• What you end up remembering isn't always the same as what you have witnessed ― Julian Barnes.

Somebody emailed me a Twitter comment from Danny Morrison yesterday in which he reportedly said ‘in the old days republicans never pleaded guilty before Brits - apart from some, now very vocal, leading republican dissidents.’

Morrison appears to have made his comment in response to the court appearance of a Derry republican who pleaded guilty in return for a three year sentence, something 'never' contemplated by any republican contemporary of Morrison. ‘Never’ is one of those absolutist statements which leave virtually no room for exception. For that reason it is easily falsifiable.

Whether this is memory lapse or conscious revisionism on the part of Morrison, the reader is free to make up their own minds. Given the tone it looks less like bringing clarity and more a case of the usual smear thrown the way of yet another who has refused to buy the bull. Whatever about court strategy back then, smearing certainly went on in the old days too.

Apart from the fact that in today’s world it is still ‘before Brits’ that republicans are appearing in court, the rest of the Morrison statement is demonstrably untrue.

Pleading guilty in courts was long frowned upon within the Provisional Movement but became a recurring feature as the conflict dragged on and activists saw little purpose in getting long sentences when they could be out on the streets either for personal or political reasons somewhat sooner by copping a plea. Hanging around jail forever and a day just didn’t seem an attractive proposition.

The topic could be fractious and gave rise to rows and backbiting, bragging rights and elitism, all par for the jail course where rumblings over the approach to courts were part of the culture. In the old days the emphasis was on refusing to recognise the court. It was dropped in favour of an approach characterised as ‘plead not guilty but offer no defence.’ Many regarded that as an underhand way of pleading guilty. The new policy was said by some to have been introduced to facilitate a brother of Gerry Adams, arrested during the 1981 hunger strike. True or not, volunteers who came in around the same time, but who found themselves ordered to refuse to recognise the court, had their noses jolted out of joint over what they considered nepotism.

Back in the old day I was strongly opposed to pleading guilty, even writing up a paper on it for the camp staff in 1985. Taking a deal seemed an unsavoury thing to do. I with my co-accused refused to take one at our 1977 trial and paid a heavy price. I have always remained philosophical about it, ultimately coming to feel that it was a foolhardy stance but not something to be moped over. 

I argued with close friends over their opposition to the policy in the 1980s. They, as it turned out, rightly felt it was bonkers to continue with a course of charging kamikaze-like at the courts beating our chests for Ireland, but ultimately defencless in the face of the gavel. 

Although Morrison bleats about pleading guilty being a current republican thing, as the song goes – one we actually did sing in jail – ‘it ain’t necessarily so.’ I don’t know how the figures break down but there are plenty who currently support Sinn Fein and the peace process who pleaded guilty back in the ‘old days.’ We can argue with their stance now but to criticise them for doing the logical thing then would be churlish. What sense did it make for them to get life rather than say 12 years?

Many held the ‘army line’ on the issue. But it means nothing other than that. We opted to abide by the IRA instructions. Whether braggadocio or principle is a moot point. The upshot was that we all went down for long stretches.  Others took a different course. If I am not mistaken there are cases of volunteers who died on active service, having earlier pleaded guilty. The first blanket protestor, Kieran Nugent, pleaded guilty and got a three year sentence in return. Neither he nor the others were any less republican because of it. 

It is odd how republican tradition can be an à la carte menu offering a whatever you are having yourself range. The disputable virtues of refusing to plead guilty can be extolled but not the more indubious ones of refusing to inform on republicans to the British police. 

As the late American writer, Franklin P Adams, was fond of saying, ‘nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.'

In the old days ...

  • What you end up remembering isn't always the same as what you have witnessed ― Julian Barnes.

Somebody emailed me a Twitter comment from Danny Morrison yesterday in which he reportedly said ‘in the old days republicans never pleaded guilty before Brits - apart from some, now very vocal, leading republican dissidents.’

Morrison appears to have made his comment in response to the court appearance of a Derry republican who pleaded guilty in return for a three year sentence, something 'never' contemplated by any republican contemporary of Morrison. ‘Never’ is one of those absolutist statements which leave virtually no room for exception. For that reason it is easily falsifiable.

