have success with county councils in the South and, while initially reluctant, the Dáil takes responsibility for it from January 1921.
http://www.dcu.ie/~foxs/irhist/july_1920.htm

21-24 Jul
Quote:
Major riots in Belfast. On the morning of the 21st July, members of Belfast Protestant Association put up posters on gates of Queen's Island calling for meeting of 'all Unionist and Protestant workers' at lunchtime. Nearly 5,000 meet and afterwards go on rampage attacking Catholic workers. Clothes are torn of potential victims to see if they are wearing any Catholic emblems. Some try to escape by swimming the Musgrave Channel but are pelted by nuts, bolts, rivets, etc (called 'Belfast confetti'). Most Catholics and socialists are removed from yards by afternoon. At least 20 men have to receive hospital treatment. After the expulsions from the shipyards, Catholic workers are ejected from other industrial sites in the city including Sirocco Works, Musgraves, Combe Barbours, Mackies Foundary and several linen mills.

In the ensuing three days of riots 13 people were killed (says Hopkinson but Macardle says 17; Phoenix says 18 and McDermott says 18 made up of 10 Catholics and 8 Protestants. Parkinson names 21 people as being killed – 11 of whom would seem to have been Protestant. During these riots, hundreds of (mostly Catholic) families are driven from their homes. There was also the destruction of businesses and houses belonging to Catholics in Bangor, Banbridge, Dromore and other small towns
21 July 1920
In Belfast, 'Protestant and unionist' workers from Workman Clark's shipyard marched into Harland and Wolff's yard and forcibly expelled all Catholic and socialist workers. Some were forced to swim for their lives. In three days of violence seven Catholics and six Protestants were killed in the city.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:37 PM

"Relative calm followed the Ireland Act of 1949, which created the Republic of Ireland in the south. By the 1950s, even Catholics in the North, still securely tethered to Britain, seemed ready to accept equality rather than pushing for securing a more united Ireland, scholars note.

But that changed after Northern Ireland's Catholics organized a large demonstration protesting discrimination in voting rights, housing and unemployment in 1968. A police crackdown followed, sparking months of violence and a reemergence of the Republican movement. The subsequent bloody riots between Protestants and Catholics marked the beginning of "The Troubles," - Washington Post?

But from that it would appear that you are now posting information that the troubles began AFTER 1968 as a result of months of violence and bloody riots NOT in 1966 as a result of UVF activity as you previously claimed.

"Although the unionist establishment may not have co-ordinated the campaign of violence, it is undeniable that the Belfast authorities had been bracing themselves for an outbreak of communal disturbances during the summer of 1920."

RE: The last bit - "it is undeniable that the Belfast authorities had been bracing themselves for an outbreak of communal disturbances during the summer of 1920" - No shit Sherlock!!! Elsewhere on the Island there was a minor fracas called the Irish War of Independence going on - Let's face it Jim the Belfast authorities would all have had to have been Ostriches NOT to expect an outbreak of "communal disturbances" wouldn't they?

"the more incisive deployment of troops in Belfast would have probably reduced the level of violence." - another statement of the obvious.

McDermott says that "There is no significant evidence that the unionist leadership ordered the expulsions from the shipyards … but … the expulsions mark the beginning of what … the whole of the nationalist community called the 'pogroms'."

So on the basis of "no significant evidence" the nationalist community just decided to apportion blame.

By the way how did that boycott pan out?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 03:55 PM

I have lived in the Republic for 26 years and have never been initimidated by anyone, I cannot make any comment about IRA activities in Ulster, I have never been there, and any information is second hand through the establishment media, so i consider myself not particularl;y well informed on the subject, i do not like to comment on things that i am not well informed about

It is not surprising at all that you appear to be so remarkably ill-informed with regard to Edward Heath - your sources courtesy of DavidIcke.com and a complete and utter fantasist and conspiracy theory nutter called Michael Shrimpton.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 04:32 PM

