Comments on The Pensive Quill: 55 Hours: Monday 6 July 1981

Mickey, I see you have been eating from Danny Mor...

2013-05-15T21:52:03.431+01:00

Mickey,

I see you have been eating from Danny Morrison’s bowl of porridge. Always the pigeon never the statue and as usual the lofty lot are more than willing to shit on anything that comes too close to knocking them of their pedestal.
An eerie silence from your camp around the internet Mickey, I was expecting at least a bit of an argument against the 55 hours piece.

It is well documented and simple to follow with no hidden agenda. The timeline casts more than a dark shadow over the issue of an acceptable agreement.
Reading through the 3 parts my head still nods in disbelief as it is difficult to acknowledge that a deal was on offer only to be sidelined by ambitious political maneuverings. I assume most republicans would feel the same way even though the documentation speaks plainly in black and white truth.

Looking back Mickey, Thatcher had more to gain by ending the hunger strike as that would effectively end the long prison struggle one less front her cabinet would have to fight on.

Even if we excuse the leadership with poor timing in their pursuit of political power it still leaves Ten men dead … though that would not work as the sympathy vote was something Adams and company could depend on.
I think the Adams camp had adopted the view of the Nazi Von Ribbentrop in his description of Irish republicans after world war two speaking at the failure of operations Green and Kathleen (I think)…
The Irish are good at dying for their cause but not so good when it comes to fighting for it.

It’s is a bitter statement to make but looking back it becomes clear the Hunger Strikes became a platform not so much for political status but a sounding board for political votes.

Dixie, she is as much a rep for us on the BC case...

2013-05-15T08:33:54.642+01:00

Dixie,

she is as much a rep for us on the BC case. Without her guidance and lobbying there would be much less a robust campaign. Her ability is second to none even if I say it!

Fenian, you wouldn't find that logic of Micha...

2013-05-15T08:32:01.072+01:00

Fenian,

you wouldn't find that logic of Michaelhenry's in Faulty Towers even at the maddest of moments.

Oh and Carrie I thought I'd just mention, if e...

2013-05-15T00:09:30.217+01:00

Oh and Carrie I thought I'd just mention, if ever Adams decides to sue me or I find myself in other times of legal trouble would you represent me?

I put this thought on Slugger in the same part and...

2013-05-15T00:04:29.398+01:00

I put this thought on Slugger in the same part and decided to add it here as well....

Where is or what happened to the comm Bik sent out to Adams accepting the offer, or at least as he himself put it…

“And I said to Richard (O’Rawe) this is amazing, this is a huge opportunity and I feel there’s a potential here (in the Mountain Climber process) to end this.”

Clearly if he saw at least this he would have put it to Adams in a comm?

Yet in ‘Ten Men Dead’ despite the book’s reliance on Bik’s comms there is no mention of nor any inclusion of any such comm.

However on the same date 6th July, he refers to and details a meeting he had with the ICJP the previous day July 5th. This comm to Adams is in the book.

As is this comm to Adams written on July 7th….

“…I don’t know if you’ve thought on this line, but I have been thinking that if we don’t pull this off and Joe dies then the RA are going to come under some bad stick from all quarters. Everyone is crying the place down that a settlement is there and those Commission chappies are convinced that they have breached Brit principles. Anyway we’ll sit tight and see what comes…”

But no comm mentioning either the Mountain Climber and the offer he passed on or whatever he saw as being a huge opportunity with the potential to end it.

Why was this comm kept from the author of Ten Men Dead, David Beresford and where is it today?

Sean, Your response to MH has about twice as many...

2013-05-15T00:03:10.246+01:00

Sean,
Your response to MH has about twice as many words in it than he has written since he started his 'hit run' commenting strategy on this blog..He cherry picks bits out of sentences taking them completely out of context and adding his own PSF leadership inspired twisted logic.. which equals to nonsense! lol

Sean I wouldnt call anyone in quisling $inn £ein ...

2013-05-14T22:32:40.334+01:00

Sean I wouldnt call anyone in quisling $inn £ein a republican of any description..

Sean bres, the thing about michaelhenry is that fa...

2013-05-14T22:11:29.633+01:00

Sean bres, the thing about michaelhenry is that facts tend to confuse him. Being a shinner he has learnt at the feet of liars thus his preoccupation with lies and who lied to whom.

Your rather lengthy reply has likely fried his brain and he has had to lay down...or should that be lie down?

Michael, you need to put aside what other people m...

2013-05-14T14:02:08.273+01:00

Michael, you need to put aside what other people might or might not have done and ask yourself the singular question was there movement from the Brits around the period in time under scrutiny here in this thread - Because that's what's under discussion here. It seems indisputable at this stage that there was movement given the evidence stacking up. Are you saying there was no movement, no offer? Or are you trying to say something else?

