Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Tagged under: , , ,

UDR And The Onslaught Of Catholic Aggression

In the wake of the controversy generated by Gerry McGeough expressing an opinion that others did not want aired, Christy Walsh revisits a 2011 exchange he had with one of McGeough's unionist critics. Christy Walsh is the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice.

  • The following conversation was extracted from the Slugger OToole website during the course of comments made after Gerry McGeough was sentenced to 20 Years. The exchange between myself and Mr Brush was deleted. Mick Fealty blacklisted me for ‘baiting’ Brush and I have never visited or posted on his site after that. As the site administrator I challenged Mr Fealty to observe the law and report the remarks to the PSNI as a hate crime but he would not do so. An attempt was made to deny that it was actually Sammy Brush –Mick Fealty does not allow anyone to post under a real person’s name unless they can confirm their actual identity –thus how it was possible for me to post under my own name. 



Cllr. Sammy Brush (profile)                        6 April 2011 at 4:45 pm

I am very surprised at many of the comments that bloggers on this website have been making.

I was an innocent postman at the time when Gerry McGeogh attempted to murder me. I had done nothing to him or to anyone related to him. I did not deserve to have had this happen to me.

I am glad justice has been done. I may have been a UDR man, I may have taken a dim view of Catholics in that role but not to the extent to which I deserved to have been mudered.

I would hope that many of you think again about some of the comments that you have been making and put them into context. The contect being an attempted murder.



Christy Walsh (profile)                    6 April 2011 at 5:01 pm




Sammy

I am glad you are here today to contribute to this blog and do not dispute that you may have done no wrong to Mr McGeogh or any relative of his. However, in fairness, the UDR, or its members, did participate and contribute to the death toll of NI. The Conflict did not come about from peaceful civil rights demands –but from violent opposition to those demands –I know nothing of Mr McGeogh but he was likely a symptom of what occurred in the early 70′s. The laws of NI were generally designed to be anti catholic/ Nationalist. Around us in Ballymurphy, Derry, McGurks Bar there were heavy death tolls and numerous smaller scale incidents –either directly involving the security forces or with the approval, co-operation or indifference of the security forces. In recent times HET has returned some alarming conclusions in what amounted to cold blooded murders –you seem to have some level of justice for which you appear to be satisfied with –for victims of your colleagues –sadly they are unlikely to receive the same justice you have received today.



Cllr. Sammy Brush (profile)                        7 April 2011 at 11:48 am

As a former member of the UDR and my being centrally involved in this whole process that is being discussed, I feel I have a right and a duty to make my point of view clear.

As we all know, during the Troubles, the majority of Catholics supported the IRA and were either members of the IRA or were related to or had friends who were members.

On the other side only a very few Protestants were involved with terrorist groups. Most were good, god fearing, law abiding, loyal British citizens. Many went to great lengths to highlight and ensure that loyalty, including myself.

As a UDR man, I upheld the process of law, I secured the unity of Britain and I protected the majority of law abiding citizens from the onslaught of Catholic aggression.

In that position I met aggression with aggression. We knew and still do that all Catholics were and are responsible for the IRA and so all are unreservedly deserving of the same treatment as any other murderer would be.

And this is the reason why I was to be murdered, for upholding all that is true and good, for protecting the community and securing the union.

The alternative is that I did not deliver Mr McGeoghs post on time, which given Catholic irrationality, I would not be surprised if that was the reasoning behind his actions.



Christy Walsh (profile)                    7 April 2011 at 11:59 am



Sammy Brush

“I protected the majority of law abiding citizens from the onslaught of Catholic aggression.” Thank you for your honesty it is refreshing. I had wondered that perhaps you may not have intended to sound as sectarian as you did in your original post so you now clarify that you did intend to be. The question now is did your role in the UDR include murdering or helping others to murder catholics?



Cllr. Sammy Brush (profile)                        7 April 2011 at 12:05 pm

Mr. Christy Walsh,


You sir are on dangerous grounds. I have not now nor have I ever been involved in any physical violence towards Catholics, Protestants or anyone else.