Well, Teribus, I suppose it depends on who you want to listen to. In that long and elaborate (and ramshackle) justification of yours for the murder of Joe McCann, you could have mentioned the report of the Historical Enquiries Team into his death. I note that that organisation came under heavy criticism eventually - for reports that were biased in favour of the army and police. Maybe in Joe's case they saw something that you refuse to see, huh? As I say, when the court case is over I just might remind you of your own bias on this. Wiki:

A Historical Enquiries Team investigation into the killing of Joe McCann found it was unjustified. The report stated: "The HET considers that Joe's actions did not amount to the level of specific threat which could have justified the soldiers opening fire in accordance with the Army Rules of Engagement or their standard operating procedures." The report was welcomed by his wife and children.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 04:45 PM

TERIBUS
I cannot make any comment about IRA activities in Ulster, I have never been there, and any information is second hand through the establishment media, so i consider myself not particularly well informed on thAT PARTICULAR subject, YOU APPEAR to be ill informed on every subject, have you been to Ulster, were you a member of the uk army?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:18 PM

"A Historical Enquiries Team investigation into the killing of Joe McCann found it was unjustified. The report stated: "The HET considers that Joe's actions did not amount to the level of specific threat which could have justified the soldiers opening fire in accordance with the Army Rules of Engagement or their standard operating procedures." - Courtesy of Steve Shaw

What a great pity then Shaw that the HET team will not be in the Jury empanelled to hear the case. Should any attempt be made to influence that Jury the trial will be halted and moved. Former legal precedent is on the side of the defence irrespective of what the HET view on it was.

GSS to answer your question in the early years of the "Troubles" I was in Northern Ireland twice. And as far as knowledge and understanding I'd say I am a damn sight better qualified and experienced than you to comment - All your information seems to be at second-hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 05:50 PM

It's not a pity to me either way. When I say I want the family to get justice I mean exactly that, not a particular version of justice. The trouble with you is that you go straight into tribal mode every time someone starts a controversial topic. Controversial does not mean done and dusted, except, apparently, in your head. Your talk of nobbling juries, whatever that was supposed to be about, is premature and completely ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Dec 16 - 06:38 PM

Teribus ,in what capacity were you in Northern Ireland , were you working for the british government?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 12:48 AM

Tell me Shaw, what justice are you talking about for the family of a man who on numerous occasions deliberately went out of his way to take life - it would appear that in your eyes he deserves no censure. I'm more inclined to seek "justice" for his victims and the misery he spread about.

Regarding the case yet to come before the Court a very important factor is that there were special circumstances, and nobody should lose sight of that fact. Steve Shaw talks a great deal about justice. Justice can be the day in Court, and the decision arrived at very often is not necessarily justice but law. Far better by far that the public and anybody who cares about the matter will see that this case is about "right being done".

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 01:21 AM

Jim Carroll - 19 Dec 16 - 12:46 PM

"It says more in one sentence that Teribus's 'History of Ireland for Idiots' link."

What Teribus Link are you rabbiting on about Jim? Or is it that here as on many other threads you participate in that you are confused and have simply lost the plot. Having checked I have posted no links on this thread - more Jim Carroll "made-up-shit"?

GSS - to answer your question I was not there as a tourist.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 03:56 AM

Beg pardon Teribus - it was Keith who posted the link,
I forgot it was against you principles to do such a thing
You don't post links on any thread on any subject - silly me.
"were you working for the british government?"
Nah - all his work for the government is voluntary - a self-appointed pontificator'
We were told he dishes up greasy fry-ups for sailors - makes sense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 04:19 AM

Jim, your Washington Post piece was written by two staffers, Tim Ito and Aileen Yoo.

In what way are they better informed, or remotely as well informed, as CAIN?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:07 AM

Well people who fired torpedoes at German submarines or who brought down Luftwaffe bombers were also deliberately setting out to take lives yet we pinned medals on them because they were on our side. You're conflating two separate issues. I support seeking justice for any victim of crime, and it looks to me as though a crime was committed in the killing of McCann. As I said, we don't have summary execution without trial in this country. It's hard work, but Joe McCann could have been captured and tried, not gunned down in cold blood. We'll see what the court says, shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:14 AM

"In what way are they better informed, or remotely as well informed, as CAIN?"

Possibly Keith, because they painted a picture that Jim preferred.