Whether this is memory lapse or conscious revisionism on the part of Morrison, the reader is free to make up their own minds. Given the tone it looks less like bringing clarity and more a case of the usual smear thrown the way of yet another who has refused to buy the bull. Whatever about court strategy back then, smearing certainly went on in the old days too.

Apart from the fact that in today’s world it is still ‘before Brits’ that republicans are appearing in court, the rest of the Morrison statement is demonstrably untrue.

Pleading guilty in courts was long frowned upon within the Provisional Movement but became a recurring feature as the conflict dragged on and activists saw little purpose in getting long sentences when they could be out on the streets either for personal or political reasons somewhat sooner by copping a plea. Hanging around jail forever and a day just didn’t seem an attractive proposition.

The topic could be fractious and gave rise to rows and backbiting, bragging rights and elitism, all par for the jail course where rumblings over the approach to courts were part of the culture. In the old days the emphasis was on refusing to recognise the court. It was dropped in favour of an approach characterised as ‘plead not guilty but offer no defence.’ Many regarded that as an underhand way of pleading guilty. The new policy was said by some to have been introduced to facilitate a brother of Gerry Adams, arrested during the 1981 hunger strike. True or not, volunteers who came in around the same time, but who found themselves ordered to refuse to recognise the court, had their noses jolted out of joint over what they considered nepotism.

Back in the old day I was strongly opposed to pleading guilty, even writing up a paper on it for the camp staff in 1985. Taking a deal seemed an unsavoury thing to do. I with my co-accused refused to take one at our 1977 trial and paid a heavy price. I have always remained philosophical about it, ultimately coming to feel that it was a foolhardy stance but not something to be moped over. 

I argued with close friends over their opposition to the policy in the 1980s. They, as it turned out, rightly felt it was bonkers to continue with a course of charging kamikaze-like at the courts beating our chests for Ireland, but ultimately defencless in the face of the gavel. 

Although Morrison bleats about pleading guilty being a current republican thing, as the song goes – one we actually did sing in jail – ‘it ain’t necessarily so.’ I don’t know how the figures break down but there are plenty who currently support Sinn Fein and the peace process who pleaded guilty back in the ‘old days.’ We can argue with their stance now but to criticise them for doing the logical thing then would be churlish. What sense did it make for them to get life rather than say 12 years?

Many held the ‘army line’ on the issue. But it means nothing other than that. We opted to abide by the IRA instructions. Whether braggadocio or principle is a moot point. The upshot was that we all went down for long stretches.  Others took a different course. If I am not mistaken there are cases of volunteers who died on active service, having earlier pleaded guilty. The first blanket protestor, Kieran Nugent, pleaded guilty and got a three year sentence in return. Neither he nor the others were any less republican because of it. 

It is odd how republican tradition can be an à la carte menu offering a whatever you are having yourself range. The disputable virtues of refusing to plead guilty can be extolled but not the more indubious ones of refusing to inform on republicans to the British police. 

As the late American writer, Franklin P Adams, was fond of saying, ‘nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.'

35 comments:

  1. His hat is that tight it has reduced his blood flow to his brain,maybe hes forgot about his brother who sang like a canary and blamed things on his co-accused.jesus wept


    ReplyDelete
  2. It's true though, when I try to think back to 1969 and visualise people I was with and what we were.

    I then have to correct myself and say, It couldn't have been so and so.
    But I never wrote anything down.

    Spary Heels got it in one about Mad Hatters Brother, singing in the rain!. For those who pleaded guilty it made no difference to me, they were still republicans.
    That's 100% more than SF and carpet beggars of today , They are the new SDLP, and , next thing your going to see, They will take seats in london parliament. They are 3Qtrs of the way there now, once they finish there draft abstention speech to the British Speaker of the house.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mackers,
    A lot of people considered the guilty plea as an admission of guilt in a British court. Others believed that non recognition and silence meant people getting lengthy sentences which suited the Brits.
    Who was right I don't know but I know quite a lot of very decent and staunch Republicans preferred the outside wherever possible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bangers should learn to keep his mouth shut when throwing out insults about young lads and not as he claims... "leading republican dissidents."

    A few months ago during a conversation with someone who would not actually be a Republican but who archives old photos and such, I mentioned about McGuinness recognising the court in early 1976 on an IRA Membership charge, at a time when we weren't allowed to do this.

    "You'll not believe it says he, I have the cutting from a newspaper about him walking out of court." Before long I had it and up on my Facebook page it went.

