22/05/202322/05/2023 by Ozzie

Election ’23 Analysis; The Myth of Perpetual Success

Irish nationalists love a good myth. Their entire ideology is built upon myths. The myth of discrimination and persecution. The myth that the ‘gael’ is somehow indigenous to the British Isles. The myth of widespread and institutionalised ‘collusion’ between the state and Loyalist armed groups.

Now we can add another myth to the list; the myth of perpetual and unending electoral success for Provisional Sinn Fein.

Let’s get one thing straight before we go any further – the Northern Ireland local government elections were not hugely successful for Unionists.

That’s a fact. They were not however, the unmitigated, earth shattering, end-of-days disaster that the media would like to pretend they were.

Firstly, the DUP held firm and the TUV did very well. The TUV, in fact, saw their vote rise by 1.7%, which was similar to the rise in the Alliance Party’s vote.

Secondly, conditions going into this election could not have been any better for Provisional Sinn Fein. They had the backing of the United States president, the media, the self appointed ‘commentators’ of social media etc. They also had a clear goal for their electorate, as they had in the last Assembly elections – “make Sinn Fein the largest party”.

It was simple and straightforward and nationalist voters rose to the challenge whilst many, many Unionists continued to sit at home and not bother to vote. Halcyon days for Sinn Fein!

Sinn Fein rainbows and unicorns forever more?

I posed a question yesterday on social media that apparently baffled quite a few Irish nationalists. The question was simple – “can Sinn Fein maintain this kind of electoral success?”.

I was repeatedly asked why I thought they couldn’t, as if I were merely wishing and hoping that Sinn Fein would slip up at some point, and I repeatedly pointed out that no political party in the history of the British Isles has ever had unending, uninterrupted, perpetual success. In fact, no party in any democracy on earth has ever enjoyed never ending success.

This was apparently lost on a few people. One Irish nationalist even told me, quote “Sinn Fein can’t lose seats”. Another seemed to imply that the Shinners and the SDLP would win every seat at the next Assembly elections. Yes folks, that is the level of delusion we are dealing with here!

The recent success of Sinn Fein is driven by a number of factors, all of them very ordinary and with historical precedent.

Sinn Fein set the nationalist electorate a very clear and obtainable objective.
Sinn Fein managed their vote exceedingly well, as they do at every election (credit where credit is due).
Apathy amongst Unionists has kept turnout very low in traditionally Unionist/Loyalist areas.
Demoralisation amongst Unionists and Loyalists has kept turnout in traditionally Unionist areas very low.
Sinn Fein once again campaigned on a positive – “make us the biggest party at council level just like you made us the biggest party at Assembly level”.
That challenge (to make SF the largest party) ensured a high turnout in traditionally nationalist/republican areas.
The media amplified the Sinn Fein message and made predictions about the outcome of the election which energised nationalist voters and further disengaged pro-union voters.
Sinn Fein had a lot of good fortune, taking a number of seats by a very small number of votes.
Sinn Fein had all the political momentum going into to this election.

But let’s put things into perspective; this was not a huge win for Irish nationalism. Far from it. The nationalist vote did not rise. It remains stuck at around 40%, or to put it another way – about 300,000 votes (all nationalist parties combined obtained 300,565 votes at the local government elections).

The SDLP took a huge hit, Aontu were wiped out, People Before Profit went from 5 seats to just 2 and the IRSP/INLA mustered only 825 votes. So, where is this “unprecedented victory” for Irish nationalism I keep hearing about?

As Eilis O’Hanlon pointed out on social media;

Sinn Fein did well in the locals. Fair play to them. But it’s so tiresome having to constantly point out that taking a bigger slice of the nationalist pie doesn’t actually make the pie any bigger….
Eilis O’Hanlon

I think it also worth pointing out that support for the Union is not reflected in support for Unionist political parties.

Of course, why would it be? For many people the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is not even an issue. Why would those people go out and vote for Unionist parties which have continually failed to address important bread and butter issues such as the cost of living, the dire state of the NHS, mass immigration, unemployment etc?

Turnout and Electoral Hocus-Pocus

Then there is the small matter of voter turnout. In nationalist areas turnout averaged about 60-65%, in non-nationalist areas turnout was around 40-45%. So, well done Sinn Fein on getting your voters to the polls but wasn’t nationalist turnout always going to be relatively high, given that SF were dangling the “we’re biggest” carrot in front of the nationalist electorate?

We must also mention the rather obtrusive elephant in the room – gerrymandering. The number of councils in Northern Ireland was reduced from 26 to just 11 on the pretext that it would save ratepayers money. It hasn’t. That was never the real objective. The real objective was to make it easier for the DUP and Sinn Fein to dominate local politics and squeeze out the smaller parties.

It was also done to satiate the Westminster fetish for centralisation and the civil services obsession with treating the whole of Northern Ireland as if it were an English county but that’s beside the point.

The number of Assembly seats was also cut, from 108 to just 90, for similar reasons. That little bit of slight-of-hand cost Unionists 16 seats in the Assembly, something that, shamefully, I didn’t even know until it was pointed out to me by someone on twitter.

*Sean McGlinchey, Sinn Fein councillor and convicted murderer of 6 pensioners, posing beside a mural of former England goalkeeper Peter Shilton* *for some reason.*

So, to get back to the point, can Provisional Sinn Fein maintain this kind of (relative) electoral success? No, they cannot.

They might be able to energise their supporters at the next Assembly elections with a message of “keep us the biggest party” but how long before the novelty of SF being the largest party at Assembly level wears off? Two elections? Three?

They might be able to repeat the trick at the next local council elections but I doubt it. Not to labour the point but Sinn Fein did get very lucky in quite a few places, and if the turnout among Unionist voters rises by even a few percentage points at the next council elections Sinn Fein is going to lose at least 10-12 of those very marginal seats.

Westminster or Bust?

Then there is the small matter of the next general election. Many nationalist voters, being easily confused by the constant stream of Provisional Sinn Fein propaganda and spin, will automatically assume that SF can become the biggest party in Northern Ireland at Westminster level too, but is such an outcome possible?

Well, in a word, no. Sinn Fein have no chance. They will hold North Belfast, unless by some miracle Unionist turnout increases there by 30-40%, or unless the SDLP field a candidate and that candidate is capable of taking a couple of thousand votes off John Finucane. They will also hold West Belfast, Mid Ulster, Newry and Armagh, West Tyrone and South Down. They may or may not regain their seat in Foyle, the people of Derry being notoriously fickle when it comes to elections, but it appears unlikely, and they might just about be able to hold onto Fermanagh and South Tyrone but they only won that seat last time by 57 votes.

Can they win other seats? It’s possible but it appears very unlikely. Can they find the 13,000 or so votes they would need to take East Antrim from the DUP? Can they find another 9,500 votes in order to win East Londonderry? Or 18,000 to win in Lagan Valley? 15,000+ to take North Antrim?

“*Did you really just say Sinn Fein could nick my seat?”*

Maybe they could ditch their electoral pact with the SDLP in Belfast and try to take South Belfast? Although in 2017, the SDLP and Sinn Fein could only muster 18,500 votes between them so they’d need to absolutely trash the SDLP in order to win the seat. Then there is the small matter of the SDLP pulling out in North Belfast to allow John Finucane a clear run. If Sinn Fein contest South Belfast at the next Westminster election then surely the SDLP will run in North Belfast? That might, just might, cost Sinn Fein their seat there.

So does the Sinn Fein bubble burst in the wake of the next UK general election? Quite possibly. Right now they have something that all political parties crave – momentum. They are successful because they are successful, or rather they are successful because they are perceived as being successful. It is something of a snowball effect.

The “nu labour” movement of the 1990s had serious momentum. Thatcher’s conservatives had it in the mid 80s. The DUP had it when they overtook the Ulster Unionist Party. The vile SNP had it until very recently. Sinn Fein has it now. But momentum, like everything else in this world, is temporary – not permanent.

*Tony Blair. Unfortunately not at The Hague. Yet.*

Any dent in the Sinn Fein armour, any perceived failure, any loss of forward momentum will cost them votes. That’s not to say they won’t continue being the largest nationalist party, they probably will unless someone comes along who can lead the SDLP out of the political bone-yard.

What they will not do is carry all before them. Despite all the screeching about “muh demographics”. People are not born Sinn Fein supporters, or DUP supporters. Babies are not born Unionist or nationalist, Loyalist or republican.

Unending, perpetual electoral success is simply not possible. A loss of momentum, a bad leadership decision, a scandal or two, a few necessary but unpopular decisions in government, that is all that separates the successful, upward moving political party from the failing, unpopular political party.

Left; SDLP leader and part time pall bearer C. Eastwood. Right; Hollywood legend and pretend cowboy C. Eastwood. See what I did there?

Anyone, or any party, that tells you otherwise is lying, or to put it another way, they are selling you a myth.

Oh, and if Michelle O’Neill gers her wish to become First Minister, she and her party colleagues will have to make unpopular decisions. Decisions which are unpopular with everyone and decisions which are merely unpopular amongst Sinn Fein’s core support.

Both Unionists and nationalists will have to get used to a new political reality – one in which Sinn Fein is sometimes the largest party at local government and/or Assembly level and sometimes the DUP is the largest party. Sometimes Alliance will do well, sometimes they won’t. Sometimes the SDLP and UUP will look to be on the verge of extinction, sometimes they’ll do well.

That is the new political reality here and it’s not necessarily a bad thing. No party can afford to take their voters for granted anymore. No party can afford to ignore potential voters, whoever they might be. The electorate in Northern Ireland now have more power than ever before.

Where do we go from here?

That is not an easy prediction to make. Unionism, as a whole, will do something. There have been too many disgruntled noises from too many senior people for the issue of Unionist division to go unaddressed. What the Unionist parties will do, however, remains unclear.

I do not think we will see the formation of one, united and homogeneous Unionist Party. The UUP are the party of Carson and Craig. A party well over 100 years old. They will not disappear into some kind of ‘DUP+’. Even if the Ulster Unionist Party was to reduced to the point where they hadn’t a single elected representative, the party would still exist in some shape or form. I think the same goes for the PUP.

*Cllr. Russell Watton of the Progressive Unionist Party*

The TUV merging with the DUP is also off the table. People seem to forget that, although very similar in many ways, the TUV differs from the DUP on one very fundamental issue – power sharing.

Whilst the DUP are willing to share power with Provisional Sinn Fein under the right circumstances, ie the Protocol being replaced with something more palatable to Unionists and the business community, the TUV are quite clear that are not willing to share power with Sinn Fein under any circumstances.

Therefore, no merger between the DUP and TUV is likely. If such a merger were even ideologically possible at all.

So, what should the Unionist parties do next? Well, if it was up to me, if I could wave a magic wand and be in a position to dictate policy to the DUP, TUV, PUP and Ulster Unionist Party I would be thinking long term!

PIRA/Sinn Fein thinks in terms of decades and generations while other parties think in terms of years and election cycles, that is something Unionists need to change. Not only can the pro-union parties start to change their thinking, concentrating more on mid to long term goals, but they can also make the Shinners start to think a bit more short term.

*Hard to believe I know but Sinn Fein have some quite intelligent people in their ranks. They also have Big John O’Dowd.*

How? By coming at them from left field. By doing the opposite of what they expect.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Sinn Fein strategists have, long ago, envisioned a ‘Unionist unity’ campaign and what that would look like, but have they imagined a scenario where, in marginal but winnable seats, the Unionist parties stand aside and allow a pro-union but not necessarily Unionist independent candidate to run unopposed? Not a ‘Unionist unity’ candidate. Not a former member of the DUP or UUP but a (reasonably) high profile individual who could win votes from people who usually vote DUP, UUP, TUV or even Alliance or SDLP.

Such individuals could stand in the next Westminster elections in Fermanagh/South Tyrone or in South Belfast and have a reasonable chance of winning. It’s by no means guaranteed, nothing is in politics, but it is certainly feasible.

Mind the Traps!

That’s exactly why I would do. As for North Belfast, I would leave it to the parties to decide, although I think any kind of Unionist electoral pact there would be counter productive and merely cause the nationalist electorate to rally around the sitting MP, turn out in substantial numbers and ensure Sinn Fein retain the seat, which they could then spin as a great victory for Sinn Fein over Unionism.

Better that the two main Unionist parties both stand, putting pressure on the SDLP to also field a candidate. In those circumstances I believe that SF would still probably retain the seat but they would not be handed yet another propaganda victory.

Better to keep the electoral pacts for the next Assembly elections. In every other constituency at the next Westminster elections I wouldn’t change anything. If the DUP and UUP both want to contest a seat – go for it. If the TUV want to waste their time, energy and money on an election campaign that is almost certainly going to be fruitless for them – go for it.

Unionists will still retain 8 seats and will almost certainly make it 9 with the hapless Stephen Farry facing a gargantuan struggle to keep his seat in North Down.

*Alliance’s Stephen Farry, the Mr Bean of Northern Ireland politics.*

Any campaign, regardless of whether it is for Westminster, Stormont or local councils, also needs to be positive. Unionism cannot afford to go into another election so badly on the back foot. Voter apathy cannot be tackled by dour, backs-to-the-wall, negative campaigning.

The electorate feeds on positivity. Give it to them. Campaign on what your party stands for, not what your party stands against.

At the next UK general election that will be easier than in an Assembly or local government election. Make your campaign a positive and upbeat one. Display an air of confidence. Go into places you normally don’t go. Speak to people, even if you think those people won’t vote for you!

Tell the electorate what you will do for them. Not what you will do to keep Sinn Fein or Alliance out, what you will do for them, the people you want to vote for you.

Keep it Simple, Keep it Positive

Keep the message simple and straightforward. At the next general election, maybe something like – “for real representation, vote _ _ _”. Or, “keep NI moving forward”. You get the general idea.

No one is buying “never, never, never” anymore. No one is voting for “keep Sinn Fein out” anymore. That ship has sailed.

The DUP have done reasonably well at #LE23, but they need to keep driving forward. The UUP needs new leadership, Doug Beattie is a nice guy but his attempts to “out yellow” Alliance have been a disaster. The TUV have gained seats but are still only a very small party. The PUP have lost seats, but they are still an important part of the wider Unionist family.

Perhaps the best course of action would be for all those parties to contest elections at different levels? Everyone contesting council elections, just the DUP and UUP contesting Assembly elections and the DUP alone contesting Westminster elections?

I’m joking of course, although it would be interesting to see what sort of results such an arrangement would produce.

For now we must take the positives out of this election and move on.

The Silver Lining

The media driven “Alliance surge” seems to have petered out, the DUP did fantastically well in the South Down area, the IRSP embarrassed themselves (again), and Russell Watton was re-elected in Coleraine.

*The IRSP. Who are definitely* ***not*** *connected to the INLA in any way. Nope. Honest.*

The DUP have the same number of seats they started with, the media are no longer even trying to hide their pro-nationalist bias, PBP look like a party that’s hit rock bottom and will come back swinging (thus taking votes from Provisional SF), the SDLP can only improve and a border poll is just as unlikely now as it was before the election.

Unionism will have better elections, Sinn Fein will have much, much worse elections, but please, don’t tell their voters that – they prefer to live in the land of myths, rainbows and weird looking horses!