Wonder if the HET took Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 into account or did they just rely on THEIR interpretation of the "Yellow Card" ROE?

Criminal Law Act 1967 - Section 3

3. Use of force in making arrest, etc.

(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose.

Still on the "Cook" thing JOM - wonder what it is that you have against those engaged in the catering industry - apart from that, it just serves as another item in rather a long list that you are totally wrong about. As to trawling through past threads to find examples of abuse being hurled I could do the same targeting your spittle-flecked rants and temper tantrums and guess what? The list I will be able to produce will be damned sight longer than yours JOM, you will also find that in the exchanges yours will predate mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:28 AM

"Possibly Keith, because they painted a picture that Jim preferred."
No they didn't - they painted no picture and they didn't intend to
They never explained the implications of their statements - they painted a thumbnail sketch of the period - in that space, it would have ben impossible to do otherwise
Where, in what they wrote, did they deal with the period which started with Independence and finished up with the Troubles.
I have given some idea of what happened and why I believe it effected the Troubles - if that is accurate, you have to say why it had no effect
If it is inaccurate - challenge it.
Don't respond to this and you choose to ignore the causes of the religious differences - and you have no case
Without explanation, the statement is meaningless.
Keith seems to be back on his "historians" (he hasn't read) kick
I'd have thought he'd have humiliated himself enough
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 06:07 AM

Last time I looked, lawful arrest does not include filling someone full of lead and asking questions later. Let's see what the court sez.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:44 AM

Jim, CAIN is a web resource and if you want more thoroughly researched background you will find literally hundreds of pages listed in this index.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 10:58 AM

GSS - to answer your question I was not there as a tourist."
you were there on behalf of the british government? hardly independent

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 11:58 AM

"CAIN is a web resource and if you want more thoroughly researched background "
Can you indicate exactly where anything I have said is contradicted by CAIN - no ?
Thought not
Unless you can show where what I have put up is incorrect - you have no case
A forced treaty under threat of war
A gerrymandered border giving the Loyalists a majority
A Protestant State discriminating against Catholics of land ownership, voting, employment, housing.....
Regular anti-Catholic rioting and persecution
Civil Rights marches met by stone-throwing Loyalists assisted by the RUC
The first murders carried out by the U.V.F.
I have provided evidence for all of this, you have provided nothing that contradicts it.
It is this that finally erupted into violence - not an increase in paramilitary activity, as your belligerent mate claimed.
Now it's your turn - show where none of this happened,
And please don't come up with your usual half truths and deliberately misinterpreted statements from historians you haven't read.
Part of this is my family history - now - let's see what you come up with.
Jim Casrroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Dec 16 - 05:39 PM

You have to prove your independence prior to commenting or giving your opinion on something now GSS? When did that happen? I take it that would automatically rule out every person living there as none of them could be viewed as being independent either would they? Utterly ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:23 AM

Can you indicate exactly where anything I have said is contradicted by CAIN - no ?
Thought not

Yes Jim.
Their answer to how the troubles began contradicted your version.
You replied,
A one page summary of fifty years of history from a British University
You have to be joking!!

So you clearly thought that the CAIN version was a joke.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:31 AM

"It is this that finally erupted into violence - not an increase in paramilitary activity, as your belligerent mate claimed." - Jim Carroll

Oh dear Jim yet another stick you have grabbed the wrong end of - Or is it another deliberate misrepresentation on your part?

Your question to me:

Jim Carroll - 19 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM

"And still no references to the cause of the Troubles and none expected"

My very next post:

Teribus - 19 Dec 16 - 10:29 AM

"The cause of the troubles? Appalling governance by the Unionists in Northern Ireland, who refused to move with the times, not helped in any way whatsoever by a bunch of nationalist/republican eejits with guns and explosives who strangely got it into their heads that violence could unite Ireland - possibly got that daft notion from another bunch of nationalist/republican eejits who tried the same thing 100 years before."