    This is the part which stands out...

    “A Crown Prosecutor told the court: "All legally admissible evidence sufficient to continue the prosecution has been considered AND I AM INSTRUCTED that it is insufficient to continue the prosecution. Accordingly, I AM INSTRUCTED TO WITHDRAW IT...”

    “....Mr McGuinness left the court, jumped into a waiting car and was driven to the Falls Road.

    He said his release had come as a complete surprise.

    He believed his arrest had been a “political move” to get him out of the way. He had been living openly in the Bogside for 18 months, he said and could have been put arrested at any time....”

    The amusing part, given what we went through under interrogation, was Marty's treatment at the hands or rather the mouths of the RUC...

    "He said he had been threatened on one occasion and while he was asleep police spat on him but no physical force had been used against him..."

    They were keeping the heavy stuff for us youngin's it seems.

    Now the thing is; this was the only time the Deputy First seen the inside of prison in the North.

    What I noticed was that they had evidence, because 'All legally admissible evidence...had been considered..."

    How many back then were sent down on verbal admissions the RUC claimed they had made? Was my first thought.

    And I also wondered, as I read about The Crown Prosecutor being instructed not to prosecute because of insufficient evidence, about the time he was filmed by the BBC in May 1972 in the Bogside speaking on behalf of the Provisional IRA.

    This was when the Official IRA declared it's ceasefire.

    Marty's part of the interview...

    McGuinness: "...But as far as the Provisional IRA is concerned in Derry and in Dublin the fight will go on until the four demands are met...by the British Government."

    Interviewer: "So you're going to continue the campaign?"

    McGuinness: "We will certainly yes..."

    Shit! Says I, Marty could get away with saying this on the BBC while men were being fingered from behind blankets and interned.

    This wasn't used against him in the 1976 membership charge nor before, as he lived openly in the Bogside for 18 months?

    ????

    Thats question marks by the way.

    Heres a link to the BBC tape...

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6560000/newsid_6568900/6568929.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1

    ReplyDelete
  5. AM
    Brilliant post. If I am not mistaken, Gerry Adams was one of the first to "recognise" the court in 1978? when he was charged with IRA membership and fought the charge. Maybe you can confirm this for me, a guy told me that at one stage in the 'Crum they were trying to introduce a "signers" table. Whereby people who had signed a statement were to be banished to their own table, (if that was the criteria, then the non-signers table would have consisted of about four chairs!). He also told me that, unfortunately, Kieran Doherty, was one of the main men in this endeavour. You are 100% right, because I remember people who, if they had have fought the charges against them, would have walked, but they refused to recognise the court and got hefty sentences. Also, if the criteria for joining the Republican Movement had been for people who hadn't signed a statement, it also would have had around four members. I spoke to people after they got out, and they wouldn't go back near the movement, not because of what the RUC and the screws had done to them, but because of what their so-called comrades had did to them in gaol (not physically) but mentally, because they thought of themselves as lesser persons because they were constantly reminded that they had either signed a statement and/or pleaded guilty. As for Morrison, I remember a right few years back, and I think Morrison (among a few others) brought out a booklet called: "The Good Old IRA" to offset the feeling that the IRA in the '70's, '80's and '90's were too ruthless (it cited examples of the IRA after 1916 and into the war of "independence" shooting horses for pulling a cart full of coal for the British and shooting a middle aged woman dead because she told the people trying to take over her house: "youse don't scare me with your pop guns"). Correct me if I am wrong, but, if I (like Morrison at the time) was so convinced that what the IRA were doing in the '70's, '80's and '90's, was right, then why would anyone turn to history to justify it? Anyway, why would anyone in their right mind take a blind bit of notice of Morrison?, when his last outburst was that SF might walk from the Shithole on the hill, some chance.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sparky Heels
    Spot on cara! Ciaran Morrison touted all round him! In a role reversal (as the old saying goes) the Branch had to beat him to stop him from talking! I remember one day when I went up to the 'Crum to visit a Republican POW, we were sitting having a nice chat about everything and then this person came in for his visit and was as cocky as fuck and saying Dia dhuit to everyone, I asked my gaoled comrade who he was, and he rolled his eyes and said: "Ciaran Morrison", I started laughing and said: "I thought he touted the place down"? my friend said: "he did, but he's really full of himself, I think it's because he's that wanker's brother"!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Belfastgit?
    Do you know when it was supposed to have happened 70s/80s?
    Awful, if there was consideration given to something like this considering the fact that many people signed statements as a result of brutal interrogation.
    And also given the fact that few people in 70s would have had a clue about anti-interrogation methods.
    Apart from that I think ostracising anyone in prison for any reason is despicable.
    It was never an issue in Armagh prison amongst the women.
    I did witness one woman try and ostracise women for not joining the protest but she fell flat on her face.
    No one knows anyone else's circumstances or breaking points.
    Where I have the issues with those amongst Sinn Fein is not the fact they broke and give names
    It is the fact they now lord it over people who did not.
    Some of them strutting about the road with files under their arms that could choke a donkey also made statements in that quantity.
    I doubt Morrison himself would castigate Brendan in such away, well not public anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. belfastgit said...

