Comments on The Pensive Quill: Five Crucial Points

I was not sure Anthony, though I have no problem i...

2009-06-07T23:33:25.280+01:00

I was not sure Anthony, though I have no problem in admitting I am wrong. I think I was just past hearing the "he said, she said" and after reading my own post I could see the word speculation was not explained based on my use.
Considering there are those better politically versed than myself one word can indeed change the course of a point.
There is a great difference between opinion and speculation.
I just did not want to sound like I was dismissing other opinions.

Tain Bo, your post was fine and I had no criticism...

2009-06-07T20:33:45.115+01:00

Tain Bo, your post was fine and I had no criticisms to make of it. It was just an opportunity to raise some points of my own. I doubt if you offended anyone with your comment on speculation. I know what you mean - just as I know what Sean Mor means when he says he wishes the debate had never seen the light of day. Point is, it is here - both the debate and speculation - and there is no putting the genie back into the bottle.

AM said... Tain Bo, I can only put it out as I see...

2009-06-07T20:18:46.380+01:00

AM said...
Tain Bo, I can only put it out as I see it at any given moment and the sentiment expressed in it could change if there is evidence that comes along to show it to be off the mark.
A.M.
Addressing my comment on “speculation” I should have been clearer regarding my thought and should state it was based on speaking with a small number of people. For their own reasons tend to “seesaw” on the issue even though it is well documented and if we follow the map all roads from the H Blocks lead directly to West Belfast.
I apologize to anyone who may have found my comment out of order as I am in no manner an authority on the subject. I read all the articles I can find along with all the comments (all sides) as the issue is an ongoing learning experience.
I read from a de-constructionist point of view looking at what is presented in a factual manner that is not to dismiss any person’s opinion.
I just see the issue becoming bogged down which is typical in politics using the Machiavellian principals of separate divide and control.
Until those who held control at the time present some definitive proof to settle or even out the debate it becomes a “what if” issue, much like a dog chasing its own tail as the owner looks on laughing knowing the dog will tire.
To date the facts are established and perhaps it is time we look at the Hunger Strikers and the men and women prisoners with a human face, those who engaged in the prison struggle for basic human dignity and the right to establish a “truth” that they were not criminals and endured a living hell to defend their belief.
It would be appropriate for the leadership to remove the political implications and dignify the prison debate with facts and truth.
Again I apologize on my “speculation” comment and Thank you Anthony for posting my comment and putting it in perspective. I fair better at reading rather than commenting

Tain Bo, I can only put it out as I see it at any ...

2009-06-07T08:55:50.322+01:00

Tain Bo, I can only put it out as I see it at any given moment and the sentiment expressed in it could change if there is evidence that comes along to show it to be off the mark. Speculation will always be present in the debate - it is how people think things through. But speculation is about placing dots on the map. Quite often we see dots and forget that they are not joined up and speculation then becomes passed off as fact. There is a need to minimise that as much as possible otherwise the accuracy of what we end up with will be dubious. And of crucial importance in the discussion is that if anything comes up in the O’Rawe perspective that would exonerate his critics or prove Richard wrong that must be put out in the public domain; otherwise it is not truth being sought, just something to beat someone else over the head with. I firmly believe O’Rawe would put out this type of information if he were to come across it.

A very well worded article of course some may argu...

2009-06-06T23:37:39.016+01:00

A very well worded article of course some may argue different giving the subject matter and the well established sides on the issue.
I at first did not believe anyone would betray the prisoners which in turn would not be an objective opinion but one based on old loyalty.
As the debate continues it becomes clear the only way to read or hear the matter is without bias.
Reading the article there is no personal or emotional strings attached which in turn removes the subjective and remains objective.
It would be simple to lose the rag over the matter as it is highly charged with emotional opinions.
There is only one way to follow the issue and that is to objectively hear both sides without bias.
It is clearly one of those three sided issues, the two main sides and the side people choose to believe. Considering there are more questions than answers the argument either kills the messenger or the message coincidental or crafted? Opinions are helpful to establish support though tend to be counter productive as we engage in speculation.
The longer the debate drags on the further from the issue people become, lost in a maze of who is right and who is wrong?
The issue is one of truth or in this case what is the truth and those who deserve to know the truth are the families of the hunger strikers and the prisoners and to a lesser degree republican history itself.
The facts seem well established and with changing answers and a general lack of interest of the leadership to address the issue responsibly one can only assume that politics will again win over truth.