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 08:59 AM

No - I think that you are a joke trying to sum history from one page of print
How exactly did they deal with the period of history I outlined in that one page of print?
Did they c0laim that the UVF bombings came after the outbreak of the troubles.
WE go to historians for facts of history not opinions.
Get ten historians debating on one subject and you end up with fifteen opinions - you feckin' well know this by making your claims on some and rejecting others
These affairs are judged on a whole series if levels - political, philosophical, social... history is only part of the mix
You don't even understand history, never mind historians
Answer the list I have put up - are they accurate or not
If they are, how coul they possibly not effect the outcome of what happened in the North and in mainland Britain
DID THEY OR DID THEY NOT HAPPEN?
Your feckin' misuse of historians is beyond a joke
This is exactly what your link says about the beginning of the Troubles – a typical example of your half-arsed and dishonest use of history
Even with almost 40 years of hindsight there is no absolute agreement on the date of the start of the recent violent conflict in Northern Ireland. A number of dates have been used by different writers: the Civil Rights March in Derry - 5 October 1968; the beginning of the 'Battle of the Bogside' - 12 August 1969; the Deployment of British Troops - 14 August 1969; or the re-emergence of the UVF in 1966. (Non-violent conflict - political conflict, economic conflict, cultural conflict, etc., - has been a feature of society in the region since the early part of the 17th century. On numerous occasions this conflict has resulted in periods of serious and sustained violence.)
If you can't be honest about your sources, don't use them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 02:16 PM

Teribus, to say that you werenot there as a tourist, is an evasive answer, were you serving in the british army or employed by the UKgovernment

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 03:19 PM

Jim, I put up a page from CAIN in answer to your challenge, "And still no references to the cause of the Troubles and none expected"

You dismissed the most respected authority on the troubles as a joke.
That makes you ridiculous.
You are the joke Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Dec 16 - 07:28 PM

You have the list Keith true or false?
If false, why?
If true, how could it possibly not lead to what happened?
I gave you exactly what your link stated about not knowing who started it - you refuse to conform from your own link.
It is you that is the joke - not the historian who said what they said, or in this case, did not say what you claim
If they did - where did they
You really do never learn, do you?
The Historian Man - not The History man
And still your just as stupid mate refuses to supply back-up to his racist opinions
You are two of a kind in the very worst sense
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:14 AM

GSS you have not yet explained who in Northern Ireland would be what you consider to be "independent"?

As it was a sectarian conflict that would automatically rule out the majority of the population.

All loyalists and all nationalists/republicans and their supporters.

The common perception is that UK forces favoured the loyalist side, but when you consider that the security forces were deployed to keep both sides apart and convince both sides of the futility of violence, I'd say they were fairly neutral. The common perception is also skewed by the fact that the nationalist/republican side did more to hit the civilian population of Northern Ireland and mainland UK than the loyalists did. Nationalist/Republican sympathisers/supporters are great at mentioning "Bloody Sunday 1972" yet are strangely reticent about mentioning "Bloody Friday" of the same year (To refresh your memory GSS - 22 bombs planted in Belfast City Centre all times to go off within 2 hours indiscriminately targeting innocent civilians and designed to overwhelm the emergency and security services) It was only due to the magnificent work done by the emergency services and the security forces that the death toll from that particular outrage was not far, far higher.

The security forces were there to prevent loss of life, the various paramilitaries were there specifically to take life and cause death and destruction (Joe McCann even turned going out to buy a cinema ticket into an attempt at taking life - sounds very much to me that Joe McCann got the "justice" he dealt in himself as a combatant in what he viewed as a war).

I have never served in the British Army GSS, served alongside them though and unlike you at least my experience of the province comes first hand.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 03:40 AM

"The security forces were there to prevent loss of life, "
The Security Services colluded with the paramilitaries throughout the troubles.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/rte-documentary-uncovers-government-collusion-with-loyalist-paramilitaries-31296370.html
(Can't clicky this)
BUT THIS ONE WORKS FINE
Have you ever thought of writing up these fairy tales?
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:43 AM

Jim, what came first. The chicken or the egg?
No-one can be said to have "started the troubles."

You demanded a comment on the cause of the troubles, so I posted this from CAIN.