    "Gerry Adams was one of the first to "recognise" the court in 1978?.."

    As I pointed out above cara, McGuinness recognised the court in early 1976. In fact he only did 3 weeks on remand...

    A few years back a former prisoner who was on ispyonrepublicans.ie turned my attention to a video of Big Bob brain-washing some young Ogra shinners.

    'Wait till you hear what Storey is telling the youngins' said he.

    Right enough, much to my anger Storey was telling them that the 'tactic' of not recognising the court was done away with in 1973.

    Nobody told us that at the time I went into jail in Sept. 1976 and was sentenced in June 1977.

    Clearly Storey was rewriting history to cover McGuinness.

    ReplyDelete
  9. belfastgit actually the case you refer to was called the 'Tout's Table' an absolute disgrace. So much so that there was open revolt between the Derry and Country men and the wing leadership.

    I was involved in that revolt because some of my friends were stuck on that table.

    What happened was that most lads, still being in their teens, signed statements but implicated others who had already signed for or were already charged with the same jobs. And the wing leadership decided to brand them as touts and set them apart.

    Several of us decided we weren't having it and one day we went over and sat at that table with our friends whom we knew were solid and brave volunteers on the outside. The Wing leadership threatened us and eventually it came to a stand off in the exercise yard.

    I remember we had Big Peter Bowe on our side who was a giant lad who could handle himself.*

    To cut a long story short, word went outside and the order came back in to scrap the table.

    Big Doc was involved as was Pickles, John Chillingworth, a wee man called Barney McReynolds and some other big gulpin who's name escapes me but who put the gear on when he was sentenced. I wouldn't condemn any man for this except one who was a bully because he seen others as inferior to him.

    Fair play to them Big Doc and Pickles apologised out the door while on the blanket and admitted they were wrong.

    *As for Big Peter Bowe, at the beginning of the Blanket Protest while we still had our cell furniture, we were in H5. There was a large scumbag screw with big lips called Dodds and one day during cell searches I heard a commotion coming from Big Bowe's cell which was slightly up and across from mine. I looked out the side of the door in time to see Dodds flying backwards out of Bowe's cell to land on his back on the wing.

    Big Peter had a sore foot, an infection I think, and Dodds decided to stand on it...Bad mistake, Peter punched him in the face lol. That kept us going for months.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Nuala,

    I could see the point in it in a short war but the longer it went on and with the context established there was no point in people going down for long stretches if they were avoidable. And you can rest assured the leadership would have changed it to suit themselves were they facing big time.

    More generally, I don't think Ciaran Morrison is the issue whatever his blunders. But his brother can hardly complain. All the people he labelled touts (the chutzpah of it) had brothers and sisters and he never cared one iota about any of them.

    The point of this article is to challenge his rewriting of the past not to have a go at his brother.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dixie,