Þole Aȝe Umquhile Poustie

17/08/202218/09/2022 by Ozzie

The Disneyfication of Irish Republican Terrorism

At ‘Feile an Phoibal’ (the West Belfast republican festival) over the weekend the long suffering people of Northern Ireland were subjected to some of the most vile glorification of terrorism ever witnessed in our post GFA society.

The entire ‘festival’ became a tacky, tasteless and vulgar display of support for Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein.

Hamas/PLO style headbands were on sale. Grown men ran around in gawdy PIRA t-shirts, complete with the gaelic words “tiochfaidh ár la” in the shape of an assault rifle.

Perhaps worst of all was the mass, cult like chanting of the banal phrase “oh ah up the Ra”.

What does “up the Ra” mean? Is it a reference to an obscure rock band? Is it a chant in support of a football club with a bizarre nickname? Is it referring to the Egyptian sun god?

No. Believe it or not it is a chant sung in support of the most murderous, psychopathic and ruthless terrorist organisation that Europe has ever seen.

Of course, if you live in Ulster you already knew that. “Up the Ra” is an expression of support for the ‘IRA’, more specifically (since there have been more than a dozen different terror gangs of that name) the Provisional IRA.

How does an organisation which slaughtered hundreds of innocent people end up being referred to as “the Ra”?

*The Ra did that. To one of their own community.*

How does a group of murdering criminals, a group, which carried out stomach churning atrocities such as the Claudy bombing, Bloody Friday and the La Mon Hotel attack, come to be known by a childish, stupid nickname like “the Ra”?

One word. Disneyfication.

The Land of Make Believe

In the land of Irish nationalist make believe, members of “the Ra” were smiling, gentle, progressive socialists with large families and a love of small furry animals. Fun loving scamps who were forced to fight a war against the evil, imperialist Brits and their ‘planter colonist’ lackeys because until the Good Friday Agreement, Catholics in Northern Ireland were forbidden from voting, having jobs, attending university, speaking gaelic or playing hurley.

These warrior poets, who in their spare time helped old ladies across the street and rescued cats stuck in trees, waged a heroic guerilla campaign against the full might of the British Empire, armed only with a few assault rifles, home made mortars and a cheery sense of patriotism.

*Thomas McElwee, “the Ra” man. His only crime was a sectarian fire-bomb attack in which a young mother was killed.*

Can you detect a hint of sarcasm here? Well, I am being sarcastic and I am exaggerating, a little, but in essence this is what many Irish nationalist extremists actually believe.

As part of this Disneyfication, this child-like vision of the past, the term “Provisional IRA” seems out of place. Even the historically inaccurate and legitimising term “IRA” seems just a bit too serious, too grown up. Hence why nationalists/republicans have reduced the Provisional Irish Republican Army to “the Ra”.

You see “the Ra” sounds a bit more fun, a bit less serious. It trivialises the crimes of the Provo murder gangs, it minimises them. Would a smiling, cuddly group of “the Ra” members chain a Catholic man to the steering wheel of a van packed with explosives and force that innocent man to drive that payload of death and destruction to it’s destination under the threat that if he didn’t, they would murder his wife and children?

*Patsy Gillespie, an ordinary family man, turned into a human bomb by “the Ra”.*

Would the warrior poets of “the Ra” abduct, torture, murder and then secretly bury a widowed mother of ten young children?

What I’m getting at here is that the invention of the term “the Ra” and it’s subsequent widespread adoption by Irish nationalists is deliberate. It is part of the Disneyfication of violent republicanism. It is a calculated insult to the victims of the sectarian PIRA and it is a way to ‘soften’ and to romanticise a blood soaked terrorist organisation.

Mind Your Language

Of course, Irish nationalists will scream and wail that some people in the Unionist/Loyalist community use the term too. That is correct but it is merely a very small, unthinking minority who (occasionally) copy the terminology of radicalised Irish republicans.

*Sandra Morris, burnt to death by “the Ra” at La Mon. Her husband Joseph survived despite horrific injuries.*

It is also something which Loyalist activists, ourselves included, are educating people in our community about.

It is bad enough that some Loyalists and Unionists refer to the Provo murder gangs as “the IRA”, as if that organisation was the same as the original, almost equally as blood thirsty, IRA that fought during the Irish War of Independence. As if no splinter group, no breakaway faction had ever emerged from the foul ranks of Irish nationalist terrorism.

Bad enough that some people legitimise the Provisionals by erroneously referring to them as “the IRA”, thus giving PIRA/Sinn Fein sole ownership of a title that has been (and still is) claimed by a myriad of different Irish nationalist death squads, many of whom gleefully engaged in murderous feuds with each other at one time or another.

*Little Eileen Kelly, aged just 6, killed in a feud between Provisional “the Ra” and Official “the Ra”.*

Let me be perfectly clear; the Provisional IRA should never be referred to as “the IRA”. The Official IRA should never be referred to as “the IRA”. The Real IRA should never be referred to as “the IRA”. The New IRA should never be referred to as “the IRA”. The Continuity IRA…….you get the picture.

Every single one of these criminal gangs is, in some way, a splinter group, a breakaway faction. Some times they are a breakaway faction of a breakaway faction. Calling them “the IRA” aggrandises them. It implies that “the IRA”, and by extension, Irish republicanism, is a united, monolithic entity, rather than the deeply divided, often antagonistic, sordid collection of murder gangs that it is in reality.

The infantile word games of Irish nationalism should be avoided by Loyalists at all costs.

*A young Catholic woman tarred and feathered by Provisional “the Ra”. Her ‘crime’? She was engaged to a soldier.*

We must be careful and considered with our language and our choice of words. Just as no Loyalist would ever refer to Northern Ireland as “da norf”, in the way that Irish nationalists do, we should also never legitimise their absurd Disneyfication of history by repeating their moronic slang and saying “the Ra”.

The Psychology of Terror

It is pertinent to note that this kind of linguistic infantilism occurs within other organised crime groups too. The Mafia, or Cosa Nostra, often refer to themselves as “the outfit”, or “the firm”, or even “the family”. Of course, the American media does not legitimise the Mafia by borrowing these euphemisms.

The Aryan Brotherhood, an American neo-Nazi prison gang (which uses explicitly Irish nationalist imagery) refers to itself as “the brotherhood”, or “the Shamrock”, or just “the rock”.

Some up and coming young psychologist should study this phenomenon. Is their an innate need for the members and supporters of these groups to soften, or to minimise, the sinister image of said groups by giving them less threatening ‘pet names’? If so, is this need a conscious or sub-conscious one?

Is there perhaps, some natural, sub-conscious aversion to the crimes of these vile criminal gangs that the human mind seeks to counter by attaching a less obvious, less loaded name to the organisation that they support? Just as Far-Right groups tend to avoid the labels of “national-socialist’ or ‘fascist’.

I have long argued that Irish nationalism should be studied from a psychological perspective. It is, and always has been, an extreme ideology, it’s adherents clearly and unequivocally radicalised.

*Irish republican herd mentality at it’s bloody and horrific* *worst.*

Part of that radicalisation is ‘group think’, wherein nationalists/republicans are induced to think along party lines from a very young age. Going against the thinking or behaviour of “the community” is actively discouraged. Another way to describe this phenomenon would be a herd mentality.

Obviously young nationalist extremists are comfortable chanting “up the Ra” as part of a large, drink and drug fuelled mob, but would they, for example, be comfortable to stand alone, or in a very small group, and chant “up the Claudy bombers” or “up the nutting squad”?

Would they spit in the face of PIRA/Sinn Fein victims literally rather than just figuratively?

Would they stand in front of a group of RUC widows and screech “up the Ra”?

*John Proctor, a young RUC officer murdered by “the Ra” while visiting his wife and newborn son in hospital.*

I don’t think they’d have the guts. I think that many of these indoctrinated youngsters are so utterly brainwashed that they barely even think when they are singing about the Provisional IRA or running around in green, white and gold headbands emblazoned with “up the Ra”.

But take them out of their sectarian bubble, take them away from the mentality of the baying mob, take them out of their intellectual ghetto (if that is possible) and I think you will find that they are a lot more reticent about their glorification of Provo baby killers.

Culture Wars

Thankfully, the Feile an Phoibal hate-fest is coming under extreme scrutiny and those who justify the abhorrent chants and sectarian singing are becoming ever more marginalised. This has not happened by accident.

For years, Irish nationalists/republicans have waged a culture war against the Loyalist and Unionist people. We have watched on while they have attacked every facet of our culture and traditions. We have studied their tactics, their propaganda.

*The Omagh bombing. Carried out by maniacs who also claim the title of “the Ra”.*

If it were not for their own Nazi-esque supremacist attitudes towards Loyalists they would have seen this coming. They did not. Loyalists were too stupid to wage a culture war of their own they said. Loyalists are mere subhumans they said. Loyalists just aren’t capable of copying Irish nationalist tactics they said. They were wrong, as always.

Sinn Fein revisionism and the Disneyfication of the Provisional IRA is now opposed like never before. Ordinary nationalists are being exposed to the real historical truth like never before and now the cultural counter-attack is entering a new phase.

*Would the drunken & drugged up louts who attended Feile be comfortable singing “oh ah up the baby killers”?*

The Loyalist community will never again tolerate the casual glorification and normalisation of Irish nationalist terrorism at publicly funded events. We will never again tolerate the squalid, repulsive and infantile Disneyfication of Provo murder gangs.

Sing “oh ah up the Ra” in your pubs, your GAA clubhouses and your shebeens. Sing all you want but we, Loyalists, are going to make damn sure that your sectarian sing-alongs never again receive a penny of public funding.

Consciously or sub-consciously sanitise and soften your sadistic, psychotic Provo heroes by calling them “the Ra”, but know this – we won’t indulge your fantasies. We will never let you forget what “the Ra” did to men, women, children and even babies. We will never accept your behaviour as normal. We will never allow radicalised extremists to dictate what is, or is not, culturally acceptable.

Þole Aȝe Umquhile Poustie

10/06/202210/06/2022 by Ozzie

The Red Handers; Ulster United FC

Canada, Heritage, Loyal Orders, NORTHERN IRELAND, Ullans, Ulster History, Ulster-Scots
Canada, Culture, Diaspora, History, Loyal Orders, Ullans, Ulster, Ulster-Scots

In the Beginning….

On Tuesday, the 18th of November, 1913, an announcement appeared in the pages of the Toronto Evening Telegraph, it read;

“A grand rally of Ulster men is to take place on Friday evening next in Occident Hall for the purpose of forming a football club.”

Ulster United was founded from that historic meeting. The club would go on to be one of Canada’s most successful football clubs.

They would win countless titles and cups in the first half of the 20th century; the Dominion Trophy in 1922, 1946, and 1951 and the Ontario Cup three times, in 1927, 1929, and 1937.

Glory Days

In 1926, “Ulster”, along with Montreal Carsteel, were instrumental in forming the National Soccer League, the first professional league of any significance in Canada. They went on to be crowned league champions 5 times, winning the title the very first season of the league’s formation (1926) and again in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1941.

In 1926 they won the Nathan Strauss Cup as winners of the International League, an experimental league set up between Canadian and American teams, defeating three full-time professional US clubs – New Bedford Whalers, Brooklyn Wanderers and Boston Wonder Workers, plus three Canadian teams, Montreal Carsteel, Montreal Scottish and Toronto City on their way to cup glory.

When Canada played against the United States in 1925 and 1926, no fewer than seven Ulster United players played for Canada in the three games. They were Fred Dierden, Roy Faulkner, Jimmy Galloway, Fred Williams, Jimmy Moir, Bill Dinnie and George Graham.

Arguably though, it was in 1925 that the club really made it’s mark in North America.

That was the year in which Ulster United would buy a small piece of land in East Toronto. That modest bit of undeveloped land would eventally become ‘Ulster Stadium’, one of the most beautiful sporting stadia in all of North America.

“The Red Handers” (as Ulster United had come to be nicknamed) went from strength to strength, drawing ever larger crowds to their newly built stadium, so much so that they soon had to expand the ground.

As the 12th of February, 1927, edition of the Toronto Evening Telegram recounts: “Owing to the increasing popularity……seating accommodation had to be materially added to, and the directors decided to erect a covered stand on the west side of the grounds.”

This addition brought Ulster Stadium up to a capacity of more than 12,000.

Driving along Gerrard Street in Toronto today, past Pape and towards Coxwell unto Greenwood Avenue there is nothing to tell you that this was once the site of one of the finest soccer stadiums in North America.

There is no sign or plaque to tell you that this is the site where the mighty Ulster Stadium once stood.

“Orange Toronto”

It is no surprise that Toronto would see the creation of a football club with a name like Ulster United, the city being the home of much of Canada’s Ulster-Scots diaspora.

The city’s annual Twelfth of July parade was (and still is) the high point of the year for many people. With thousands either taking part or spectating.

Ulster Stadium played host to a number of annual marching band contests featuring both flute bands and pipe bands, in addition to other events like motor sports, public meetings, concerts and sports such as lacrosse, rugby and baseball.

*Flute band competition, Ulster Stadium, 1927.*

The great stadium, built upon the site of a former brickyard, was a focal point for the local community, whether they were Ulster-Scots or not, as well as for expatriate Ulster folk in Toronto as a whole.

Rangers Come to Town

Ulster United played against many famous European and South American teams. Sparta Prague, Liverpool, Manchester United, Kilmarnock, Audax Italiano (Chile), and Fortuna Dusseldorf to name but a few.

But perhaps the most famous game of all was played against Rangers in 1930. In May of that year Rangers Football Club traveled to North America for an extensive fourteen-game tour.

The famous Scottish club arrived in Toronto on the 20th and on the same night a banquet was arranged by former Rangers players that were now living in Canada.

Rangers had won both the League and the Scottish Cup in the 1929-30 season. They would provide “the Red Handers” with their most difficult opposition yet.

A notable member of the Rangers touring party was Robert “Whitey” McDonald. Whitey had grown up in Hamilton, Ontario, and played for Hamilton Thistle. He moved on to Ulster United and then to Bethlehem Steel FC before Rangers spotted him on their pioneering 1928 North American tour and signed him up.

On the night of Wednesday, the 21st of May, 1930, the match was played at the imposing Ulster Stadium, Rangers first match of the tour. More than nine thousand excited fans were in attendance.

The match kicked off with Rangers showing their usual polished style, but the Ulster United forward line kept giving the Scottish double-winners defence plenty of work.

Rangers scored the opening goal of the game when Ulster United goalkeeper Kirk was judged to have handled the ball outside his penalty area and Rangers were awarded a free kick. The ball was floated into the box and George Brown scored with a powerful header.

Just one minute later Ulster United equalized, when former Northern Ireland international forward Allan Mathieson scored. The teams withdrew at half-time with the score level at 1-1.

At the beginning of the second half, Ulster fullback Dave Eadie handled the ball in the penalty area. The referee pointed to the spot. Alan Morton stepped up to take the penalty, calmly converting despite the best efforts of Ulster goalkeeper Kirk, who nearly saved it.