As I was writing this an article was posted that makes more sense as I wanted to finish with the line that a serious inquiry is needed.

Today The Pensive Quill carries an article by guest writer, Gerard Hodgins on the topic of the 1981 hunger strike

Time For An Inquiry By Gerard Hodgins

This article is well worth reading.

Willie G, this is the problem - they have told us ...

2009-06-06T18:47:20.897+01:00

Willie G, this is the problem - they have told us so much over the years which was completely untrue that they have become instinctively unbelievable. I would like to believe them but would be daft to take them at face value. Everything they say has to be validated by some other evidence.

''The full hunger strike story is beginnin...

2009-06-06T18:33:13.910+01:00

''The full hunger strike story is beginning to dawn, whether any of us try to put our hands over our ears or not.''

Indeed it is Kate and as Carrie pointed out the debate is now moving to the rejection of the prisoner's acceptance by the 'kitchen cabinet.' PSF are preparing the ground work by claiming what was needed was a british official to stand over the offer by going in to the hunger strikers. They may even attempt to cite the 'reneged deal' during the first strike. However, the evidence will again blow those lies away.

Will we ever get the truth behind the motivation behind the rejection is the big question? It may not have been as sinister as some of the speculation suggests but how can we believe anything these people say so we may never know.

Kathy, I think there is always a temptation to wri...

2009-06-06T18:12:59.249+01:00

Kathy, I think there is always a temptation to write the past from the perspective of the present and transfer emotions we have now to another place and time. So, I am very cautious about that. The British offer looks enough from today's point of view but then there was a lot of emotion and steel like determination amongst the prisoners. In a recent conversation with somebody at the heart of the thing he made the point that what we got at the end of the hunger strike was no more than was on offer to end it. That we took it he points out was because we had no choice; the hunger strike as a weapon had been rendered redundant by the intervention of the families. He felt that had we been stronger we would not have accepted what we got as a means to end the strike.

As against that we have the evidence of others at the heart of things who felt had they known about the offer it would have been an acceptable deal.

So, there are different takes on it.

What should always be stressed is that any suspicions about Brit motives in the second strike were not based on what happened at the end of the first. The Brits actually gave nothing to renege on. There was terrible anger in certain parts of the blocks on the night of the 18th of December not at the Brits but at the decision of the strikers to end. That is why Bobby wrote out on the same evening saying he would begin a strike on January 1st.

I think it is important to get things as accurate as we can. The sensitivity of the issue means that a scatter gun approach would be very wrong. Getting it exactly right is not easy. The passage of time is a strange medium. What I am in no doubt about is that Richard O’Rawe is providing a very honest account and many of his critics are not. His story has remained consistent while theirs has shifted. The tilt is all his way.

2009-06-06T17:20:22.830+01:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

''However what is not in dispute, is that ...

2009-06-06T11:38:39.913+01:00

''However what is not in dispute, is that if there was a deal on the on the table it should have been presented to the Hunger Strikers and they should have been the ones to deceide if it should have been accepted or not. The leadership had no right to take that decision away from them.''

It's a bit worse than that Kathy and if you go to the link Carrie provided you will see that. Not only did the 'leadership' take that decision away from hunger strikers they also lied to them. From an IRSP point elements of this leadership have claimed that the INLA hunger strikers and their representatives were made aware of the mountain climber initative and the details of that. This too has been conclusively proved to be a lie in a long list of lies.