I am trying to conduct an open an honest discourse of the past, of what happened. Here I am being truthful about by views then and now. I am not a bigot or a murderer. The UDR did not kill one single Catholic, not one.



Christy Walsh (profile)                    7 April 2011 at 12:10 pm



Dear Mr Brush

I quote; “You sir are on dangerous grounds.” I hope you are not threatening me?

I take you at your word that you did not kill anyone of any religion and in particular any pesky catholics.  I also note your rather dishonest, or blinkered, assertion about the UDR’s role as an unruly sectarian band of brothers.

Christy Walsh




Cllr. Sammy Brush (profile)                        7 April 2011 at 12:19 pm

Mr. Christy Walsh,

I have never threatened anyone. But I will not tolerate libellous comments being made against me,

The UDR were brave men who upheld the position of the Protestant community within this Protestant country of ours. If Catholics were ever hurt or injured by actions of the UDR then they brought it on themselves and it was entirely justified.

Thank you




Christy Walsh (profile)                    7 April 2011 at 12:33 pm



Dear Mr Brush

Thank you for clarifying your remark toward me.

I would support your defence against any libellous comments made against you as a matter of proper order.

I find your reference to “this Protestant country of ours.” to be somewhat worrisome given your strongly held anti Catholic sentiment.

I also note that you now concede that Catholics may have been “hurt or injured by actions of the UDR”. I would query your lack of knowledge about that especially as you then go one to defend all or any wrong done by the UDR as the fault of pesky Catholics having “brought it on themselves and it was entirely justified.”

As disturbing as I find your remarks I must again commend you for your honesty –it is all too often lacking in Northern Ireland.

Christy Walsh




Christy Walsh (profile)                    7 April 2011 at 1:06 pm



Dear Mr Brush

Further to my last response I must raise another matter that has been niggling at me, I hope that you do not mind?


Given that your remarks are directed toward Catholics at large and not IRA specifically would you mind clarifying what “aggression” you used against Catholics?

You make your hostility toward Catholics quite clear, as follows;

“In that position I met aggression with aggression. We knew and still do that all Catholics were and are responsible for the IRA and so all are unreservedly deserving of the same treatment as any other murderer would be.”

We also know, and still do, that the UDR was an unashamedly sectarian force –in fact possibly one of the most unruly with Her Majesty’s Forces I believe?


Christy Walsh

30 comments :

larry hughes said...

Well I for one cannot claim to be happy that Sammy was alive and well enough to take part in the debate.

Mick Fealty said...

For clarification:

I'd never asked Christy for his identity, so his line about verification being a precondition for participation is untrue. He should be aware of that. We do bounce people out for personating, but that rarely happens since the burden of proof is far too onerous.

Steve R said...

Christy,

If that really was Brush and I believe you when you say it is, it reinforces the 'cut from the same cloth' as McGeough.

What an absolute arsehole Brush is.

BUT...both McGeough and Brush should have the right to say what they want, however vile it may be.

Christy Walsh said...

Mick

That you might not have personally verified who I am does not negate the verification process. My profile on your site could be verified -because no one could impersonate me unless they had the admin access codes to my own registered website. Anthony McIntyre might not have personally verified you but I just checked your profile and you are not an anonymous individual using Mick Fealty as a username, which can be done. It is with some certainty that I can say you are the real Mick Fealty just like I could with Sammy Brush.

In your emails to me you tried to excuse the comments by alleging that they were posted by someone else who was also known to you -I pointed out to you that that impersonation was an additional offense on top of comments that amounted to hate speech. How you offered to settle the matter was that you would lift whatever blacklisting sanctions that you imposed on me 'for baiting' Sammy Brush -like that was the solution about the anti Catholic hate speech used. Or, the open admission to having used 'aggression' against Catholics and that they deserved what they got from him or his colleagues in the UDR.

One last significant point. You attempted to convince me that it was not Sammy Brush who committed the offense because you knew the real identity of the person - if you knew the person who was committing the offense of impersonating Sammy Brush in order to commit another criminal offense of hate speech -then what excuse have you got for not reporting the matter to the police and identifying the culprit?