*“Glasgow Rangers who are world-wide known as the most outstanding football team playing this game”*

The Red Handers were not beaten yet though. A few minutes later the teams were level again, Ulster United equalizing thanks to a “hard shot” from forward George Graham.

Then Jimmy Moir, playing his first game of the season, scored from a long pass from Graham. Incredibly, with just seven minutes left of the game, Ulster United were winning 3-2 and were pressing in search of a killer fourth goal.

With just 5 minutes left Rangers equalized. The unfortunate Eadie this time putting the ball into his own net after some good pressing from the Rangers forward line.

Jimmy Fleming scored Rangers’s fourth goal with practically the last kick of the ball, giving the Scottish giants a dramatic 4-3 victory in what was, by all accounts, a thrilling and evenly matched game of football.

Decline

The Great Depression had a terrible impact on soccer, and most other spectator sports, in North America. Attendances dropped, players were expected to play for lower wages, stadia were not maintained and, overall, standards declined.

By the time the Depression ended, attendances at football matches in Canada were down significantly. Then came the Second World War, another hammer blow to football in Canada and to it’s leading clubs, among them Ulster United.

After the war the popularity of football began to decline. The National Soccer League was beset by problems and many clubs folded during the 1950s and 60s.

Sadly, Ulster United was one of them. By 1960 two different (and competing) groups claimed ownership of the club. Ulster remained in the National Soccer League until 1961, but finished last out of just seven teams, a sure sign of the general decline of Canadian football as a whole.

By the mid 1960s the club had slipped into obscurity, so much so that nobody is even completely sure when Ulster United finally disbanded. What is known for sure is that the club was defunct by the beginning of the 1970s.

*Ulster Prime-Minister Sir James Craig visits the Ulster Stadium.*

Unfortunately, just like the team, the Ulster Stadium no longer exists. The only reminder that stands today is a bar, called the ‘Ulster Arms Tavern’, that sits just across the road from where Ulster United’s ground once stood, on the former site of the ‘Ulster Arms Hotel’ which closed some time in the 1950s.

If teams like Ulster United had survived, along with the other great teams of those halcyon days before World War Two, Canadian soccer would be in significantly better shape than it is today.

Ulster United deserves to be remembered, not just by the people of Ulster but by the wider Ulster-Scots diaspora, especially in Canada and especially in Toronto, former home of the now legendary Red Handers.

Maybe one day (a reformed) Ulster United FC will once again play in front of thousands of loyal fans.

08/06/202208/06/2022 by Ozzie

Hate Begets Hate; The Vicious Circle of Sectarianism

Let us begin this blog post by reiterating our condemnation of the recent video which emerged of a number people, who would probably describe themselves as Unionists or Loyalists, singing a vile and hateful song about Michaela McAreavey, who was murdered whilst on honeymoon in Mauritius in 2011.

Those people do not represent anybody but themselves. Songs like the one they sang about Mrs McAreavey are sick and disgusting. There can be no justification for such sectarian behaviour, no “ifs or buts”. It was wrong. It was deeply offensive. It was spiteful. It was sick. Full stop.

Unfortunately, some of the reaction to it has been every bit as hateful, bigoted and sectarian. People have reacted to a hateful incident by being just as hateful themselves. It has become a vicious circle of sectarianism. A closed loop of hate, bigotry, anger, outrage, offence and distrust, leading to yet more hate, bigotry, anger, outrage, offence and distrust.

Make no mistake about it – if we truly want Northern Ireland to work, if we genuinely want our wee country to have normality and stability, then that vicious circle of sectarianism and hatred must be broken.

We cannot break that circle by reacting to hate and sectarianism with even more hate and sectarianism.

Houses of Glass

Irish nationalists went into meltdown over the “McAreavey incident”, which allegedly took place inside an Orange Hall, although that has yet to be confirmed. They were justified in doing so. I would have expected nothing less.

But one would have supposed that those who were most vociferous would be those with the “cleanest hands” in regard to bigotry and sectarianism, right? Wrong. Instead we saw some of the most bitter, hate-fuelled and sectarian people in the British Isles labelling the entire Unionist/Loyalist community as being “subhuman”, gloating about the death of Protestants, calling for political parties to be banned, calling for mass ethnic cleansing etc etc etc.

*Jimmy Bell was Rangers FC kitman until his untimely death from cancer just before the Europa League final.*

*“Normal organisations*” *according to a lot of Irish nationalists include; PIRA/Sinn Fein, the AOH, the IPLO etc*

We saw old sectarian stereotypes brought back to the fore. We saw people (who yes, of course, were justifiably angry) berate, lecture, demonise and vilify the entire PUL community.

We saw the old buzzwords coming back out. We saw people calling for the Orange Institution to be banned. We saw people call for the idiots responsible for the original incident to be killed.

In short; we saw a reaction which was every bit as vile, sectarian and bigoted as the original instance of sectarianism and hatred.

Loyalists and Unionists tried to bring some sort of balance to the social media furore. The very many instances of sectarian singing by GAA teams, Celtic supporters groups, casual groups of Irish nationalists etc were all highlighted.

But rather than condemn such incidents, nationalists and republicans attempted to downplay them or even justify them.

Contrast and compare with the reaction to the original “Dundonald video” by Unionists and Loyalists, who universally condemned it.

“How Can I Make This About Me?”

The reaction of some politicians and so-called journalists was just as sickening. Rather than condemn the original incident, condemn sectarianism and call for unity, one or two well known individuals attempted to make personal capital from the incident.

I will not dignify those wretched people by naming them here, my readers know who I am referring to, or should at least have a fair idea.

By attempting to use this incident for their own ends, they have not only trivialised it, but also added yet more insult to injury.

These are people who should know better but who have, unfortunately, been able to make careers out of personalising serious societal issues and exploiting communal divisions for their own selfish ends.

The media

Certain broadcasters and “news outlets” (I use the term loosely) are also guilty of stoking intercommunal tensions. It is only right that they should have reported on the story, of course, but certain sections of the media actually appear to be trying to keep the story in the news, long after it actually was news.

Their actions were grossly irresponsible. At a time when Northern Ireland as a whole had united in disgust, certain people in the media decided it was a good idea to throw fuel onto the fire.

*All Unionist political parties condemned it, including the DUP. Would these same people support a ban on Sinn Fein? Soaradh? The IRSP? The GAA?*

Don’t be Mistaken

This blog post is not an attempt to deflect away from, nor to justify the abhorrent, hateful, sick behaviour of a few drunken idiots singing a despicable, moronic, nasty song about the death of an innocent woman. It is merely an analysis of the reaction to that ugly, sectarian and undignified incident.

An incident which, as I’ve already stated, was roundly condemned by the Unionist/Loyalist community as a whole.

If only the Irish nationalist/republican community was as robust in their condemnation of hate.

If only, even just once, we could see or hear the so-called political “leadership” of that community call out and unequivocally condemn the actions of the legion of sectarian bigots, racists and misogynistic idiots who attack, ridicule, mock, disparage and generally harass Unionists and Loyalists on a daily basis.

*Calls for mass ethnic cleansing, like this one above, are posted online by Irish nationalist extremists on a daily basis.*

If only. Yesterday our ISOT twitter account posted a screenshot of Irish nationalists mocking the murder of Lord Mountbatten and four others (the dead included 2 children). We asked nationalists/republicans to condemn it.

Only one did so.

So, which community has the biggest problem with hatred and bigotry? Which community unites in condemnation of sectarianism and which community, when confronted with bigotry and prejudice, goes into a solemn and stonewall silence?

It is up to you to decide for yourself. I will however make a prediction; before the end of 2022, a video will surface of nationalists/republicans mocking the death of Protestants, or British soldiers, or RUC officers, or singing songs glorifying the heinous actions of the INLA, Provisional IRA, IPLO etc, or desecrating a War Memorial, or vandalising an Orange Hall and the vast majority of Irish nationalists will ignore it and pass no comment.

Unfortunately that is the society that we live in and, equally unfortunately, that is the society we will continue to live in unless everyone has the moral courage to condemn sectarianism regardless of it’s source.

Loyalists and Unionists have no difficulty in condemning and calling out bigotry and hatred from wherever it may emanate. Irish nationalism however does not seem ready, or able, to face up to it’s own problems in this regard. That is a fundamental difference and it is one that I intend to address at a later date.

For a very large number of nationalists and republicans condemnation of sectarian hatred seems to be a kind of bizarre one-way process. One in which they expect “sackcloth and ashes” from the Unionist/Loyalist community when a member of that community oversteps the bounds of acceptable behaviour, but conversely, remain steadfastly silent when it comes to members of their own community.

Such hypocrisy and partisanship will forever be an obstacle on the road to eradicating sectarianism.

Þole Aȝe Umquhile Poustie

07/04/202207/04/2022 by Ozzie

Reform & Rejuvenate

Loyalism, NORTHERN IRELAND, UDA, UDP, Ulster Politics
Ideology, Loyalism, Loyalist, Northern Ireland, Politics, Reconciliation, reform, Stormont, UDP, Ulster, Ulster Loyalism, Ulster politics, Unionist

As we fast approach another NI Assembly election I believe it is time for an open and frank discussion about Stormont and it’s future.

The Northern Ireland Assembly, as it is currently constituted, is in urgent need of reform and rejuvenation. There are very few who would disagree that, at present, Stormont is dysfunctional, bloated and top heavy.

When it was first conceived, the Assembly was expected to be a parliament for all; one in which all political views were represented. It’s original 108 seat composition was designed to give small parties, especially those who were pivotal to the “Peace Process”, such as the PUP and Ulster Democratic Party, a reasonable chance to have representation.

*Gary McMichael (UDP) & David Ervine (PUP*)

Such was the naivety of the time. Although the PUP did garner sufficient votes to have 2 MLAs elected in the early years of the Assembly, the Ulster Democratic Party did not, and thus a party which had been right at the very heart of the Peace Process and the drafting of the Good Friday Agreement was excluded from one of the very institutions that they had helped to create.

Northern Ireland would be in a much better place had the Unionist and Loyalist electorate voted for McMichael and Adams in the same kind of numbers as they voted for Paisley and McCrea, that however is a discussion for another day.

Instead of a “parliament for all” Ulster got a toothless regional assembly which quickly devolved back to the local default setting of Orange vs Green.

Orange, Green and…….Yellow

Today things are even worse, for now we have a toothless, bloated and unworkable regional assembly dominated by the largest “Orange” party and the largest “Green” party, with an otherwise irrelevant Yellow party holding the balance of power. We deserve better!

Of course, the Stormont Assembly has been trimmed down a little. Gone are the days of 6 MLAs for every constituency (in the forlorn hope that the peace-makers would all get a seat at the table). Now each constituency elects 5 members, but that is still far too many.

If Ulster politics is to be forever dominated by Orange, Green and…erm…….whatever, then we must have a smaller, leaner and more efficient Assembly. One which is functional and fit for purpose.

A Better Way

The old (dearly lamented) Parliament of Northern Ireland, which was illegally and unconstitutionally prorogued on that black day in March, 1973, had 52 elected members.

*Coat of Arms of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, unconstitutionally stolen away from us on the 30th of March, 1972*

52 Members of Parliament was more than sufficient, although I will concede that the use of the “First Past the Post” electoral system was ill suited to Northern Ireland.

It is not the position of ISOT that we go back to having 52 separate little constituencies, each electing a single representative, although that would make for some rather interesting results at election time.

Instead, what we propose is that the number of MLAs per constituency be reduced from 5 to 3, or even to just two. Thus radically reducing the total number of Assembly members.

Reducing the size of the Assembly down to 54 MLAs (or fewer) might be a little drastic, since that is only two more members than the old Parliament of Northern Ireland (which remains to this day the sole legal and legitimate legislature of this country!) and, of course, the population of NI has grown a little since 1972, however, having 4 MLAs elected to each constituency still gives us a total of 72, which is too many for such a small electorate.

Better perhaps to have a kind of “top up” system like the one used in Scotland and Wales, in which a certain number of members are elected from geographical constituencies and that number is then topped up by the election of a number of representatives from “regional constituencies”, some times known as “regional lists”.

The Welsh Example (enghraifft hCymraeg)

We will take Senedd Cymru (the Welsh Parliament) as our example. In Wales forty of the Members of the Senedd are elected from single-member constituencies on a “plurality voting system” (first past the post) basis, the constituencies being equivalent to those used for the House of Commons. A further twenty members are elected from regional “closed lists” using an alternative party vote.

There are five regions: Mid and West Wales, North Wales, South Wales Central, South Wales East and South Wales West, each of which returns four members.

If we imagine a similar system in Northern Ireland, we could have 2 members of the Assembly elected from each of our 18 Westminster constituencies, giving us 36 MLAs, with a further 24 elected from regional lists- with 4 regions each electing 6 MLAs. The total number of Assembly Members would be 60, the same as in Wales, which has a population of about 3.1 million, compared to Northern Ireland with its population of around 1.85 million.

Sixty Assembly Members would be more than enough and it would be quite straightforward to divide NI into 4 electoral regions, for example the simplest division would be; Greater Belfast, Antrim and Londonderry, Armagh and Down, Fermanagh and Tyrone.

What it Would Mean

This would make for some interesting results. Most constituencies would be either “Orange” or “Green”, although the likes of Fermanagh/South Tyrone, South Belfast and North Belfast might well buck that trend.

Without going into the results of past Assembly elections or doing any number crunching whatsoever (ie pulling the results off the top of my head and using my political anorak super-powers) I would envision that the geographic (ie Westminster constituencies) would look something like this-

North Antrim; 1 DUP, 1 TUV
South Antrim; 1 UUP, 1 DUP
East Antrim; 2 DUP
Lagan Valley; 2 DUP?
North Belfast; 1 SF, 1 DUP (maybe 2 SF)
East Belfast; 1 DUP, 1 Naomi Long
South Belfast; 1 SDLP, 1 UUP?
West Belfast; 2 SF
Upper Bann; 1 DUP, 1 UUP
North Down; 1 DUP, 1 UUP
Strangford; 2 DUP (maybe 1 DUP, 1 UUP)
South Down; 1 SF, 1 SDLP
Newry & Armagh; 2 SF
Fermanagh/South Tyrone; 1 SF, 1 DUP
Mid-Ulster; 2 SF?
West Tyrone; 2 SF
Foyle; 1 SF, 1 SDLP
East Londonderry; 2 DUP (maybe 1 DUP, 1 Ind. Unionist

As you can see, many constituencies would become quite monolithic; some solidly DUP, some solidly Sinn Fein. Such is the tribal nature of politics here.

The results from the regional lists would be more interesting. Would Greater Belfast elect 2 Unionists, or 3? Would Alliance win a seat?

In Fermanagh/Tyrone would Unionists be able to take 2 seats or just one? In Armagh/Down would it be a 4/2 split in favour of the Unionist parties or an even 3/3 between Unionist and nationalist?

Antrim/Londonderry would perhaps be the most fascinating. The Unionist votes of North Antrim, East Londonderry, East Antrim, Lagan Valley and South Antrim would outweigh the Irish nationalist votes of Foyle and South Londonderry, but by how much? 4/2, or could it even be 5/1?