    Big Bad Bob might have a point. I know when I came in for the first time in 74 it was no longer automatic to refuse to recognise. I refused to recognise but I know others who applied for and got permission to recognise because they had a chance of winning the case. Prior to that it might well have been automatic. It was always permissible when facing a murder charge.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mackers,
    I never remember any hard and fast rules. I know in the early 70s people refused to recognise the court.
    I know some people were slagged off for recognising and pleading but amazingly the latter were many of the people who went the distance.
    Danny recognised the court and kept himself very sweet in that scenario, he looked well and truly after number one.
    I think his brother who went in in the 90s if I'm not mistaken, pissed people off because as BG says he was full of himself, still is.
    Mackers I never actually said anything about Ciaran Morrison. I just thought it funny when BG said they had to beat him to shut him up.
    Other than that I would have no interest in Ciaran other than finding him a cringe person.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Fionnuala
    Going by the people I spoke to it happened in the '70's and into the very early '80's. After the Hunger Strikes, there was obviously a more enlightened leadership in the Blocks and that sort of nonsense stopped. As you pointed out it was different in Armagh and later Maghaberry, because I was talking to a girl who was remanded to Maghaberry and she told me that on her first night in the prison she started crying (obviously because she missed her kids and family and home), and the girls in there put their arms around her and hugged her and comforted her, they made her a cup of tea and sat and chatted with her. When she told me that, it really uplifted me, and I felt a huge surge of pride for those women inside for doing that among other acts of kindness they did for each other. On the other side of the coin, I was a kid when I went to gaol in the '70's and you still had that macho bullshit that "men" don't cry etc. I saw guys crying for various reasons, a "Dear John" or that they were homesick and so on and they were slagged or told "fuck up and do your whack". Maybe I was privileged at going to gaol at such a young age because I hadn't got a girlfriend (so no chance of a "Dear John"!) LOL. But seriously, when that girl told me what the women in Maghaberry had done for her and each other, I really wished that the men prisoners had got on like that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dixie
    I didn't know that about McGuinness cara. If I'm not mistaken, Adams and quite a few others were arrested in 1978 in the wake of the La Mon House Hotel bombing and the Great One was charged with membership. On a slight tangent, people were very angry that Adams didn't attend the funeral of Bob Murphy, who was "convicted" of the bombing. Anyway, the guy I spoke to told me it was called the "signers table", but you were there and said it was called the "touts table" so I'll bow to your superior knowledge of it. Fair play to you and your comrades who took a stand against that despicable practice. I'm also delighted to hear that big "Doc" and "Pickles" apologised for it. I always made a difference between people who had broken under interrogation and people that were active agents, as Fionnuala pointed out, people then hadn't a clue about anti-interrogation methods. Near enough anyone I spoke to who had signed a statement told me that it wasn't the beatings that broke them, but the psychological strain.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dixie
    On a lighter note, I remember people in gaol being called "Countrymen" even when they were from Derry (city that is), must have been the accent! LOL. I also recall talking to a Tyrone guy who complained: "I'm sick of you Belfastmen calling me a "Countryman", I'm from fuckin' Dungannon"! LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AM
    I agree with you that the point of the article was not about Ciaran Morrison (I'm as guilty as the next, for bringing his name into this), hopefully the "Asshole in the Hat" reads these posts and will think twice about opening his big mouth about other people in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nuala,

    no, you never mentioned Ciaran, so my comment was never directed to you but in a more general sense. I didn't know the guy but I have no intention of stopping discussion of the matter. As Belfastgit suggests his brother has been labelling as touts people for no reason other than they don't buy the bull. When he sets out on that sort of path then he is going to invite adverse comment. I would rather the focus was not on Ciaran because I do not regard him as a tout. He folded in interrogation circumstances. And what?
    I think we need to be very clear about what a tout or an agent is. They are people who consciously decide to work for the other side and actively and knowingly collude with them. People who failed the interrogation test simply are not in that category. The same with an agent of influence. Two people can spread the same peace process idea: the one who does it because he believes it is not an agent of influence; the one who does it because his handlers told him to is an agent of influence.
    The most genuine critical thing that can be said of Brendan, Dolours et al who participated in the Boston oral history project by people opposed to it is that they loose talked. And what? There is a moral universe separating them from the people who today call for the British police to be provided with information about republicans. It is a universe that also separates Brendan and Dolours from those people who sought to publicly cover up the role of Scap.

    Belfastgit,

    it is no big deal one way or the other. Just me expressing a view. You have a different take which you presented well. I am observing rather than complaining!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mackers,
    Its simply a case of don't do what I do, do what I say.
    Like Adams Morrison had no bother covering for his own and ridiculing others.
    Watching the programme last week it was so evident than so many people died for very little while others were covered up .