DaithiD said...

Christy, its pertinent because of McGeough, but worse gets said about Catholicism by our "own side", maybe this can be the basis for greater commonality in the North.

Peter said...

Brush and McGeough, proving again that there are no nutters quite like religious nutters.

Christy Walsh said...

DD

I don't care about criticism of Catholicism. The issue here is about subjecting people to ' UDR aggression' -whether to be roughed up at the road side,unlawfully detained/imprisoned or set up to be killed. Sammy Brush uses the term catholics though more accurately I think that he means Nationalists.

larry hughes said...

Peter

were all UDR-UVF members not the same animal?

DaithiD said...

Christy, understood. Its funny though, some of things i read would of made Paisley blush, maybe some think he was ahead of his time in Catholic bashing? I imagine him walking down the Falls with a tricolour in his fist,in another context, could be a cross-community gesture too.

Steve R said...

Larry,

I knew plenty of UDR who hated the UDA and UVF equally. Yes there were those who were members...a bit like that Royal Marine Maxwell from Larne? lol

Steve R said...

DaithiD,

The same occurred to me. I've met plenty of bigots from my own side but there is something a little 'off' in his words, and I don't mean the vile sectarian shite.

"As we all know, during the Troubles, the majority of Catholics supported the IRA and were either members of the IRA or were related to or had friends who were members.
On the other side only a very few Protestants were involved with terrorist groups. Most were good, god fearing, law abiding, loyal British citizens. Many went to great lengths to highlight and ensure that loyalty, including myself.
As a UDR man, I upheld the process of law, I secured the unity of Britain and I protected the majority of law abiding citizens from the onslaught of Catholic aggression.
In that position I met aggression with aggression. We knew and still do that all Catholics were and are responsible for the IRA and so all are unreservedly deserving of the same treatment as any other murderer would be.
And this is the reason why I was to be murdered, for upholding all that is true and good, for protecting the community and securing the union.
The alternative is that I did not deliver Mr McGeogh’s post on time, which given Catholic irrationality, I would not be surprised if that was the reasoning behind his actions. "

This part is almost a caricature piece from what one would think a rabid bigot would say. Odd to say the least.

Steve R said...

Just a thought, why doesn't somebody ask Brush if he really said those comments?

larry hughes said...

Steve R

I think the actual 'support' for the Provos after the initial pogroms/internment/bloody Sunday faded pretty quick. Adams and Co. got another groundswell of sympathy as opposed to anger and hate in the 1981 Hunger-strike era and cashed their chips in pronto for a new suit and a black taxi to Stormont. Casement Park probably a more apt' destination.

I'm sure there were indeed no shortage of people on the security gravy train for nothing but the gravy.

Peter said...

Steve
On second look you may be right. Did Brush really say those things? As a UDR man he would have served with many catholics as there were hundreds in the UDR and even more in the RUC. Very strange indeed.

larry hughes said...

Peter

RCs in both the UDR/RUC? Clever BASTARDS avoided the Provo scenic route to UK enrichment... SF will be livid they were so slow themselves. I think a 'gathering' of all those RC security personnel with McGuinness and QE2 handing out medals is well over-due.

Christy Walsh said...

Steve & Peter

I have contacted Sammy Brush by the same email address I used in 2011. It has not bounced back to me so I assume that he is still using it. I am also copying my email to him below.


Dear Mr Brush

You will recall our exchange on the Sluggerotool blogging site in April 2011. Afterwards in an email to me you did allege that someone else used your credentials. You claimed that the PSNI were investigating the matter. However, it is my understanding that the PSNI did not obtain the necessary digital forensic evidence from the site administrators. I am not aware of any PSNI investigation concluding that the allegedly known imposter had been involved, or, that you had been ruled you out.

I advised you that if it was an imposter then they would have defamed you in my eyes. In defamation cases one of the fundamental remedies to restore your reputation is for the imposter to publically admit what they have done to anyone taken in by them. Nothing has occurred since that time to dispel my belief that you made the offensive remarks to me after I had expressed my good wishes to you on having obtained justice for yourself.