Let us speculate for a moment; let’s say that in Greater Belfast Sinn Fein win 2 seats and that the SDLP, DUP, UUP and Alliance each win one seat. In Armagh/Down we have an even Unionist/nationalist split, with the DUP taking 2, Sinn Fein taking 2 and the SDLP and UUP each picking up seat.

Let’s suppose that in Fermanagh/Tyrone Sinn Fein win 4 seats, with the SDLP and DUP winning one each and that in the Antrim/Londonderry region the DUP get 3, and the UUP, SF and the SDLP each get one seat. Let us further assume that my earlier predictions/presumptions were correct, that gives us a 60 member Assembly composed of –

DUP – 22
Sinn Fein – 21
UUP – 7
SDLP – 7
Alliance – 2
TUV – 1

Of course this is all just pure speculation, indeed, it is speculation on a hypothetical election the type of which will most likely never happen but I believe that it demonstrates that a 60 member NI Assembly is both workable and representative.

It is, however, not only the size of the Assembly that is the problem, it is the mechanics of the Assembly too.

Mandatory Coalition is simply unworkable in the long term and must be replaced by voluntary power-sharing. The largest Unionist party and the largest nationalist/republican party undertaking (pre-election) to form an executive perhaps? With the next 2 largest parties automatically designated as the official opposition?

*Soaradh and Provisional Sinn Fein. Same crap different decades.*

Of course, all this is just ‘pie in the sky’. There is little incentive for any of our political parties to reduce the number of grossly overpaid MLAs, and there are at least 2 parties who do not want Stormont to work, Provisional Sinn Fein being one of them.

In fact, Sinn Fein do not want Northern Ireland to work, full stop. Thus having them in government is actually quite ludicrous, although political realities must be accepted and one cannot simply ignore the mandate given to the Provisional republican movement, as lamentable as it is.

For the foreseeable future it looks as though the long suffering people of Northern Ireland are going to be stuck with a DUP/SF duopoly, despite it’s obvious flaws.

Despite all the forecasts of DUP disaster, despite what opinion polls might predict, it is highly likely that the DUP will remain the largest Unionist party. I’m unsure whether that’s a positive or a negative.

This Assembly election could have been a golden opportunity to reform and rejuvenate the NI Assembly. Instead we are headed for another “us vs them” election in which the real losers will be the ordinary people of this country.

Trimming the Fat

The decision on the shape and direction of our “toy-town parliament” could, of course, be taken out of the hands of local politicians.

Westminster could decide to “trim the fat” and save the Ulster taxpayer a few million pounds in MLA’s wages. I’m not entirely sure that it is within their power, perhaps such a decision is one which the Assembly itself would have to make.

Could central government take steps to reform Stormont over the objections of those who have their snouts in the trough? Or is the devolved legislature a devolved matter?

I am not entirely sure. What I am entirely sure of however, is that the “powers that be” in London centralised our health care system with apparent glee, closing hospitals and A&E departments right, left and centre, and had the audacity to tell a credulous public that it was in their own best interests!

They then took the knife to our local councils, reducing them from 26 to just 11. Why can they not then even propose that we reduce the number of MLAs even if they have no authority to impose such a reduction?

There would be no backlash from the vast majority of the voting public, many of whom already suffer from an acute form of political fatigue.

The only backlash that is likely to come would be from the vested interests themselves – ie the political parties.

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that an MLA in imminent danger of losing his/her (extremely well paid position) would fight much harder to ensure that didn’t happen than they would to stop the mass closure of local hospitals or the ruthless gutting of local councils?

No real discussion on the future of our democracy will take place however. No radical proposals will be considered. This is yet another tragedy of our divided society.

Loyalism Offers Hope

Would an open and civil debate on the number of MLAs and the form of our devolved assembly not be infinitely more helpful than yet another angry exchange about a so-called gaelic language act, or the non-existent “discussion” about a possible border poll?

*A happy, hopeful, progressive and not at all radicalised Sinn Fein activist.*

Of course it would, but it won’t happen because the future of, the very existence of, one of our biggest political parties is dependent on selling fantasies to it’s voters instead of actually trying to make Northern Ireland work for everyone, whilst another of the largest parties seems to lack any kind of clear vision for the future at all.

It doesn’t have to be like this. Loyalism offers a real alternative. Grassroots Loyalism is seeing a once in a generation resurgence. Young Loyalist voices are coming out of their communities and rising to prominence.

All over Northern Ireland, Loyalists are working for real change, not just for their own community but for everyone. We are still 10+ years away from seeing this translated into success at the ballot box, but such success is inevitable. The Loyalist working class has been failed by “big house” Unionism for the last time. From now on Loyalists will speak for themselves. Some people have their own narrow, incorrect and/or outdated notions about Loyalism but those who are not prejudiced or misinformed know that Loyalism is a radical and populist force. A force for change.

Much of the Belfast Agreement is based upon ideas put forward by the UDA and the Ulster Democratic Party in their ‘Common Sense’ (aka ‘Northern Ireland – An Agreed Process’) policy document of 1987.

*Lyttle, Barr and McMichael of the UDP.*

It was the Ulster Democratic Party who first proposed the idea of a bill of rights for NI, and it was Loyalists who were always first to explore ways of ending the conflict and building peace, meeting with their mortal enemies on many occasions, such as in Libya in 1974.

Loyalists will not shy away from the hard questions. Loyalists will not be governed by self-interest. If the Stormont Assembly still exists in 10 or 15 years time, then it will be Loyalism which will ensure that it is reformed and given fresh impetus.

The time for an open discussion about the future of the NI Assembly and its makeup is now, but it will not happen now. That is down to the lack of vision of all the parties presently represented there.

Business as Usual

A grand old lady who deserves a **real Parliament.**

As usual in this country, the things we should be talking about today are pushed to one side, only for us to return to the issue at some point in the future when next we have a collective moment of clarity and decide that we do actually want to create a society worth living in.

In the meantime Provisional Sinn Fein will continue to sell a fairytale to their gullible voters, the DUP will continue to use scare tactics on theirs and an irrelevant, condescending, toxic little yellow cabal will continue to hold the balance of power.

For now that is the grim reality of Ulster politics. For some reason I’m reminded of a quote by a certain Dutch philosopher….

“In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king” ~Desiderius Erasmus

09/02/202209/02/2022 by Ozzie

ISOT Statement on Latest PONI Report

Collusion, Loyalism, NORTHERN IRELAND, The Troubles, UDA, UFF
Collusion, Legacy, Londonderry & North Antrim, Loyalist, Loyalists, Northern Ireland, Reconciliation, The Troubles, UDA, UFF, Ulster Loyalism, Unionism

We are astounded and disgusted by the tone and content of the latest report into so-called “collusion” by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Following on from the utter balderdash released by PONI with regards to the actions and activities of the North Antrim and Londonderry Brigade UDA/UFF (1989-94), that office has now released a further erroneous and, frankly, scandalous report, this time on the activities of the South Belfast Brigade UDA/UFF during the same time period.

Despite the fact that no actual tangible evidence of “collusion” was found, the Police Ombudsman has once more obfuscated, employed some semantic gymnastics and, apparently, tailored the final report to suit the entirely false historical narrative of the Provisional republican movement.

Once again the absurd phrase “collusive behaviour” has been trotted out. Once again the presence of police informers within the ranks of a Loyalist organisation has been presented as “collusion”.

This appears to be an attempt to reinforce the ridiculous, simplistic, reductionist and childish narrative which PIRA/Sinn Fein has been carefully crafting since the late 1980s.

If, as intimated by the Police Ombudsman, the mere presence of informers within the ranks of an armed group constitutes “collusion”, then when might we expect reports and inquiries into the crimes and atrocities of the Provisional IRA, Official IRA, INLA, IPLO, Real IRA etc?

It is our opinion that the Police Ombudsman is using her office (and public money) to propagate the mythos of Irish republicanism.

PONI apparently spares no effort in attempts to tarnish the reputation of the Security Forces & dismiss the actions of Loyalists.

Irish nationalism has to demonise the Security Forces in order to justify the murder of off-duty Police reservists, former UDR men murdered whilst driving school buses, RUC officers shot in the back whilst buying a newspaper etc.

There is no better way to do that than to propagate the myth that “collusion” was institutional and widespread.

If nationalists/republicans can convince the gullible that Loyalist armed groups were mere proxies of the British state and/or the Security Forces, so much the better for them.

Furthermore, Irish nationalism simply has no room for Loyalists. The ludicrous narrative spun by these demented, radicalised individuals is one of “brave native gaels” vs “the evil British empire”. Loyalists and Unionists are dismissed, as either misguided and stupid, or as barely human “planter colonists”.

Nationalists simply cannot recognise Loyalists as an independent and independently thinking people. Therefore, Loyalist paramilitary organisations must be dismissed as being mere puppets of the “evil Brits”.

This (almost comical) historical narrative seems to have been fully embraced by the Police Ombudsman who seems indecently eager to bolster it, even going so far as to coin the Sinn Fein-esque term “collusive behaviour”.

Why, when the PONI report clearly states: “This investigation has found no evidence that police were in possession of intelligence which if acted on, could have prevented any of the attacks“, has the phrase “collusive behaviours” been once again trotted out?

Why, if no real evidence of “collusion” was found (certainly not enough to warrant prosecutions) did the Police Ombudsman state that the allegations of collusion made by relatives and politically motivated ‘relatives groups’ were: “legitimate and justified”?

Is the Police Ombudsman biased in favour of a particular community or a particular political party? It would seem so.

Any suspicion of bias is ample reason for Loyalists and Unionists to call for her to resign and that is exactly what our elected representatives should be doing!. Furthermore, they should also be calling for the post of Police Ombudsman to be abolished and for it to be replaced by an independent police complaints commission.

Historical legacy issues are being weaponised by Irish nationalist extremists. It is astounding, and utterly unacceptable, that they should be assisted in doing so by any public office, not least that of the supposedly impartial Police Ombudsman.

We urge all Unionist political parties, all Loyalist and Unionist community groups and all individual Loyalists and Unionists, to join us in calling for the resignation of the present Police Ombudsman.

There must be some semblance of balance in regard to legacy issues. There must be equality with respect to the re-investigation of Troubles related attacks and there must be no more pandering to the Provisional republican movement.

Þole Aȝe Umquhile Poustie

16/01/202216/01/2022 by Ozzie

“Collusion”; 125 Questions that Somebody Needs to Answer

The Irish nationalist/republican narrative surrounding so-called “collusion” has changed over the years. Republicans used to allege that there was collusion between Loyalists and state agencies (RUC, MI5, UDR etc) in a relatively small number of cases, mostly involving the killing of high profile republicans.

Since the end of the Troubles though, that narrative has undergone a rapid evolution. Firstly, nationalists and republicans began to allege collusion between Loyalists and the Army in bomb attacks on targets in the Irish Republic.

Then they began to allege that collusion was much more widespread. More and more incidents were added to the list.

Now the nationalist/republican narrative is that “collusion” was institutional and so widespread that some Irish nationalists now earnestly believe that every single attack carried out by Loyalist armed groups was an instance of collusion.

The Police Ombudsman’s report, released this week, into the actions of the Londonderry and North Antrim Brigade, Ulster Freedom Fighters, inevitably gave further credence to the Irish nationalist/republican narrative.

That report, whilst finding little or no actual evidence of “collusion”, was littered with innuendo and loaded terms such as “collusive behaviour”. All of which was designed to help prop up the nationalist narrative.

A large section of the nationalist community is now convinced that the UDA/UFF and UVF were mere “proxies”, either of the Army or the RUC, depending on who you ask, and that new narrative is being spread at an alarming rate.

With that in mind we felt that it now would be a good time to ask a few questions about the PIRA/Sinn Fein sanctioned version of history and, specifically, about the ever changing narrative with regards to so-called “collusion”.

We will follow up with a few more questions about the very real phenomenon of collusion between Irish republican murder gangs and a whole list of outside agencies (including the Irish government and the Libyan government) in a couple of weeks time.

Our list of questions is not exhaustive and many of our readers will, no doubt, have their own questions.

Will any nationalist/republican be brave enough to answer these questions? I doubt it. Nevertheless, it is a useful exercise. If nothing else we will expose to wider scrutiny the contradictions and gaps in logic of this toxic and pernicious narrative, which is designed to lump together all those whom Irish nationalist extremists regard to be their enemies and to blacken the name of innocent people, especially those who served in the RUC and UDR.

Q1: If Loyalist paramilitary groups were “directed by the British state”, why were thousands of Loyalists imprisoned for political offences?

Q2: If the Irish nationalist narrative is true, why did the RUC/Army/MI5 etc allow the murder of Billy Wright inside a supposedly high security prison?

Q3: Nationalists and republicans allege that the UFF and UVF were ineffective groups who rarely succeeded in killing republican terrorists, how can that be if the “collusion” narrative is true?

Q4: Why, if the republican version of history is accurate, did the state proceed with so-called “super grass trials” involving more Loyalists than republicans?

Q5: Furthermore, why did the state allow the details of those Loyalists involved in “super grass trials” to become public knowledge?

Q6: Why would Loyalists accuse RUC Special Branch of colluding with the Provisional IRA in the murder of a number of leading Loyalists?

Q7: Why did Loyalists and republicans alike refer to Castlereagh Holding Centre as “Castlereagh Torture Centre”? Surely Loyalists would have been given preferential treatment?

Q8: Why, in many cases, were allegations of collusion not made at the time or shortly afterwards?

Q9: Why, if the republican narrative is true, were Loyalists statistically more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted of political offences than their Irish nationalist counterparts?

Q10: If, as some nationalists allege, the UDA/UFF and UVF were controlled and directed by the RUC, who shot and killed RUC Const. Michael Logue on the 29th of December, 1973?

Q11: If Loyalist paramilitary groups were mere proxies of the state, why did the state spend time, money and energy in “psy-ops” designed to damage those groups?

Q12: If the republican version of history is accurate, then the RUC must have formed the modern UVF in 1966, is that plausible?

Q13: Why did the East Belfast Brigade of the UDA briefly “declare war” on the British Army in 1973?

Q14: If, as claimed by Irish nationalists, there was collusion between the UFF and the state in the run-up to the Greysteel attack, why were the four men responsible for that attack swiftly arrested and charged?

Q15: If Loyalist paramilitary groups were mere “proxies of the British state”, why didn’t “the British state” provide safe-haven for wanted Loyalists in England, Scotland and Wales?

Q16: Why did Loyalists frequently get into often violent confrontations with the Security Forces?

Q17: Why did Loyalist armed groups kill suspected informers on a fairly regular basis if such groups were, in their entirety, controlled and/or directed by the RUC, MI5 etc?

Q18: Why were members of the North Antrim and Londonderry Brigade UDA convicted of stealing weapons from the UDR base in Coleraine? Surely, if the republican narrative is to be believed, the UDA/UFF had no need to resort to stealing guns?

Q19: Why would members of organisations which were directed/controlled by the state and/or Security Forces, resort to armed robbery, protection rackets etc in order to raise funds for those organisations?

Q20: Why would the Security Forces operate a so-called “shoot to kill” policy if, as nationalists allege, they already had Loyalist groups to carry out killings on their behalf? Do these two components of the nationalist/republican narrative not conflict with each other?