    ReplyDelete
  19. Belfast Git.
    Eileen Hickey would never have tolerated that carryon and neither would Mairead.
    I remember one instance when a prisoner was being annoyed persistently about a flimsy statement they made.
    Once it came to Maireads attention it was nipped in the bud.
    We just all got on with each other and got on with doing our time.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AM,

    The most genuine critical thing that can be said of Brendan, Dolours et al who participated in the Boston oral history project by people opposed to it is that they loose talked.

    Does that mean the documentaries on youtube where former provisionals speak are guilty of 'loose talk' too? Or the volunteers who participated the countless books about the internal workings of the PRM are guilty aswell?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Frankie,

    for those who take a fromal/legalistic/by the book stance I guess (not knowing what you Youtube features you have in mind) it would be viewed as loose talk.

    I take a different view of Dolours and Brendan, defining their contributions not as loose but as additions to public understanding and awareness of our past. However, I can see how somebody not sharing my view would define it differently. What I don't think is that they have any grounds for defining it as touting. How could Dolours talking about her IRA past be touting yet Adams/McGuinness calling for people to inform to the British on republicans engaged in republican activity be something other than touting? Thats when the logic all starts to unweave.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Nuala,

    people have died for much less than Danny did. I would not begrudge him a long life despite the many lives he cut short. And I will never refrain from having my own view on where his real loyalties lay.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anthony,

    I don't think Brendan Hughes, Dolours Price, Gerry Bradley etc are touts. Like you said they help people like myself have a better understanding of the conflict. I'm richer for it. As for the documentaries 'Behind the Mask' springs to mind. Where now former IRA volunteers gave interviews as to why they joined and spoke of some of their experiences.

    Gerry Adams has penned several books about his version of the conflict and he's not labeled a tout..While I haven't read Danny Morrison's 'The wrong man'..(I have read a few reviews), I'd hazzard a guess it's partialy based on the Sandy Lynch affair. I'll go even further to say he changed names and locations to protect the innocent.

    As you (and others) have correctly said, SF asking 'Joe Bloggs' to tell what they know about PFR's..thats touting. Why don't they do the dirty deed themselves..?

    ReplyDelete
  24. I had just mentioned to a friend a wee while back that Morrison seems very quiet.
    Every now and then the former first lieutenant comes out swinging.
    Most of what he has to offer is just dribble and slobber as he much like our very own Mickey Henry like to remind us of how infallible the leadership is.

    It is always interesting that they paint the perfect picture of themselves and thrive on gossip and at times sheer ridiculousness.
    I hate to burst their hot air balloon but even god is not that infallible after all he had a second try at making mankind (I am not religious but love the biblical mythology and stories) sorry Christians no offence meant.

    Danny I know you read the quill or at least gawk at the articles pertinent to you and the party. Would you do me a wee favour when you get a chance, write a wee article that defines a tout and touting.
    It would be interesting to read it and then reconstruct it as you and those who sling the word about do so fact less
    Better still if you do pen an article on touting send it to Anthony and he can carry it here.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Its a bit rough washing the dirty laundry of someone in public because of the actions of his brother. Ciaran Morrison had the courage to put his balls on the line unlike the majority around him who neither aided or abetted the republican movement in any way, yet no-one acknowledges that fact, nor do they name those who done absoloutely fk all on blogs like this. How can you one minute castigate those who pointed the moral finger and punished volounteers for making mistakes and the next do the exact same thing yourselves. The posts about Ciaran Morrison should not have been published they should have been binned where they belong, he has kids who are also innocent and neither he nor they are responsible for the rantings of Danny Morrison.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Johnny Lately,

    while I would identify with much of what you say, the censoring of opinion or sharp views is a worse option. Ciaran Morrison is not what this piece is about. It is unfortunate that he was dragged into it but that opinion is not going to be suppressed. It is better if people exercise their own restraint guided by what is relevant. Ciaran Morrison is not relevant to the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Understandable viewpoint Mackers I do agree with free speech but it should not be used a weapon in which to punish the innocent even though you think they shouldn't be cocky, that they should bury their heads in shame for the rest of their lives because they made the same mistake thousands of other volounteers made. Anyone who was in the IRA and who volounteered for operations knows the majority hid under the bed or were never around or had some sort of excuse when roles had to be played and its these peoplewho are usually the first to judge anothers mistakes. By all means wash Danny Morrisons dirty laundry out in public ffs he has plenty and like all armchair generals he fought to the last drop of everyone elses blood and likea lot of wasters in the IRA he used his position to attempt to get into the knickers of his comrades/prisoners wives/girlfriends whenever the occasion arose. Theres all types of trust and Danny is the last man who could put himself on a pedestal for the position of trustable comrade.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Johnny lately,