"What is the main cause of all the trouble in Northern Ireland? Is religion a big part of it?
The conflict in Northern Ireland is usually explained in terms of the different constitutional aspirations of the two main sections of the community in the region. Many Catholics consider themselves to be Irish and are Nationalist in political outlook, that is, they would like to see the whole (nation) island of Ireland reunited (and independent of Britain). Most Protestants consider themselves to be British and are Unionist in political outlook, that is, they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the (union of the) United Kingdom (UK) of Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales) and Northern Ireland. "

You dismissed it as a joke Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:00 AM

"No-one can be said to have "started the troubles.""
You just have
"You demanded a comment on the cause of the troubles,
No I didn't - I listed what I believe to be the causes - you have chosen to ignore that list and hide behind yet another "real" historian - why should I demand anything comment from you, of all people - you are a laughing stock o this forum.
Having attempting to blame the Republicans, you have now fallen back to "nobody knows".
"You dismissed it as a joke Jim! "
Stop this I described your misuse of it and your entire record of misusing historians as a joke.
Answer the points or address your remarks to somebody else - I have no interest in your twisted opinions.
Don't suppose you're even going to mention the collusion between groups like the U.V.F. and the security forces
As I said - a joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 07:47 AM

"The Security Services colluded with the paramilitaries throughout the troubles."

Of course they did, it would have been extremely remiss of them if they had not. Don't think anybody is denying that collusion took place with both loyalist and nationalist/republican groups. How on earth do you think they got their information?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 09:20 AM

"Of course they did, it would have been extremely remiss of them if they had not."
But you said they were there to keep the peace, not take sides - you're not a reliable source but I'm sure you wouldn't lie on this one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 09:38 AM

The security forces were there to help maintain law and order, keep the two sides apart and convince them that neither side was going to attain their goals through violence. The OIRA bowed out 6 weeks after the death of Joe McCann in 1972 when they declared their ceasefire stating that they would only resort to violence in "self-defence". The PIRA were fought to a standstill, according to Martin McGuinness, by 1984/85. In your indignant rants Jim, you never mention that the intelligence services colluded with BOTH sets of paramilitaries operating in Northern Ireland (Loyalist and Republican).

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:12 AM

Jim,
"No-one can be said to have "started the troubles.""
You just have

Where Jim? In your dreams?

"You demanded a comment on the cause of the troubles,
No I didn't

Yes you did. You said,
And still no references to the cause of the Troubles and none expected

I responded with the CAIN quote which you ridiculed!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 11:59 AM

"The colluded with the UVF to carry out attacks
Without links to your statements they are almost certainly lies - why else would you refuse to link them?
Take your feeble-minded friend away - the pair of you are a waste of space
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: The Sandman
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 12:55 PM

"I have never served in the British Army GSS, served alongside them though and unlike you at least my experience of the province comes first hand."
were you employed by the uk government and in what capacity? MI6?

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 01:40 PM

You are talking to Walter Mitty Dick
Ask him to link you to proof
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:07 PM

If the theatre of operations we are talking about is Northern Ireland Dick then that would be covered by M.I.5. not M.I.6 (The former deal with domestic threats the latter cover foreign/external intelligence and threats - thought everyone knew that).

Interesting this fascination with regard to me having to explain everything while you explain S.F.A. You admit that all your opinions are based on information that at best is second, third hand and that you have never been to the place:

"I cannot make any comment about IRA activities in Ulster, I have never been there, and any information is second hand through the establishment media, so i consider myself not particularly well informed on the subject, i do not like to comment on things that i am not well informed about"

But via information through exactly the same sources coupled with other extremely "dodgy" websites you feel well enough qualified to make outrageous and unjustified demands that contradict the findings of Inquiries Lord Saville and the IPCC. What a strange person you are GSS.