Q21: Who killed Kenneth Stronge and why?

Q22: If Loyalist paramilitary groups were mere “proxies of the British state”, then why did Loyalist prisoners embark on a protest campaign for political segregation in prisons in the early 1980s? Surely their “controllers” would have granted segregation without the need for at least one Loyalist POW to almost die on hunger strike?

Q23: Why didn’t those “directing and controlling” the UFF and UVF ever supply those groups with plastic explosives, such as Semtex, PATP or C4?

Q24: Why did the Army shoot UDA volunteer John Black in June, 1972?

Q25: Why did Loyalist groups, principally the UDA, establish “no go areas” in parts of Belfast and Londonderry in the Summer of 1972? Why would they have any reason to keep the RUC and Army out of Loyalist areas?

Q26: Why did Loyalists kill UDR man Henry Russell if, as nationalists allege, the UDR was working hand-in-hand with Loyalist paramilitaries?

Q27: Why, in 1984, did Billy Wright make a public statement (published in at least two newspapers) that he believed that he would be killed by the Security Forces?

Q28: Why was UDA volunteer Robert Warnock shot dead by the RUC in September, 1972? Why did police make little effort to arrest him but instead opened fire?

Q29: Why did a member of the UDR save the life of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams after a UFF assassination attempt in 1984?

Q30: Furthermore, why was the ammunition used in that attack tampered with by the Security Forces in order to render it ineffective?

Q31: Why, if the republican narrative is true, did “the state”, RUC, British Intelligence, etc etc, permit the Ulster Workers Council strike? Why was the UDA not ordered to call off the strike?

Q32: Furthermore, why did the Army have to make contingency plans to staff the power stations during the latter part of the UWC strike? Couldn’t the UWC/UDA simply have been told not to shut down the power stations?

Q33: Why was UVF volunteer Brian Robinson killed by undercover soldiers? Why didn’t they simply allow Robinson and his accomplice to escape?

Q34: Why did Loyalist activists make use of safe houses throughout Northern Ireland? Why did they feel it necessary to avoid arrest or possible death at the hands of the Security Forces?

Q35: If the nationalist/republican narrative is true, why was a huge UVF arms shipment, purchased on the black market from an Eastern European arms dealer, intercepted at Teesport, England, in November, 1993?

Q36: At the time of his arrest, David Ervine, a UVF member at the time, was ordered by the Army to make safe the bomb he was transporting. Is this the action of people allied to, or working with, the UVF?

Q37: The Army and RUC knew the location of dozens of “on the run” republican terrorists who were living openly in the Irish Republic. If the Security Forces really were providing Loyalist groups with information, why was only such individual (John Francis Green) ever killed in a cross-border raid by Loyalists?

Q38: Some nationalists/republicans now allege that the UFF Active Service Unit that killed leading Provo Eddie Fullerton were “escorted” across the border by the RUC, but it is an established fact that the ASU actually crossed Lough Foyle by boat, how can both be true?

Q39: Why did Loyalists have to resort to stealing commercial explosives from quarries and coal mines in Scotland if, as nationalists allege, they were being armed by state agencies?

Q40: The RUC had thousands of officers and civilian employees. Republicans say that “collusion” was an open secret. Why didn’t any RUC officer or employee go public with allegations of “collusion” at any time during the Troubles?

Q41: It has become a popular nationalist trope that the UDR were nothing more than Loyalist paramilitaries in official uniform. Do they include the many Catholics who served in the UDR? Are they openly admitting that, far from being sectarian, Loyalist paramilitary groups were actually “cross community” organisations?

Q42: Why was Tennent Street police station on the exclusively Loyalist Shankill Road area of West Belfast, attacked on several occasions, with the RUC barracks coming under “sustained fire from the local UDA” on one occasion?

Q43: Why did the UDA kill RUC Const. Andrew Harron and why was one of the men convicted of his killing the only man in the history of the Troubles to be sentenced to death?

Q44: If the RUC was “directing and controlling” the UDA/UFF and UVF, why was Const. Gregory Taylor killed in Ballymoney in 1997?

Q45: How did Loyalists react to the killing of civilians by the British Army in the Shankill area in the early days of the Troubles? Why was there such a reaction if Loyalist groups were mere “proxies” of the Army, RUC etc?

Q46: Loyalist paramilitary groups, especially the UVF, manufactured home made weapons in underground arms factories across Ulster, but why was this necessary if the republican narrative is true and Loyalists were being supplied with guns by the Security Forces?

*Weapons made in secret UVF arms factories and subsequently uncovered and seized by the Security Forces.*

Q47: If the nationalist/republican narrative is accurate, then why did Army technical officers have such difficulty defusing Loyalist explosive devices? Wouldn’t those same technical officers (ie Bomb Disposal) have been the ones instructing and directing the Loyalist bomb makers?

Q48: Why did the Army save the lives of Bernadette Devlin and her husband after they were seriously injured in a UFF gun attack at their home? Why would the Army save the lives of 2 senior republicans that Loyalists had just tried to kill?

Q49: Furthermore, why were the UFF Active Service Unit not permitted to escape?

Q50: In the wake of the signing of the Anglo-Irish diktat, Loyalists carried out more than 500 attacks on the homes of RUC personnel. 120 RUC officers were forced out of their homes completely. If the nationalist/republican narrative is true, then why were Loyalists attacking the RUC and why were such attacks not stopped?

Q51: In a report published in 1985, the RUC Chief Constable, Jack Hermon, severely criticised Loyalist parades. If, as nationalists allege, the RUC controlled and/or directed the UDA, why didn’t they use that group to curtail or discourage Loyalist parades?

Q52: On the 16th of October, 1972, two young UDA volunteers were killed by the Security Forces during rioting in East Belfast. If the republican narrative is true, then why were Loyalist rioters attacking the police and Army and why did the Army respond with lethal force?

Q55: In response to the deaths of the two UDA men the previous day, the Loyalist paramilitary group opened fire on the British Army in at least 7 different areas of Belfast. A number of soldiers were wounded. How and why did this happen if the UDA were allies of, or controlled by, the very people that they were shooting at?

Q54: Why did the RUC refuse to enter some Loyalist areas without an Army escort being present?

Q55: In February, 1973, two Loyalist paramilitaries (one UVF member and one UDA member) were shot dead by the British Army, again in East Belfast, again during rioting. Do Irish nationalists regard this as some kind of “friendly fire” incident?

Q56: If the nationalist narrative is correct, then why were Loyalist groups permitted to target and even to assassinate members of the Prison Service? Did the RUC, MI5, Army (delete as applicable) regard the Prison Service as being dangerous terrorists?

Q57: Why did a number of Loyalist volunteers die in premature explosions? If republican allegations are true then wouldn’t the Army/UDR/MI5 have shown UDA and UVF bomb makers how to construct devices that wouldn’t go off whilst in transit?

Q58: In many instances, Loyalist paramilitary groups would assert that victims of their attacks were members of Irish nationalist terror gangs. When this was the case, the Security Forces never confirmed these claims but, paradoxically, would publicly deny such claims when they were not true (or when they could be plausibly denied). If they were acting in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries, why would they do this?

Q59: Why did the Security Forces, principally the RUC, frequently raid the homes of Loyalists looking for arms, intelligence files etc?

Q60: Nationalists (now) allege that the RUC, as an organisation, acted in collusion with the UDA/UFF and UVF. Do they include the many RUC officers who were from a Catholic/nationalist background in that particular allegation?

Q70: Irish nationalists make much of the fact that the UDA/UFF, UVF and Ulster Resistance brought in a large quantity of arms from South Africa. If the republican narrative were accurate though, why were Loyalists buying weapons from a Lebanese arms dealer?

*A portion of the ‘South African’ arms shipment – siezed by the RUC soon after it arrived in Ulster*!

Q71: On the 10th of June, 1973, a bus driver (Samuel Rush) was killed in the crossfire during a gun battle between the Army and the UDA in East Belfast. If the nationalist narrative is true, then why were East Belfast UDA shooting at the British Army?

Q72: Just 13 days later, the UFF shot dead a Protestant man whom they alleged was an informer. If the republican narrative is accurate, why was such an action necessary?

Q73: During that Summer, the UFF carried out approximately 15 bomb attacks across Northern Ireland, some of which were no-warning attacks. If, as alleged, the Security Forces were directing/controlling the UDA/UFF, how did a wave of bomb attacks benefit the RUC, UDR and Army at a time when they were under immense pressure due to the number of republican bomb attacks?

Q74: The first RUC man to die in the recent conflict, Victor Arbuckle, died at the hands of a Loyalist gunmen in October, 1969. The last RUC officer killed — Frank O’Reilly — was also the victim of Loyalist violence. How does this tally with the Irish nationalist version of history?

Q75: Furthermore, does the “republican movement” intend to erase these RUC officers from history because their deaths contradict the official Irish nationalist narrative?

Q76: Why do Loyalists allege the involvement of the Security Forces in the death of UDA leader Tommy Herron? Did the SAS kill Herron as some people have claimed?

Q77: If, as nationalists allege, the UDA were mere “proxies of the British state”, why did Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi invite a UDA delegation to Libya to meet him in November, 1974?

Q78: Furthermore, why did British Intelligence/MI6 follow the 5 man UDA delegation throughout their trip to Libya?

Q79: Why were another 2 young UDA volunteers shot by the Army during “disturbances” in East Belfast in February, 1974?

Q80: If the nationalist narrative is true, why did the SDLP, Official Sinn Fein/Workers Party, Provisional Sinn Fein and other nationalist groups meet with the UDA on numerous occasions dating back as far as 1974? What would have been the point of meeting with an organisation that was merely a “front” for the Security Forces?

Q81: Why, if republican allegations are true, did the Security Forces establish a number of (often competing) Loyalist organisations? Wouldn’t a single organisation have been preferred?

Q82: Furthermore, why were Loyalist groups permitted to engage in violence against each other? If, as alleged, they were directed/controlled by the Security Forces, what possible advantage could there be in violent confrontation between the two main Loyalist groups?

Q83: If the UDA were mere “proxies of the British state”, why did they endorse the idea of an independent Northern Ireland? This was never supported by any British government. How does this tally with the Irish nationalist version of history?

Q84: Why would the Security Forces allow their “proxies” to carry out bomb attacks in England and Scotland?

Q85: The UDA/UFF and UVF killed a number of irish nationalist terrorists who later turned out to be high level informers. If the republican narrative is true, why would those “directing” Loyalist paramilitary groups permit them to kill republican informers/agents?

*Brendan ‘Ruby’ Davison, PIRA terrorist, state agent/informer and alleged paedophile. Killed by the Ulster Volunteer Force, July, 1988.*

Q86: Why did the RUC kill UDA volunteer Edward Walker, who was shot dead by the police in June, 1976, at Newtownabbey? Why was he not arrested?

Q87: On the 25th of June, 1966, a UVF unit went to the home of a prominent republican in the Falls Road area of West Belfast with the intention of killing the man. The target was not at home so the UVF men instead set fire to the man’s house. Do Irish nationalists believe that this incident involved “collusion” between the UVF and “state actors”?

Q88: During 1970, 42 nationalist owned licensed premises in mainly Unionist areas were bombed by the UVF. Was there collusion in these incidents?

Q89: If, as nationalists allege, the UDA and UVF were being controlled and directed by the RUC, MI5, UDR, Army etc, why did Loyalist paramilitary activity reduce to almost nothing in the mid 1980s?

Q90: Why, if the republican narrative is to be believed, did those “directing and controlling” Loyalist armed groups, allow the emergence of break-away groups such as the LVF?

Q91: Why didn’t Loyalist paramilitaries kill anyone between October, 1969 and October, 1971?

Q92: Why did the Security Forces kill UVF volunteer Sinclair Johnston?

Q93: If the UDA was “directed and controlled” by the RUC, or if the RUC were sympathetic to, or allied to the UDA, why were 41 RUC officers injured during the UDA/UUAC “Day of Action” in May, 1977?

Q94: Why did both the UDA and UVF target and kill people who were witnesses to robberies, shootings etc? Surely, if the republican narrative is true, Loyalists would have had no need to resort to such drastic measures to ensure their volunteers would not be jailed?

Q95: Why did the RUC raid UDA headquarters on several occasions whilst the UDA was still a legal organisation?

Q96: Furthermore, why did the British government bother to proscribe the UDA? If the UDA were the “proxies” of the British state, the state could surely have found some grounds for it to remain a legal organisation.

Q97: Why did the RUC kill UDA volunteer Stephen Hamilton?

Q98: If, as nationalists allege, the UDA was “directed and controlled” by the RUC, Army, MI5 etc, why was a criminal like James Craig permitted to rise to a position of leadership?

Q99: If Craig was put into a position of leadership by the RUC, Army, MI5 etc, why did they then allow the UFF to kill him?

Q100: Why did the RUC relentlessly target Johnny Adair and why was a totally new offence of “directing terrorism” invented in order to take Adair off the streets?

Q101: Most of the funds used to purchase the South African/Lebanese arms shipment came from the robbery of a bank in Portadown. Why was this necessary if the Security Forces/state were facilitating the arms deal?

Q102: If the nationalist narrative is true, why did the UFF open fire on an RUC patrol on the Shankill Road, Belfast, on the 10th of February, 1990?

Q103: If Loyalist paramilitary groups were mere “proxies of the British state”, why did those groups declare a ceasefire which lasted from the 29th of April until mid May and was designed to coincide with political talks between the four main parties (the Brooke-Mayhew talks)?

Q104: If, as nationalists allege, the UDA/UFF were “directed and controlled” by the Security Forces, why did the UFF firebomb government offices in Dundonald, Co. Down in December, 1991?

Q105: If the RUC having informers within Loyalist groups is described as “collusion” by Irish nationalists and republicans, then how do they describe the RUC running a huge number of informers within republican death squads such as the Provisional IRA?

Q106: Who killed Leonard Durber and why? Durber was a 26 year old soldier, fatally wounded in an incident in East Belfast in late 1972.

Q107: Why was UVF member Robert McIntyre shot dead by the UDR in 1973? Don’t republicans claim that the UDR were Loyalist paramilitaries in uniform?

Q108: Many officers from other UK Constabularies transfered to the RUC and served with distinction. If, as nationalists claim, “collusion” between the RUC and Loyalists was an “open secret”, why did none of those English, Welsh and Scottish officers go public about it?

Q109: In 1972, an RUC officer entered a Loyalist “no-go area” in the city of Londonderry, he was subsequently “arrested” and disarmed by a UDA patrol. How did this happen and why? Surely that incident alone disproves the new Irish nationalist narrative of the RUC “directing and controlling” the UDA?

Q110: Why were so few Loyalist attacks carried out in the Newry/South Armagh area, or in the cityside area of Londonderry, both of which had extremely heavy concentrations of Security Forces? Surely, if the republican narrative is accurate, then there should have been more attacks in such areas, not fewer?

Q111: Who killed RUC Const. Mildred Harrison, the first female police officer killed during the Troubles?

Q112: Why did the British Army shoot dead UVF volunteer Robert Wadsworth in Belfast, 1975?