The assertions made to me by you, or by Mick Fealty, about any alleged imposter defies logic given that he was allegedly known to you both but his identity is to be protected and he made no public apology or retraction of the offensive remarks, meanwhile, nothing ruled you out from having expressed what you did to me. That made no sense in 2011 and it makes even less sense in 2016.

I do not view your religious extremism as being any different from the extreme religious views expressed by Gerry McGeough. Your recent criticism of Mr McGeough and the meaning that can be interpreted from the wording he used reminded me of the stronger and more unambiguous wording that you used in our exchange. On that basis I had our exchange published on another website wherein those reading this blog would like to know what you have to say about it. I would like to know what the PSNI concluded in their report? I would also like to know why a supposedly innocent man would not want to be vindicated by the allegedly known imposter from publically exonerating them by retracting the comments?

I reproduced our exchange at the Pensive Quill website and the blog can be found here: http://thepensivequill.am/2016/08/udr-and-onslaught-of-catholic-aggression.html.

Yours sincerely

Christy Walsh

Christy Walsh said...

Peter

You confirm my point about how indiscriminate his extremism is. He could have served with a million Catholics if he hates them he hates them.

Steve R said...

Christy,

"
The assertions made to me by you, or by Mick Fealty, about any alleged imposter defies logic given that he was allegedly known to you both but his identity is to be protected and he made no public apology or retraction of the offensive remarks, meanwhile, nothing ruled you out from having expressed what you did to me. That made no sense in 2011 and it makes even less sense in 2016."

He simply may not have given a shit what was written on SoT or TPQ either. Can imagine the cops had more pressing matters to attend to as well?

jgr33n said...

Look when you boil it down the UDR were a discredited bunch of local vigilantes who harassed their RC neighbours and then claimed to be ordinary farmers or post men during the day - can't have it both ways not to mention there has been enough published about their collusion or indeed overlap with Loyalist paramilitaries - I personally know one woman whose father was in the UDR and she will tell you straight that he felt he was at war with his RC neighbours in a border town - there was no pretence at objectivity or impartiality, his job (in his mind)was to keep them in check regardless of whether they were players or just regular RC civilians

Christy Walsh said...

Steve

Ah, but Sammy Brush told me that he had made a report to the cops. I think he lied about that for self preservation. As I have said above one of the first remedies in the current type of defamation case is that the defaming imposter would be publicly identified and would have to make a public retraction to vindicate Sammy Brush's good name and reputation. If the imposter was known then that would have made the cops work even easier but we know that never happened so the indicators are that Sammy said what he said.

When someone defames you (in terms like this case) you have 1 year from when you become aware of it to defend your good name and reputation otherwise you are held to have made the remarks and no blame attaches to the imposter. Sammy Brush was an elected political representative so his good name and reputation should be of value to him that he would want to defend if he was not responsible. If someone claimed to be you and made damaging remarks that you would get the blame for would you see that as no big deal? Especially if you could face possible prosecution or other form of public sanction.

I think after making his unguarded remarks Sammy knew he could be in trouble and he figured his best option was to accuse someone else of making the remarks. Thing is, what we do know is that nobody was prepared to step up and take the rap for Sammy Brush by making a public apology to anyone offended by the remarks. If I recall correctly, around the same time Gregory Campbell had a kid prosecuted for directing hate speech toward him on facebook. So hate speech had real consequences.

If you recall how I came to refer to Sammy Brush in relation to Gerry McGeough that was why I asked AM to post my exchange with Sammy to show yourself and Peter how these 2 men are cut from the same cloth for their religious extremism but Gerry McGeough will get hung drawn and quartered as we have seen while a blind and tolerant eye is cast on Sammy Brushes similarly extreme religious views.

Steve R said...

Christy,

Surely the cops could tell you if Brush made a complaint then? Why is Mick under the impression that it WAS an impostor?

The text is vile,repugnant shit but it also doesn't have a feel of 'truth' to it in my opinion. It's just my feeling though I think Peter has the same hunch. .

" We knew and still do that all Catholics were and are responsible for the IRA and so all are unreservedly deserving of the same treatment as any other murderer would be."