Jim Carroll - 22 Dec 16 - 01:40 PM - Yet another example of Jim Carroll making pronouncements based on absolutely no knowledge at all - no for the first time, and it no doubt will not be the last. He'll be chattering away about Balham and Cooks next.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:29 PM

" Yet another example of Jim Carroll making pronouncements based on absolutely no knowledge at all"
Yet another case of our resident bully making pronouncements with no evidence at all
You' re a feckin dreamer
Not even Britain's security services would employ an unstable moron like you.
Like the old miner's story of the shop steward who sold his men out.
He said, I suppose you think I've sold out to the bosses"?
The men replied - "The boses only buy gold, not shit"
" Yet another example of Jim Carroll making pronouncements based on absolutely no knowledge at all "
And mabe you'll be giving us all your versions of why Britain didn't sell arms to Syria
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:45 PM

Keep flapping and floundering about Carroll, quite amusing really. I at least have the advantage of knowing what I am talking about whereas you on the other hand are totally clueless and guess what Jim? - It shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 02:46 PM

I know little about the Security Services, but it only takes common sense to work out that they wouldn't employ a loud-mouthed bulying attention seeker
Jeeze - we'd bu up to our arses in suicide bombers
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 05:46 PM

Before you launch yourself down yet another wrong turning Jim, would you just pause for thought and examine where and when I ever claimed any association with what you refer to as "The Security Services". Just to make sure neither you or any of your pals roar off on any semantic rant let us be sure we all understand the terminology:

Those who served in Northern Ireland in what Lord Saville correctly described as "Aid to the civil power" were collectively called The Security FORCES. In the situation that prevailed in Northern Ireland as in the case of Bloody Friday where Emergency Services (Police, Ambulance and Fire Services) were supported and protected by the Security Forces they would all be collectively referred to as the Security and Emergency Services.

MI5 & MI6 are Intelligence Services.

I believe the first mention of MI6 on this thread came from GSS and was pure speculation on his part. Carroll's posts are as always confused, inarticulate, utter nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:29 PM

" The Security FORCES."
Semantics again Teribus and just a bit of bullshit to dredge yourself out of a question you don't want to respond to
I don't give a shit what they were called, but I do know that any responsible organisation dealing with security would not dream of employing a strutting self promoter like you - I would have thought that "low profile" is part of the job description
Your superior display of "I know better than you" is the type of strutting I'm referring to.
You are a fantasist - the type that tries to impress the locals around closing time.
If I know nothing, respond to the points I have made without the bullshit.
Don't you thing you've run away from enough?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Dec 16 - 06:35 PM

He's acting like a usual convict, Jim. And I can say that because it's my bloody thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 07:28 AM

Not semantics at all Jim - just a matter of attention to detail, something that you never bother with and something that keeps tripping you up time after time. A sure sign of anyone actually knowing what they are talking about is the fact that they refer to things by their correct names. I mean no-one who had ever served in the Royal Military Police, and no-one who had ever served in the British Army would ever refer to the Royal Military Police as "Redtops".

By the way what points have you made?

First you post that the troubles started with UVF "bombings" (There was in fact only one - and even then they missed their intended target completely) I 1965.

Then I corrected you on the date - 1966 - and gave you Gusty Spence's reasons for the resurrection of the UVF.

You then post a link which you appeared to be in full agreement with which gave the start of the troubles to be late summer 1968.

The basis of your points keep changing so rapidly no-one has time to respond to them.

You asked me what I thought were the causes and I clearly stated poor governance on the part of the Unionists in Northern Ireland and their complete and utter failure to move with the times.

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 11:34 AM

"Not semantics at all Jim - just a matter of attention to detail,"
No - semantics - your pompous "matter of detail" is nothing more than a diversion, as was "redtops"
The rest is bullshit - the bombing prior to the troubles marked the birth of the UVF and it was the first blow struck - it doesn't matter that it might have nmissed its target
What kind of moronic excuse is that?
What you have chosen to completely ignore is the situation arose, not from that bombing, but partition and the treatment of one third of the population under Loyalist rule
Your refusal to respond is all the response I need.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Joe McCann
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Dec 16 - 12:01 PM

"What you have chosen to completely ignore is the situation arose, not from that bombing, but partition and the treatment of one third of the population under Loyalist rule
Your refusal to respond is all the response I need.
Jim Carroll"

So could you please explain what you thought this part of my last post referred to and meant?

"You asked me what I thought were the causes and I clearly stated poor governance on the part of the Unionists in Northern Ireland and their complete and utter failure to move with the times." - Teribus

Are you naturally that dense or have you taken lessons in it?