Q113: Why did the UVF, whom many nationalists now claim were armed by the UDR/RUC/Army, resort to stabbing to death a Provisional IRA member in Castlewellan, Co. Down, on the 18th of May, 1975? Did the UVF unit responsible simply decide not to use the guns that Irish nationalists allege the Security Forces were handing out to them?

Q114: Furthermore, why did the “armed by the state” UVF stab to death another man who tried to prevent a bomb attack at Sallins, Co. Kildare, Éire in June, 1975? Perhaps the UVF had an expert knife thrower or a ninja in their ranks at the time?

Q115: If, as claimed by nationalists/republicans, Loyalist paramilitary groups were armed by “state actors”, then why did the newly formed UDA have to defend Loyalist areas of Belfast and Londonderry armed only with wooden cudgels, baseball bars and harsh language?

Q116: When do nationalists and republicans believe that “collusion” ended? In the early 2000’s the UDA carried out an extensive pipe-bomb campaign against nationalist targets across Northern Ireland. Do Irish nationalists believe that there was “collusion” in those attacks? Do they believe that the RUC or Army, or whoever, was “directing” the UDA in the years after the signing of the Belfast Agreement? If so, why did nationalist politicians not mention it at the time?

Q117: Why did the UVF target and kill RUC man Joe Campbell who was shot dead outside Cushendall police station in February, 1977? Do nationalists believe that this was just an example of a “lover’s tiff” between the UVF and the RUC?

Q118: Why did UVF/RHC activity drop off dramatically in 1978-81?

Q119: Why did the RUC kill UVF man William Miller in March, 1983? Was Miller’s death part of the “shoot to kill” policy that Irish nationalists used to complain about but now rarely ever mention?

Q120: On the 15th of November, 1985, why did the PAF force a taxi driver to take a 4lb bomb to it’s target – North Queen Street RUC Station? The device was defused by Army technical officers but why would the PAF target a police station if nationalist/republican allegations are true?

Q121: Is a wholehearted belief in the Irish nationalist/republican version of history a symptom of radicalisation, something akin to religious fanaticism or cult indoctrination?

Q122: If, as nationalists claim, Loyalist armed groups were being given intelligence reports by the Army, UDR, RUC, MI5 etc, why did so many Loyalist attacks in the 1970s focus on nationalist/republican bars, social clubs etc?

Q123: Why did the UVF adopt a policy (in the 90s) of killing the relatives of known PIRA, INLA members? What sense does that make if, as republicans allege, the UVF and UFF were being given detailed intelligence by the Security Forces?

Q124: The British agent/informer known by the codename ‘Stakeknife’ is believed to have been involved in dozens of Provisional IRA murders, do nationalists regard this as “collusion”? If not – why?

Q125: Why is the nationalist/republican historical narrative continuing to evolve and change over time? Do other versions of historical events change in this manner?

There are at least 20-30 more questions we could include. In all honesty this blog post should have been written over the course of a couple of weeks, rather than one weekend.

Anybody who is really interested in the unvarnished truth must look at the available evidence and then make up their own minds.

Did some serving and former members of the UDR collude with Loyalist paramilitaries? Yes.

Was the UDR as a regiment guilty of the things that Irish nationalists and republicans allege? No.

Did such collusion all but end by the mid 1980s? Yes.

Did a (very) few RUC officers become involved with Loyalist armed groups? Yes.

Was this “widespread and institutional collusion”? No. In fact, it was a case of the UDA/UFF and UVF infiltrating the police.

Was the use of informers tantamount to “collusion”? No. If it was then almost every Irish nationalist act of violence could be considered an example of collusion.

Did republican gangs, in particular the Provisional IRA/Sinn Fein, collude with outside “agencies”? Yes. Everyone from Colombian drug cartels to the Libyan state and everyone in between.

Was collusion between the Provos and “outside agencies” widespread? Yes.

In my opinion, a foreign government sending a terrorist organisation ship loads of arms and explosives amounts to pretty serious collusion. Far more so than a UDR man handing over a few files to the UFF or UVF in a pub.

*Is being gifted tonnes of weaponry by a 3rd world dictator “collusion” or “state sponsored terrorism”?*

Millions of dollars in cash and millions more in guns, contraband and cocaine is pretty serious collusion.

Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland today it seems that only one community is deserving of “truth and justice”. Even if the “truth” is massaged and reshaped a bit to suit the prevailing narrative.

And that dear readers is why it is vitally important for those who are interested in real truth and justice to ask difficult questions and to keep asking them until we get a few answers!

Þole Aȝe Umquhile Poustie

06/01/202206/01/2022 by Ozzie

New Year, Same Old Nationalist Hatred

Democratic Unionist Party MLA Diane Dodds recently took to twitter to wish everyone a happy New Year.

In almost any other society, in any other country on Earth, this would have been totally unremarkable. Sadly though, we in Northern Ireland are plagued, tormented and held back by a disturbed, hateful, backward and downright toxic minority who will readily sieze any opportunity to spread their vitriolic and sectarian poison.

*New year – same old nationalist bigotry, propaganda and hatred.*

And so one particular twitter user decided to reply Mrs Dodds’ tweet with a sickening reference to the Dodds’ dead son, Andrew, who sadly passed away in 1998, aged just 8 years.

I have a screenshot of the offending message, as I’m sure do many others, but I am not going to post it to this blog. Suffice to say that it was sickening, vile and designed to cause as much hurt and offence as possible.

At this point you might well be asking yourself who would do such a thing, who would (and could) stoop so low?

*The problem that Irish nationalists refuse to address – their own community’s hatred, racism and bigotry.*

The answer is not “internet trolls” or “twitter trolls”. The answer is Irish nationalist extremists.

Irish nationalist extremists who believe that they can shut down social media users who do not share their bigoted, prejudiced and often racist worldview.

Irish nationalist extremists who cannot help themselves when it comes to expressing their irrational, psychotic hatred of anything Unionist, Loyalist, British or non-Catholic.

A (sizable) minority of radicalised individuals, often acting in an organised manner, who believe that social media, like the very soil of Northern Ireland, should belong solely to those who are Irish, “gaelic”, ultra-nationalist and Roman Catholic.

I am loathe to even mention religion but it has to be mentioned because the nationalist/republican trolls of twitter are absolutely obsessed with it.

To them “Catholic” and “irish nationalist” seem to be interchangeable terms which mean exactly the same. It is an outdated, archaic attitude. Almost medieval but, alas, it is an attitude which seems to be deeply ingrained within the nationalist community, especially amongst those extremists who spend the most time on social media.

It is not only sectarianism that oozes out of such individuals, they often spew out deeply racist comments, jibes, slurs and insults. They often engage in misogyny too, with Unionist/Loyalist women apparently seen as “fair game” by these pernicious, angry, embittered trolls.

Nothing is taboo to these Irish nationalist keyboard commandos. Nothing is too hateful, too ignorant, too vile, too rotten or too evil.

*Twitter has no problem with users casually tweeting about sectarian genocide – as long as those users are Irish nationalists of course!*

Such individuals call for widescale ethnic cleansing on a daily basis. They mock Ulster-Scots culture and deny the very existence of the Ullans leid. They insult the memory of terrorist victims. They goad the families of victims. They spread lies and disinformation. They libel people. They threaten people. They post ghoulish images of people murdered by Irish nationalist criminal gangs.

They justify the actions of republican murder gangs. They taunt people. They accuse people of drug dealing or of being members of proscribed organisations. They post offensive racist and sectarian memes. They applaud sectarian vandalism. They harass women. They harass elected representatives. They harass Loyalist activists and community workers. And they get away with it!

In the eyes of twitter support Irish nationalists can do no wrong. Even the vile, reprehensible tweet sent to Diane Dodds wasn’t deemed to violate twitters rules on abuse. Nationalists and republicans seem to be able to do and say exactly as they please whilst twitter bans other users for the most innocuous things.

Of course, the so-called political “leadership” of Irish nationalism remains steadfastly silent on the issue. They refuse to even acknowledge the problem.

One would expect such an attitude from Sinn Fein, the morally bankrupt political wing of the blood drenched Provisional IRA. One does not expect it, however, from the SDLP. Yet they are as silent, as acquiescenct, as the Shinners.

The Provisional republican movement will never criticise or rebuke Irish nationalist online trolls. Precisely because most of those trolls are Provisional Sinn Fein voters, supporters and, in many cases, party members and activists.

It is much more difficult to fathom why the SDLP, People Before Profit and Aontu will not acknowledge that the Irish nationalist community has a very real and very serious problem with online trolling, bigotry and sectarianism.

*Profile picture of an Irish nationalist terrorist? No problem on twitter.*

Some will feebly attempt to argue that “both sides are as bad as each other”. That’s a non-starter. It’s patent nonsense. We have challenged (and will continue to challenge) any individual who believes such propaganistic idiocy to produce their evidence and have offered to provide them with eight examples of nationalist bigotry and hate-speech for every one example they find from a supposedly Unionist or Loyalist social media account.

I don’t for one moment believe that the ratio is 8-1. I honestly believe that it is more likely to be at least 12-1 and possibly much higher even than that.

If the Loyalist activist Jamie Bryson took screenshots of the disturbing, disgusting and often sinister abusive replies his tweets recieve from Irish nationalists on a daily basis, I am 100% sure that he would have (literally) tens of thousands of examples and could probably add at least another 50 every single day.

ISOT have compiled almost 5,000 such screenshots. We continue to add that collection on a daily basis, 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year. Even on Christmas day.

Why do we wade through such moronic bigotry, such vile and hateful crap? Because we believe that the problem is a serious one, one which destroys community cohesion and further deepens the catastrophic division which exists within Northern Ireland society.

The issue of Irish nationalist online hate must be addressed, sooner rather than later. To their credit, some journalists have addressed it, though others, notably those who are themselves from a nationalist background, continue to ignore it.

Not every Irish nationalist is a social media troll of course. Many nationalists, like many other people, are not on social media and many of those who are conduct themselves in a civil and correct manner. Those people are not the problem. The problem is the very large number of Irish nationalists and republicans believe that abusing people on social media is an extension of the so-called ‘armed struggle’.

The same kind of people who sheltered, fed, funded and supported Irish nationalist murder gangs like the Official IRA, Provisional IRA, INLA and IPLO.

The kind of people who believe that their Protestant neighbours are “planters” and “colonists” and “immigrants”. The kind of people who have fully bought into the dehumanising anti-Loyalist and Anti-British narrative of Provisional Sinn Fein and it’s front organisations.

The kind of people who thought Ladfleg was hilarious satire when, to most impartial observers, it was nothing but a vicious, nasty and sectarian group of well organised trolls.

Let’s not forget that the current crop of nationalist trolls learned their trade from “the Lads”. A group which was a rogue’s gallery of bitter Irish republican bigots, scam artists, Far-Left agitators, alcoholics and drug addicts.

It was Ladfleg that began the toxic and dehumanising “all Prodz is stoopid” narrative, now taken up with zeal by latter day nationalist trolls. It is also worth remembering that the ‘LAD’ group, as admitted by one of their own members, operated hundreds of social media ‘sock puppet’ accounts, a tactic now employed by Irish nationalist trolls more widely.

It was concerted pressure from Loyalists that put an end to that particular group, causing it to implode in spectacular fashion with former ‘Lads’ sending ourselves (and others) cringing messages, full of details of how the group operated etc., in the hope of distancing themselves the worst of the fall-out over its collapse.

It is much more difficult to expose and shut down the Irish nationalist/republican trolls operating on twitter currently. Indeed, it could be likened to trying to nail jelly to a wall.

Accounts appear and disappear. Some tweet a storm of abuse then remain dormant for months. Others keep up a steady drip, drip, drip of bigotry, propaganda, lies and insults.

Some, like the account responsible for the outrageous and disgusting tweet sent to Diane Dodds, are over-the-top, blatantly racist and sectarian, overtly hateful and offensive. Others are much more subtle, no doubt carefully following the Provisional Sinn Fein guidelines set out for their “online supporters” to follow.

Some fall somewhere in between the two extremes, but they all share commonalities. All of them use the same unsophisticated vocabulary. All of them subscribe to the same reductionist, almost childish, historical narrative trotted out by PIRA/Sinn Fein. All of them are motivated by the same irrational, illogical hatred of anything that they perceive to be ‘the other’.

They deflect, deny, distort and deligitimise. They express dismay and disdain for any position which deviates from Irish nationalist orthodoxy. They insult, goad, abuse, mock and attempt to intimidate. In many ways their tactics mirror those of nationalist/republican terror groups.

As one twitter user (@BigMickThomo) recently put it – “Online anonymity has replaced the balaclava.“

I couldn’t have put it any better. It is a succinct and devastatingly accurate way to sum up the sort of pond life who infest social media, spewing hatred and bile in every direction.

The efforts of these radicalised Irish nationalist extremists are often counterproductive. They call attention to the kind of hatred and fear that seems to permeate through the nationalist/republican community like some virulent disease.

Occasionally they go too far and one of their number ends up in court, thus briefly shining a light on the behaviour of these online extremists.

That doesn’t mean that their trolling and bigotry should ever be tolerated. They perpetuate sectarian attitudes, spread lies and wild allegations about innocent people, prop up the dehumanising republican narrative, cause gross offence, spread wild disinformation, disseminate PIRA/SF propaganda and generally make social media a cesspit for ordinary, decent people.

*An INLA supporter who clearly doesn’t know what the word “sectarian” means.*

No one is trolled as relentlessly as Unionist/Loyalist women and those from a Catholic background. I suggest that they think that the former are somehow an easy target, whilst they regard the latter as being turn-coats or “soup drinkers”, to borrow the terminology of the hard-of-thinking.

It is in these cases where the misogynistic attitude of these nationalist trolls, and their overt sectarianism, really comes to light. All of their hatred comes bubbling to the surface, their extremist views are no longer hidden behind a thin veil of sarcasm, mockery and school-yard “humour”.

It is long past time for our elected representatives to attempt to tackle this issue. Unionist MLAs should be publicly asking why nationalist politicians deny that any such problem exists. They should shut down the ridiculous “both sides are as bad as each other” narrative before it has a chance to gain traction.

It is long hanging fruit, an easy way to put Irish nationalism under the microscope and seriously damage the carefully crafted image that Provisional Sinn Fein and the SDLP have worked for years to create. Especially Provisional Sinn Fein!

I won’t hold my breath however. For now it looks like the campaign against Irish nationalist online extremism and trolling will have to be conducted (as always) by us lowly Loyalist and Unionist activists.

That won’t deter us. We are, by now, rather used to having to rely on ourselves. We are not talking about moving mountains either. It is not difficult to expose these hateful idiots. It is not difficult to document their activities and their hate-speech.

The only thing necessary is for all Loyalists and Unionists on social media to screenshot any and all examples of nationalist hate and bigotry that they come across, report it and either post their screenshots or pass them to someone who will, or someone more high profile who has a much larger audience.

The more this problem is exposed to the light of public scrutiny, the harder it will be for Irish nationalist political parties, the media and the social media companies to ignore.