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from and viewing your comments more in terms of the long-standing, zero-sum arguments you have with people on here in terms of whether Sinn Fein is right or wrong than any serious attempt to analyse this specific situation. That needs put to the side. This isn't about winning a debate or proving each other wrong or arguing for the sake of arguing. This is about getting to the truth. I'm sure you must want to know the truth just as much as me or anyone else. Deep down inside man you can't be this blind as to just ignore the information that's coming out. Acknowledging its veracity doesn't necessarily equate to admitting Adams or whoever killed the Hungerstrikers but it does recognise that there are legitimate questions to be answered.

Regardless of who we feel is ultimately to blame for the deaths of the Hungerstrikers, that's subjective, surely it has to be considered objective now that there was indeed movement in the British position in early July, possibly movement significant enough to consider ending the protest. If we acknowledge that there was ANY movement, regardless of whether it could have ended the Hungerstrike or not, and that this was withheld from those who were dying - no matter what the reason - then we must also acknowledge that this was and is unacceptable and should be at the very least admitted to and explained. Can you at least concede that?

Perhaps it can all indeed be explained beyond what some here believe - that 'the Committee' manipulated the Hungerstrikes for political advantage. But, given the weight of evidence, to stick with the traditional narrative at this point is surely foolhardy. It's not about anyone else here Michael but yourself. Not about Dixie, Mackers, Carrie, me or anyone else. It's about can you really just ignore all this and continue to go along with this idea that O'Rawe and the others are simply liars out to 'get Adams'? Can you look yourself in the eye and continue on regardless? Don't you want to know the truth no matter how difficult it may be to hear? I think you owe it to yourself as an Irish republican to ask yourself some hard questions here and cut out this craic of just seeing everything as an attack on your party because for me it's not about that and I hope, I sincerely do, that it's the same for yourself

So the brits lied to the ICJP who were talking to ...

2013-05-14T12:35:32.184+01:00

So the brits lied to the ICJP who were talking to them the most-lied to the Irish goverment -lied to the IRSP-lied
to everyone-whats new-according to these new/old claims the brits were telling the Irish who were in the prison hospital different yarns-and some still want to believe them-

" An end of the current Terroist campaign-A leadership which has "lost" on the prisons is in no position to do this "

Yet the INLA leadership ended their war-did they win on the prison issue-this argument suggests that they did-

It seems that of late, as I just commented on Slug...

2013-05-14T00:08:53.089+01:00

It seems that of late, as I just commented on Slugger in regards to Carrie's excellent piece, that the shinner sheep have taken to avoiding that particular field altogether and are content to feed happily on the shit fed to them by their masters in other fields where border polls and trying to grab a hug and kiss from Unionists are in abundance.

I had no idea that Carrie was the writer on the we...

2013-05-13T18:39:37.928+01:00

I had no idea that Carrie was the writer on the website 'July 1981'. That site has always been one of my favourites.

http://www.longkesh.info/2013/05/13/55-hours-part-two-monday-6-july-1981/

Yeah great work Carrie. It's quite a complex i...

2013-05-13T17:08:08.331+01:00

Yeah great work Carrie. It's quite a complex issue but what seems certain now is that whoever was controlling the strike on the outside was not being open with those actually conducting the Hungerstrike inside Long Kesh. Basically it's now been determined beyond reasonable doubt that those in control on what's referred to as 'the Committee' could have settled the Hungerstrike in the early days of July 1981 without loss of face and with the support of the prisoners themselves.

If this had been done six precious lives could have been saved. What has yet to be determined and probably will be disputed for a long time to come is why they chose not to do so. There are serious, serious questions to be answered on all of this by those responsible for taking this decision and point blank denials are proving now to be unworkable. Because the truth will find a way. The much talked about truth and reconciliation process needs to start much closer to home by the looks of it. But will they ever acknowledge the truth?

We discussed this as a family yesterday and my Father said he always felt the Hungerstrikes had been manipulated to get Sinn Fein to where they are today. This has been his opinion for years, as far back as the 80's, but I don't think he imagined the narrative was quite as shady as what we're hearing the last few years and which is being exposed more and more now on a weekly basis. We considered the notion that the Hungerstrike might have been prolonged and that men might actually have been allowed to go to their deaths to make sure the Fermanagh-South Tyrone seat would not be contested by the SDLP or an Independent Nationalist and when we done so I questioned whether Adams could really be that cold and ruthless. No doubt was the general feeling on this, he was and is capable of it.

My family is just an ordinary family like any other but they are wondering what the hell is going on here. I've also been talking to friends on it the last few days and they're saying if it comes out that Sinn Fein (i.e. the Adams leadership) allowed the Hungerstrtikers to die for political gain then they're done with them. But for many I have to say it's still too incredible to believe and this could be the greatest barrier those trying to bring the truth out into the open may have to face - the inability of ordinary republicans to believe this because so horrifying, so unimaginable is this scenario that it just seems beyond belief.

All I can see Carrie, Anthony and the rest who are doing such great work on this is to keep chipping away, the truth is on your side

There is no other conclusion that the latest docum...

2013-05-13T12:15:44.254+01:00

There is no other conclusion that the latest documents push us to. The Committee committed a heinous crime against imprisoned comrades.

Great work Carrie.