    One problem with free speech is that it allows speech to be used to have a go at us all: it annoys us all. Who likes getting ranted at or bawled out? It is like defending criticism even though we know it hurts. There would be no purpose in it if it didn’t hurt. That is its power. But your point is valid – as to who gets hurt. Yet, there are more dangers in curbing it.
    My own view on it would probably be best summed up here.

    I wholly disagree with your comment that I hold that those who made mistakes ‘shouldn't be cocky, that they should bury their heads in shame for the rest of their lives’.
    If you can find anywhere where I argue that then I stand corrected and rightly condemned. I would suggest my take on it is captured in the:
    following piece

    As for Danny’s nocturnal forays they don’t concern me nor should they any more than Ciaran’s issue be the subject of discussion on this blog. For the record – although I find the man objectionable I never once heard anything to validate your claims about him.

    Overall Johnny, there is much to be discussed without slipping into the chicanes.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mackers,
    You are quite right people's personal lives are not the issue.

    Johnny Lately
    Must of what you have said is untrue.
    He used his position as 'an arm chair general' will given the fact he was never that what else did he use rope?
    If women were impressed by him that's hardly his fault.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Understandable viewpoint Mackers I do agree with free speech but it should not be used a weapon in which to punish the innocent even though you think they shouldn't be cocky, that they should bury their heads in shame for the rest of their lives because they made the same mistake thousands of other volounteers made"

    I dont know how you work out I agree with stigmatising anyone who signed or broke under interrogation from the above, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough in the post before that regarding the attacks on Dannys brother. Sorry if I portrayed you as being one of those who pointed the finger Mackers thats my mistake and was not intended I do know you are not that type of person.

    Danny's personal life is open to judge just as much as Danny feels he he has a right to judge.

    Nuala when Danny coined the phrase "republicans had an armalite in one hand and a ballot in the other" do you believe Danny was doing both or simply encouraging others to do both.

    As for his nocturnal activities went, no its not his problem if some women fell for it but I remember the days when you would have got beat to a pulp if you went anywhere near a prisoners wife. Maybe im wrong but was that not viewed as being taboo between comrades.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Johnny lately,

    in my view you were arguing against stigmatising people not for it.

    Don't worry too much about what is said to me - I've got worse than that Johnny! I just think we need to be more understanding of faults and failings. I have long been impressed by a comment I once read by Nietzsche - beware of those in whom the urge to punish is strong. It is in us all but we should try to curb it.

    Chasing prisoners' wives was supposed to be a taboo but in practice it depended on who did it and who was the wife. But while Danny Morrison admitted to liking 'chasing skirt' I never once came across as much of a hint of him chasing prisoners' wives.

    But even if he did, I don't know the circumstances, and with people things happen for one reason or another. A man or woman being physically attracted to one another is one of the most natural things in the world and we need to be wary about coming down on the natural too quickly.

    I have seen how people moved in with their imprisoned comrade's wife and while I might have disapproved, it was a hard to be judgemental once I saw how happy they could end up as couples.

    It is an issue that there is simply no easy way to manage.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Johnny Lately
    Firstly when I said what you said was untrue I shouldn't have, after all people are entitled to their own thoughts.
    Do I think Danny was an armchair general? no.
    The armalite and ballot box theory was a strategy no an order to send people out to do one or the other.
    I know the stories about how he got his nickname are untrue

    Mackers,
    'He liked to chase skirt' can't imagine him ever having too much success .
    Too pompous and that's without the hat.

    ReplyDelete
  33. apoligies for bringing bangers brothers name into mix,never ever held it against a man how the conducted themselves in barricks,heard bangers got his nickname for making wee bangers???

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sparky heels,

    good call. Best that the guy is left out of it. He is not the dog in this fight.

    Nuala,

    he did get Leslie - a beautiful woman as I recall. But overall, it is neither here nor there. People's personal lives, as you say, should not concern us.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Informative on the type of pressures associated with the matter

    ReplyDelete