*More terrorist imagery, this time a twitter header.*

The unadulterated hatred and bigotry of these nationalist/republican “keyboard warriors” presents Loyalists and Unionists with an almost unique opportunity to expose Irish nationalism for what it really is – a crude form of religious separatism, firmly anchored in 19th century ideas of natavism and “blood and soil” ethnocentrism.

Let’s not miss that opportunity!

14/11/202114/11/2021 by Ozzie

Fallacies & Fables of the Belfast “Pogrom”.

Collusion, Irish nationalism, Loyalism, NORTHERN IRELAND, Pogroms, Sectarianism, Ulster History
Belfast, History, Irish nationalism, Loyalism, Loyalist, Loyalists, Northern Ireland, Pogroms, Ulster, Ulster Loyalism, UVF

Recently I received a copy of a quite rare book. A book which was, according to the mythos surrounding it, pulled from circulation because of the explosive information that it contained.

The book is titled ‘Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom 1920-1922’ by ‘G. B. Kenna’.

I must admit that this book was a real eye-opener for me personally. Not because I knew nothing of the violence in Belfast in those years, the so-called “First Troubles”, no, I have read about & researched quite extensively on that dark period of Ulster history.

The book was an eye-opener for an entirely different reason. You see, I had (somewhat naively) convinced myself that the historical revisionism & creation of baseless, propaganistic narratives by Irish nationalists was a recent phenomenon.

It is not. Distorting historical truth, sanitising the actions of violent Irish nationalist gangs & attempting to portray the nationalist minority as the world’s greatest victims is an exercise in propaganda as old as Irish nationalism itself.

In this blog post I will reproduce sections of the book, ‘Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom 1920-1922’, without alteration. I will comment on them as little as possible. It will then be up to you, the reader, to decide if the book is an accurate, truthful & unbiased record of historical facts, or not.

We shall begin with the portion of the book which reads as follows –

“THE FIERY CROSS.
On the twelfth of July, 1920, at Finaghy, a suburb of Belfast, Sir Edward Carson delivered a very bitter speech—outlandish, one would say, for any man holding such a responsible position—to the assembled Orange brethren.
Of course, it was religiously read by all his followers in Ulster. The chief theme of the harangue was that the loyalists of Ulster were in imminent peril from Sinn Fein, that he was losing hope of the Government’s defending them, and that they must be “up and doing to protect themselves.” And these are not mere words, he said; ”I am sick of words without action.”
He dragged in the Catholic Hierarchy and the priests. The speech was altogether a good sample of the ”Raw-head-and-bloody-bones ” kind and well calculated to excite the fanatical elements.
Of course, as everyone knows, there was absolutely no menace of the kind.”

“Absolutely no menace of the kind”.

*IRA ‘Northern Division’, photographed Co. Antrim, 1920.*

Perhaps the author of ‘Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom 1920-1922’ was of the belief that the IRA were active in Ulster in 1920 (in point of fact they were active in 1919) merely to assist elderly ladies in crossing the road? Perhaps he believed that the IRA’s so-called ‘Northern Division’ were in fact Unionists who had armed themselves to defend the Unionist people from attacks by the ‘Southern Division’?

Had Sinn Fein/IRA not already killed dozens of people across the island by July, 1920? Had they not already attacked a Royal Irish Constabulary barracks in the city of Londonderry? Had they not already fired at Loyalists in that same city in April of that year, with the clear intent to kill as many as they could? Had they not already attacked, fired upon & then set ablaze a police station in Co. Armagh, just 2 months before?

Perhaps the IRA murder of a policeman in Derry in mid May had never happened? Maybe the massed attack on the police station in Crossgar, in which 200 men were involved, was a mere figment of Unionist imaginations?

Was another policeman not shot dead by “Sinn Feiners” in South Armagh at the start of June, an attack which also left a civilian dead? And wasn’t a Sinn Fein man shot dead in Cookstown, Co. Tyrone, on the 16th of June, whilst trying to murder police officers?

Who did the Ulster Volunteer Force engage in fierce fire-fights throughout the city of Londonderry between the 18th and the 25th of June? Perhaps the author of ‘Facts and Figures’ believed that it was Cossacks, or maybe Apaches who were locked in battle with the UVF?

“Absolutely no menace of the kind”, ha! Mr Kenna is not off to a very good start with his ‘Facts and Figures’!

Now let us move on to one of the main themes of the book- that the police & army stood idly by & did nothing to prevent disorder or protect the nationalist community.

Collusion?

I will supply the reader with just a handful of the very many examples of this entirely untruthful accusation against the forces of law & order.

“..the frenzied Protestant mobs, who in their strength defied a weak and indulgent police.”

“The other side [nationalists], finding themselves in most instances without any adequate military or police protection….”

“But who shall ever write the history of that innocent Catholic group in Ballymacarret, surrounded by coarse, savage enemies, in numbers ten to one, well armed, confident and often supported by the forces of the law!

“Most Rev. Dr. Macrory [sic], Catholic Bishop of Belfast, felt compelled to wire Lloyd-George about the lawlessness in Belfast and the butchery of his people. He protested also against the inactivity of the British military, who afforded little or no protection.”

“The throbbing of a police lorry is often but a sure sign that murder is abroad”

These examples should be ample to demonstrate one of the main themes of the book. One could well imagine, some of the more antiquated language aside, that the paragraphs above were from ‘An Poblacht’ or some other organ of Provisional IRA propaganda from our own time!

Indeed, all that is missing is the cry of “collusion”. A word that was perhaps unfamiliar to the erstwhile Mr. Kenna when he wrote (or perhaps Co-wrote) “Facts and Figures”.

Do these claims of police & army inaction stand up to scrutiny? No, they do not. For in the very same book in which we find these claims we also find the following-

“…the great majority of the casualties among the ‘Loyalists’ were due to the fire of the military and the RIC.”

“Among the dead…..was Alex Twittle [sic] an Orange sniper of whose death the following official report was issued; “a soldier was sniped at. He returned fire and shot the sniper dead” “

“The Orange mob…..had to be dispersed by military fire.”

“A notorious Orange sniper, H. Hazzard, was shot by the military.”

“It will be observed that the number of Catholics on the foregoing list is much larger than the number of Protestants. Of the latter, a big proportion were the victims of military fire. The Orange Party, being always the aggressors, were often made to pay for such aggression.”

Ah yes, the very same police and “military” who sometimes allegedly aided Loyalists & sometimes supposedly just stood around & watched as “innocent Catholics” were “pogromed”, were also killing “Orange” snipers & firing live rounds into crowds of Loyalists. I think I just heard the sound of a narrative collapsing!

*The (obviously) pro-Loyalist New York Times with pictures of the “inactive” British army trying to prevent further violence in* Belfast!

Were the police & army being inactive when they were killing Unionists & Loyalists on the streets of Belfast? Perhaps the author believes that the Army & the RIC should have simply killed Unionists wholesale?

Perhaps the author of “Facts & Figures”, who was not ‘G. B. Kenna’ at all but rather the Roman Catholic priest John Hassan, genuinely believed that the police & army were biased because they killed only slightly (about 40%) more Protestants than Catholics?

Now we come to my very favourite part of this little book. The part where Hassan contradicts himself within the space of just a few paragraphs! The part that is indicative of the attitude of Irish nationalists, the part of the book where two Irish republican extremists are presented as being purer than the driven snow.

I will keep you in suspense no longer.

“On the evening of April 23rd, two members of the Auxiliary Police were fired at & shot in Donegall Place. During curfew the following night Patrick & Daniel Duffin, two of the most respected & well-conducted Catholic young men in the whole city, were very brutally murdered in their homes by members of the local RIC.

Wow. Two Auxiliary Police “were fired at & shot”? Does the author not mean ‘Two Auxiliary Police men narrowly survived an IRA murder attempt’?

‘Father’ Hassan would have the reader believe that the two auxiliaries were hit by a wayward youth firing a BB gun!

The most startling thing though is his description of the two men who were not just brutally murdered but “very brutally murdered” the following night, apparently in retaliation for the attempted murder of the two police officers.

In his own words these two unfortunate young men were two of the finest young gentlemen in all of Belfast! Two fine, upstanding, innocent men. Shame that he ruins their reputation just three paragraphs later, on the very next page in fact, by reporting that-

“…..their coffins were draped in the Republican colours & carried behind the hearse by relays of the IRA.”

Oh. Oh dear. So the brothers Duffin were two of the most respected and well-conducted young men in the whole of Belfast but just happened to be members of the IRA as well? Maybe they had joined an illegal, blood-soaked, subversive terror organisation by accident? Maybe they were in the community outreach section of the IRA?

If it was not so tragic it would be hilarious. It seems that many in the Irish nationalist community regard dead members of murder gangs as “innocent”, not just in 1922 but to this very day.

Wrong on Every Count

The propagandist Hassan filled his little book with lies, misrepresentations, half-truths & distortions. So much so that many historians, even those from an Irish nationalist community background, now completely discount “Facts and Figures of the Belfast Pogrom” as a reliable source of information.

For example, Hassan’s figures on the numbers killed are wildly inaccurate & have been shown as such both by people who lived through that period of violence & by numerous historians since. Four of those named by Hassan as being victims of the so-called “pogrom”, were in fact victims of accidental shootings, fatally wounded when guns went off unintentionally.

Two of those listed by Hassan were victims of incidents which happened outside Belfast. On the 4th of November, 1920, RIC Sgt. Sam Lucas died in a Belfast hospital – however his wounds had been received in the course of an IRA attack on the RIC barracks in Tempo, Co. Fermanagh.

Hassan also records the death of a “Private Hepworth” on the 25th of February, 1921. This might refer to the death of RAF Flight Officer Hepworth Ambrose Vyvian Hill, who was shot when he failed to answer the challenge of a sentry at Aldergrove Aerodrome in Co. Antrim, many miles from Belfast.

At least three deaths on Hassan’s list were not politically related at all. For example; William Bell, who died on the 2nd of December, 1920, was killed when part of a wall fell on him during a thunderstorm.

About half a dozen other victims were also double counted by Hassan, no doubt in order to “bulk up” the number of nationalist victims.

Six of the deaths listed by Hassan could not be corroborated by reports in any of the Belfast newspapers, meaning that they could very well have been total fabrications, added to the list of victims by Hassan for the reason stated above.

A final death as a result of an accidental shooting was not included in Hassan’s list, undoubtedly because it did not quite fit the priest’s own narrative. Joseph Burns, who died from gun shot wounds on the night of the 12th – 13th January, 1922. Burns is named as a member of the IRA on the Co. Antrim republican memorial in Belfast’s Milltown Cemetery, although for years, an element of mystery surrounded his inclusion on this memorial, as his death was not reported in any of the Belfast newspapers at the time.

In later years the mystery was cleared up when republican sources admitted that Burns, alongside two other members of an IRA gang, was accidentally killed whilst cleaning weapons. In 1932 Burns’ mother admitted that “I had to take his death quietly as the police were making active enquiries in the case.”

For many years it has been strongly rumoured that several members of the Official IRA & the Provisional IRA, during the more recent conflict here, also met with violent deaths that were subsequently covered up, for various reasons. How many more mothers had to quietly take the death of a son, in order to avoid police attention or save Irish nationalist extremist gangs from embarrassment or awkward questions?

When is a Pogrom not a Pogrom?

The Kishinev Pogrom took place between the 19th and the 21st of April, 1903, its victims being the Jewish community within that city. Kishinev (Chișinău) is now the capital of the independent republic of Moldova but in 1903 was a provincial city of the Russian Empire. During the pogrom of 1903, a total of 49 Jews were killed, 1,500 Jewish homes were destroyed & dozens of businesses wrecked.

Why do I include these events in a blog post about events in Belfast in 1920-22? Well I include them because the Kishinev Pogrom of 1903 is fairly typical of what most people mean when they use the term ‘pogrom’. There are dozens of other examples.

Notice that fatalities in Kishinev include only members of one community; the community which was being targeted.

The Jewish minority in Kishinev did not kill anybody. No Jews were accidentally killed whilst cleaning rifles. No Russian police officers were shot. No retaliation was carried out.

*The aftermath of Kishinev Pogrom, 1903.*

Contrast that with what was happening in Belfast in 1920-22.

If events in Belfast, between July, 1920 and October, 1922, could truly be described as a “pogrom” wouldn’t that mean that almost all of the victims should be from the minority community?

Even if 70-75% of the victims were from the minority community, using the term “pogrom” would probably be justifiable.

Were 70-75% of the victims from the minority community? No. They most certainly were not.

Approximately 498 people died during the violence in Belfast during 1920-22. Of those killed 280 were Irish nationalists, of whom at least 26 (almost 10%) were members of the IRA. A further 37 of the total number killed were members of the Army, RIC/RUC & Ulster Special Constabulary. That means that 181 of those killed were Unionists/Loyalists, or at the very least from a Unionist/Loyalist background.

Those numbers do not add up to a “pogrom”!

An spasm of intercommunal violence? Yes. A tragic episode of civil unrest? Yes. A Pogrom? Definitely not.

In fact, in the first 18 months of the so-called “pogrom” nationalists killed more people than anyone else. 84 Unionists died in that time, compared to 81 nationalists.

Does that sound like a “pogrom” to you?

Of course, the truth seems to be an alien concept for those extremists & fanatics who call themselves Irish nationalists.

What other group of people, anywhere on Earth, could engage in a campaign of murderous violence & then attempt to portray themselves as the victims of a “pogrom”?

What other group could, with a straight face, describe members of an armed & violent organisation as “innocent”?

What other group of people would try to convince the world that they are helpless victims of sectarian violence, when in fact they are the worst perpetrators of such violence?

I will leave you with the words of Mr Hassan; “The Turk has the Armenian in the Dock & is close to securing a conviction.”

Contrary to what Mr Hassan believed though, Irish nationalists are not the Armenian but the Turk!

08/09/202108/09/2021 by Ozzie

Young Hopes Denied; How Unionist Plans to end Educational Segregation Were Thwarted

Almost incredibly, in the second decade of the 21st century, the issue of integrated education (ie educating Catholic and non-Catholic children together) remains controversial in Northern Ireland. A situation almost unique in the developed world, the only other exception being Scotland.

For those readers outside Northern Ireland, allow me to elucidate; NI has four main types of schools- State schools (which are also known as ‘Controlled Schools’), Catholic schools, Integrated Schools and Gaelic language schools.

According to figures from the Department of Education, there are some 560 state schools, almost half of the total number of schools registered in Northern Ireland. The number of pupils attending these schools, both primary and secondary, is approximately 140,000, or about 42% of all pupils.

In terms of religious breakdown, 66% of those pupils are Protestant, 10% are Roman Catholic, 18% have no religion and 6% are ‘other’. State schools are managed by the Education Authority through various Boards of Governors.

*A State primary school in East Belfast*

There are 466 Roman Catholic-managed schools, under the authority of the ‘Council for Catholic Maintained Schools’. According to figures from the Dept. of Education, the number of pupils attending Catholic schools is 121,733, or about 37%.

The CCMS has 36 governing council members, who (unsurprisingly) are appointed rather than being democratically elected.

Integrated schools are institutions usually established with the express intention of educating children together, regardless of religious or community background, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), a voluntary organisation, oversees integrated education in Northern Ireland. Just over 24,000 children were enrolled at Integrated Schools in 2020/21.