This is a bit beyond what even the Loyalists I knew would have said or thought. One loyalist 'commander' I grew up with married a Catholic at the height of the war. The statement almost seems comical.

"The alternative is that I did not deliver Mr McGeogh’s post on time, which given Catholic irrationality, I would not be surprised if that was the reasoning behind his actions. "

Now that, is just downright absurd.




And this is the reason why I was to be murdered, for upholding all that is true and good, for protecting the community and securing the union.
The alternative is that I did not deliver Mr McGeogh’s post on time, which given Catholic irrationality, I would not be surprised if that was the reasoning behind his actions.

larry hughes said...

Steve R

ATAT

Christy Walsh said...

Steve

I don't have to ask the cops -if Sammy thought he had a reputation to defend then he would have strenuously defended it demanded a public apology vindicating him. Most reasonable public representative would put out their own public statement explaining what happened and that he does not share the sectarian views expressed and then apologized for any offense caused to his 'many' catholic friends and constituents. As primary witness I would have been asked to make a statement confirming that I believed it was Sammy Brush I was conversing with. The cops would have been asked Mick for access to his website.

We know that Mick has kept an eye on what has been written here. He wanted to clarify something that he felt he could clarify, namely, that he did not personally validate my identity. He is obviously not repeating his initial claim that he was prepared to jump to at the time. In fairness to Mick he has to try and handle outrageous comments and hate speech people make on his site.

Loyalists obviously watch what they say around you. Your claim is not remotely anything like reality of what we nationalists hear suffice to say all I refer to here is their targeting policy of -'Any Taig will do, yabba dabba do!" But what you have to say about loyalists you know makes Sammy's comments even worse that he was going lower than he they would go -and hypothetically if anyone let those sort of comment go and not demand the imposter make public retraction then that leaves us to conclude only one thing -the comments were not in consistent of Sammy's true views.

And if the comments are far removed from what any self respecting loyalist would make -then that implies that the alleged imposter was a nationalist trying to misrepresent Sammy Brush -that Sammy Brush would not crow from the highest point about something like that -now that's absurd.

I have had 2 ping backs from my email to Sammy confirming that his email address is still active and he has not yet read my email to him.

Steve R said...

Christy,

I'm not disagreeing with you or defending Brush, I wasn't even aware who Brush was until last week.

"And if the comments are far removed from what any self respecting loyalist would make -then that implies that the alleged imposter was a nationalist trying to misrepresent Sammy Brush -that Sammy Brush would not crow from the highest point about something like that -now that's absurd."

That's a fair point. Will be interesting to see what he responds with when he reads them.

Steve R said...

Larry,

What does 'ATAT' mean?

I must be too aul.

larry hughes said...

Steve R
ATAT = All Taigs Are Targets
it was on walls in some loyalist areas during the early 90s. Seems to be the thinking of Sammy Brush if the comments on here were indeed his.

Steve R said...

Larry,

Didn't they use initials because they couldn't spell?

And there was me thinking it was a Star Wars joke!

Christy Walsh said...

Steve

Ken Maginnis was a major in the UDR freedom fighters at the same time Sammy was in it. We know that Maginnis was a fan of collusion because he coined the term "One man's collusionist is another man's freedom fighter." So it is not hard to see how rank an file members like Sammy might form the views they have if their senior officers encouraged it.

Again -unionists who are so touchy about what a republican or nationalist might say are not shy of making their own extreme views known as Sammy expressed to me or Maginnis made justifying murder by collusion -and not come under the same sort of public outcry as Gerry McGeough's recent remarks invoked.

Steve R said...

Christy,

Maybe this whole business is a spotlight for it then? If he said it he should be pulled on it.

Any word back yet?

larry hughes said...

Steve R

I know a few loyalists in the H-Blocks were doing A level English on the mixed wings. But unfortunately for their organisations they were already in jail with no access to gable walls or paint brushes. Those still outside just stuck wiff Capital Letters and their handlers advice wee lawd, just tae be safe and covered from all angles... Like the SF miss-leadership.