Kate, just like you, we too did not believe Richard's claims when they first surfaced nor did we want to believe them to be quite frank. It was very difficult to even contemplate that this could be true. That all changed when the IRSP were given compelling evidence in 2006 which supported the claims and ever since even more compelling evidence, as discussed at the Gasyard, has surfaced. Richard's position has never deviated and only grew stronger with the passage of time and of course new emerging evidence. Whereas PSF's position/version has been all but completely demolished.

If PSF had have claimed, at the beginning of this controversy, that Richard was indeed telling the truth but x,y and z happened and that's why the initiative collapsed then there would have been no controversy. It was the denials, contradictions and lies from PSF which fuelled this controversy and fuelled speculation, whether rightly or wrongly, that there was something more sinister in the cover-up.

I have always believed Richard O'Rawe's ac...

2009-06-06T01:31:06.407+01:00

I have always believed Richard O'Rawe's account of the events and am disgusted by the fact that Sinn Fein and the Republican Leadership chose to lie and set about discrediting Richard O'Rawe.

But I also find myself wondering, if the truth had been told to the Hunger Strikers would they really have agreed to deal. I would never presume to know what any of the Hunger Strikers felt or thought, and perhaps Mackers you would be a better person to speak to this, but based on the failure of the first Hunger Strike, I would have thought that the Hunger Strikers would have been very sceptical of any deal put in front of them.

Reading through the document provided by Liam Clarke, I can find several instances that would have required clarification based on the promises that lead to the end of the first Hunger Strike and the goals set out by the second.

However what is not in dispute, is that if there was a deal on the on the table it should have been presented to the Hunger Strikers and they should have been the ones to deceide if it should have been accepted or not. The leadership had no right to take that decision away from them.

I wasn't being rude Kate. I'm sure there a...

2009-06-05T14:52:48.776+01:00

I wasn't being rude Kate. I'm sure there are alot of people out there who think that this would never happen in a western society but this is Northern Ireland. It's a murky place!

2009-06-05T14:21:44.288+01:00

This comment has been removed by the author.

Take the blinkers off Kate!

2009-06-05T13:37:29.757+01:00

Take the blinkers off Kate!

Kate, Bik's new statement has been discussed o...

2009-06-05T10:00:56.772+01:00

Kate, Bik's new statement has been discussed on Slugger O'Toole:

“This is a huge opportunity and I feel there’s a potential here to end this”

Basic points is he's completely changed his tune from total denial to conceding something was there. He also contradicts Danny Morrison (who has been building a get-out clause pointing towards the outside leadership taking the decision to reject the offer because they didn't trust the Brits) by claiming it was the hunger strikers themselves who rejected the offer. Morrison has accepted that the prison leadership had approved the offer and has moved towards justifying ignoring that and the Adams group taking it upon themselves to reject it for the prisoners. As Anthony observes, the actual rejection from the Adams group was 'more was needed', which, coupled with the British notes of the same referring to 'tone not content', does not support the idea that all that was needed was a British official to go into the hospital; rather that they were still wrangling over wording.

What Bik's statement really shows is that those defending the party line are all over the place; they are contradicting themselves, each other and their own historical records.

What may have once been something rather simply and understandably explained given the context of the time has been made into something much larger and worse from the moment the relevant comms were removed and the cover-up began. Now the cover-up has gone too far and taken on a life of its own.

I'd read Bik's statement as moving the SF position closer to O'Rawe's, in order then to defend the rejection of the offer. I'd also say the timing of the statement, election day, was a deliberate burial.

Mick, the text of the document is available in this thread on Slugger: 1981 Hunger Strike Truth Commission

HTH

Has the document which Liam Clarke produced on the...

2009-06-05T00:20:58.389+01:00

Has the document which Liam Clarke produced on the night been placed in the public arena yet, by PA I mean on the internet of in published form.

2009-06-04T21:58:38.135+01:00

This comment has been removed by the author.