Gaelic language schools are, as the name suggests, schools which teach through the medium of the gaelic language.

Gaelic language schools, or ‘Gaelscoileanna’, are outside of state control but are able to achieve “grant-aided status”, by applying for voluntary maintained status. In addition to free-standing schools, gaelic language education is also provided through units in a small number of existing (CCMS) schools.

Of the two types of gaelic language schools in NI there are 27 ‘stand alone’ gaelic language schools and just 12 gaelic language units attached to English-medium host schools.

In addition to this, there are two fully independent schools teaching through the medium of the gaelic language. ‘Gaelscoil Ghleann Darach’ in Crumlin, Co. Antrim, and ‘Gaelscoil na Daróige’ in the city of Londonderry. ‘Comhairle na Gaelscolaíochta’ (CnaG) is the representative body for gaelic schools.

*The proposed new-build campus of a gaelic language school*

Just 7,000 pupils are enrolled in these gaelic language schools, many of which have pupil numbers so low that they would trigger immediate closure within any other school sector, especially the State sector.

This present hodgepodge situation, which disadvantages all children but especially those within the under-funded state sector, could easily have been avoided however if Northern Ireland’s first devolved government had won it’s battle with the churches.

True History Forgotten – Again!

The efforts of the first Northern Ireland education minister, the seventh Marquess of Londonderry (1878-1949) to integrate and modernise education have (almost predictably) now largely been forgotten but, had his proposals been accepted without major alterations, generations of children in NI could have benefited from a modern, secular and above all, integrated education.

Sadly though, his reforms were torn asunder by various denominational interests, in particular those of the Roman Catholic church.

*The great reformer – Charles Stewart Henry Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry, KG*, MVO, PC, PC

Lord Londonderry decided from the outset to make radical and controversial changes to education. Changes which would have created a first class school system which would have seen children of all classes and creeds educated together.

Education in Ireland was, historically, beset by many difficulties, a lack of uniformity, small enrollment numbers in many schools and a genuine, deep-rooted concern about the influence of so-called “school-managers”, who were almost always clergymen.

Many so-called ‘national schools’, established in the 19th century, had become sectarian institutions, in terms of both character and control. School management boards had been completely taken over by local clergy, especially in predominantly Roman Catholic areas.

Attempts to remove this malign influence, such as the MacPherson Bill (1919), failed mainly because of opposition from the Roman Catholic church and their allies in the Nationalist Party. As a result Ireland, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, did not benefit from any significant reforms in education.

With the official creation of the state of Northern Ireland in May, 1921, control of education automatically passed to the newly elected devolved government.

That control, however, was to remain tenuous for several years. Once again it was the Catholic church and it’s servants within Irish nationalism that tried to thwart educational reform.

For a while, religious segregation in education continued unchallenged but that situation would not continue for much longer, with the Unionist government of Northern Ireland determined to end segregated education.

The Government of Ireland Act, approved by Westminster in December, 1920, delivered self-determination to the island of Ireland, with the creation of separate northern and southern states with limited self-governing powers, including responsibility for education.

Section 5 of the Act prevented, by law, either state from making:

“a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion … or give a preference, privilege, or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief … or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at that school”
Government of Ireland Act (1920)

This constituted a serious challenge to the existing education system as it implicitly implied that schools had to come under state control if they wanted to access public funding.

In a speech to the Northern Ireland Senate in June, 1921, Lord Londonderry made it very clear what his hopes were:

“I feel that everybody realises the importance of this great question, and that everybody is determined to do his utmost to collect in one great body and in one band all the great educational forces of the country, so as to elaborate a system which will be satisfactory in every respect. There are naturally difficulties which surround this question. They have been acute at different times and they subsided at other times but I do feel that with co-operation and with sympathy we will be able to evolve a system which will be the admiration of all other countries.”
Charles Stewart Henry Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry.

Londonderry faced seemingly insurmountable problems. A new ministry of education had to be created from scratch, a task made much more difficult by uncooperative officials in Dublin, motivated by bigotry and petty spite, not transferring relevant materials and staff.

Even more seriously, the Irish nationalist minority in Northern Ireland boycotted the new state. Encouraged by the Sinn Féin leadership in Dublin, particularly Michael Collins, they naively hoped that Northern Ireland would not last long as a separate political entity.

Roman Catholic bishops in NI— the community and moral leaders of northern nationalists and republicans — seemed to enthusiastically share in this delusion and advocated abstention from the Parliament of Northern Ireland, refusing to recognise its lawful authority.

Arch-bigot Logue

One of the most vocal opponents of the new Ulster state was the Catholic archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Logue, who was noted for his intransigent and bigoted views. Logue refused to have anything to do with Northern Ireland and instructed his ‘flock’ to follow his example.

Logue was an unabashed bigot and an intractable opponent of integrated education and would prove to be a constant thorn in the side of the reform minded and progressive Lord Londonderry.

In September, 1921, Londonderry established the “Lynn committee on education reform”. It was hoped that all interested parties would sit on this body and clerics from all of the major churches were invited to join, including Logue. The cardinal refused to join or even to allow others under him to do so.

At this time around a third of all Catholic schools refused to even recognise the authority of the Ministry of Education; with staff continuing to draw their salaries from Dublin instead.

The Marquess of Londonderry urged cardinal Logue to reconsider his position. The arrogant and power-hungry Mr. Logue replied, ludicrously describing the committee as “an attack…organised against our schools”. He maintained this stance despite the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty which had effectively guaranteed the existence of the State of Northern Ireland.

Logue’s backward and narrowly sectarian attitude deprived the committee of any official Catholic input and retarded development of the “one great body” that Londonderry had so desperately hoped for. It is from this belligerence that all the subsequent problems of this period can be traced.

Nevertheless the committee established by Lord Londonderry convened, under the chairmanship of Mr. R.J. Lynn, then editor of the Belfast Newsletter, they pressed on with hearings throughout 1922 and presented interim findings to Londonderry that summer.

Only one Roman Catholic, the interestingly named Napoleon Bonaparte-Wyse, defied Cardinal Logue and accepted the invitation to be involved with the committee. He was something of a maverick and quickly became a hate figure in the Catholic and nationalist press.

But Bonaparte-Wyse was a very skilled administrator, having had considerable knowledge of education policy from his years as a civil servant in Dublin and, to his eternal credit, he put in a tremendous amount of work on behalf of the committee.

The Committee Reports

The report recommended structural changes and local accountability for state schools that would eventually be embodied in the subsequent education act.

Schools wishing to retain full independence were provided for— with the quite reasonable proviso that they would receive reduced funding. An intermediate category was also created, falling somewhere between full state control and independence, in which ‘school managers’ would be appointed by both the local authority and any affiliated church.

Such schools would receive more funding than those which were totally independent but less than the full funding of those completely transferred to the state sector.

*May Street National School, North Belfast*

It was hoped that this financial lure would enable a transition of unwilling church schools from full independence to the state via intermediate status. In place of clerics the local education authorities would appoint managers whilst still allowing clergy a “right of entry” to schools. A concession that, in the opinion of this author, should never have been made.

The committee also compromised it’s secular ideals by recommending that “simple bible instruction” should be provided on a voluntary basis.

Lord Londonderry agreed to the changes recommended by Lynn but, correctly, rejected Bible instruction as unconstitutional. Unpaid religious instruction would only be permitted after school hours and with express parental consent. This proved to be too much for some parties and even for some reactionary elements within the Unionist Party.

Nevertheless, the main Protestant churches welcomed the interim report, as did the Orange Order. The Roman Catholic church however, did not.

Despite some division in cabinet Londonderry won collective support with the help of Prime Minister Craig and (future Prime Minister) J.M. Andrews. In the spring of 1923, the Education Act (Northern Ireland), more commonly known as “the Londonderry Act” was passed.

*Sir James Craig, 1st Viscount Craigavon on the cover of Time magazine, 1924*

Catholic schools had, predictably, lost financial support from the Irish Free State in October, 1922, and were forced, albeit reluctantly, to recognise the education ministry’s authority in order to receive funding. Now fully involved in the system they had so strenuously resisted, they vociferously rejected the report as an attack on their religion.

Unlike the emerging Free State system, Northern Ireland’s proposed secular and integrated state schools would not promote the Catholic religion or so-called ‘gaelic culture’. Whilst it would not promote Protestant values either, the new system was seen by the majority of Roman Catholics as doing so obliquely. A case of “that which is not Catholic must be our enemy”.

The end of 1922 had seen something of a battle of wills between Catholic teachers and the Ministry of Education over the oath of allegiance to the King, which was quite reasonably required of all public servants.

Many believed that this would be an important test case, with a government victory proving, once and for all, that it was the Ministry of Education, not the Catholic church that was truly in charge of education in Ulster.

Due to the financial dependency of Catholic teachers upon the ministry it was inevitable that the government would win. The Catholic school system had lost a battle that they themselves had instigated, simply because of their intransigence and unreasonable demands for self-exclusion. Unfortunately though, the outcome was not as decisive as many had hoped.

Protestant churches had agreed to transfer the schools under their (marginal) control to state control despite the lack of religion in the school timetable. They quickly changed their minds however when it became clear that Roman Catholic controlled schools would remain independent and only ‘Protestant schools’ would have to abide by state rules, specifically – no church control over teacher appointments and no religious instruction on the curriculum.

To compound this, Catholics would have a say in the appointment of teachers in state schools through the (exclusively Catholic) Irish nationalist party members of local education authorities, something which was keenly felt by Protestants in border areas who had already experienced sectarian discrimination at the hands of nationalist controlled councils.

Segregation and Discrimination

There were clear examples of discrimination against Protestants by Irish nationalist controlled councils, especially with regard to social housing, from the very birth of Northern Ireland as a state. By the 1960s, such discrimination against non-Catholics was endemic, having reached such extraordinary levels that in Newry in 1963, only 22 out of 765 newly allocated council houses were given to Protestants.

Curiously, we hear little or nothing today about that discrimination.

“Liberty of Teaching”

The Catholic church were utterly opposed to the new education act and opposed to any kind of educational integration or loss of church control over schools.

This, however, was neither a new position, nor one unique to Ulster. In the 1850s, to cite just one such example, in New York and other adjacent urban areas, Catholics implemented a system of parish-based schools.

The Roman Catholic church remained resolutely and unreasonably opposed to any form of integrated education, or indeed to anything that would dilute their control over the schooling of “their children”.

One of the things which concerned the church most was the content of the curricula delivered in state schools, for the church hierarchy was firmly opposed to the notion of “liberty of teaching”.

In this instance, the RC church prevailed, though in most cases, the struggle over education between the state and the Catholic church resulted in the capitulation of the latter. Even in Catholic strongholds like France.

Between 1881 and 1882, the French Minister of Public Education, Jules Ferry, promoted a series of reforms establishing a free, obligatory and secular system of primary education. Catholic authorities, apoplectic with rage, vehemently and passionately opposed Ferry’s reforms, although in the end the church had little choice but to accept the new system or be totally cut off from public funding, a stark choice which church controlled schools in Ulster should, in my opinion, also have faced.

*M. Jules Ferry, French Minister of Public Education*

In Northern Ireland though, the battle over schools continued, with the Roman Catholic church throwing up fresh obstacles at every turn in order to thwart Londonderry’s plans.

The Catholic church even opposed the idea of Catholic and non-Catholic teachers being trained together.

They would not allow male Catholic trainee teachers to enrol at Stranmillis teacher training college, as they did not want them educated alongside (Catholic) women or Protestants.

Almost unbelievably, the RC church even refused to send male student teachers to St Mary’s college in Belfast, which was already training Catholic women, preferring instead to send male student teachers to a college in the Irish Free State and forbidding them from attending Stranmillis.

Understandably, the Ministry of Education insisted that teachers would have to be trained in Northern Ireland, as the curriculum and education system in the Free State was, of course, at significant variance to that of Northern Ireland.

The Marquess Londonderry also had to deal with the constitutional problem of funding a denominational college. The Catholic church though, persisted in petulantly demanding a separate Northern Ireland college for Catholic men.

However, despite the diktats and veiled threats of leading bishop Joseph MacRory, Stranmillis recorded fifty applications from Roman Catholics in 1923.

Most of these were retracted though when the Catholic church made it clear that teachers graduating from Stranmillis would not be employed in “their” schools.

Lord Londonderry had to resolve the matter, needing teachers for Catholic schools but wanting also to prevent too many Catholics coming into the state sector, lest it would cause a backlash amongst non-Catholics.

Some progress was made when Bonaparte-Wyse met MacRory’s representatives for talks. The Catholic church however rejected every proposal made, until they themselves put forward the idea of separate lectures and subjects for Catholics in Stranmillis, also demanding a separate hostel and grounds for Catholic student teachers, lest they become ‘contaminated’ by close contact with non-Catholics.

The Ministry countered by suggesting that Catholic student teachers could instead be sent to Strawberry Hill, a Catholic training college near London.
Lord Londonderry knew that MacRory would not move and towards the end of 1924, wrote to another important bishop, Bishop Patrick O’Donnell, but continuing Cardinal Logue’s boycott, O’Donnell refused several invitations to join a committee to resolve the issue.

Londonderry refused to leave it there however and continued to request his input. Persistence paid off, and in January, 1925, O’Donnell succeeded Logue as Archbishop of Armagh. Somewhat more liberal than his predecessor, O’Donnell agreed to meet Londonderry later in the month.

Strawberry Hill was agreed as a temporary measure. For Londonderry this was a successful solution as no (unconstitutional) new college would have to be built and Ulster Catholics could train in England.

True Secularism Sacrificed

Despite the relatively successful outcome to the “training crisis” it could not hide the fact that the 1923 act was badly damaged.

The vast majority of NI Catholics and Protestants would not be educated together at any level outside university and Catholic schools remained strictly denominational in both character and practice.

The appointment of teachers had also become a contentious issue. Under the terms of the constitution, state schools, unlike independent Catholic schools, were forbidden to “hire or fire” on the basis of religion.

Some correctly viewed this as being an inequality- as State schools could not show any preference in the hiring of staff, whilst Roman Catholic schools could and did and still do to this day.

Such fears were founded in the very real fact that a significant number of Catholics were applying to enrol at the state’s newly established Stranmillis teacher training college, despite a ban on doing so from their church hierarchy.

Lord Londonderry tried to quell opposition by explaining to the various delegations of backbenchers MPs and Protestant clerics who came to see him that a religious input could be accommodated outside school hours.

Practical and constitutional explanations fell on deaf ears though as those Protestants opposed to the new education system could only compare their lack of control over the hiring of teaching staff to the independent Catholic sector who did have such control.

The opposition of the Protestant churches grew throughout 1924, gaining some popular support. Church groups appealed to the Prime Minister, James Craig, believing him to be more open to hearing their views.

But the Marquess of Londonderry dug his heels in, determined not to alter his act. The United Education Committee (UEC), comprised of Protestant school managers, retaliated with claims that the act was anti-Protestant and began to harness growing mass support.

The growing pressure proved too much for Craig. An Amendment Act was passed in March, 1925. Cabinet papers suggest it was the Prime Minister’s proposal; it certainly went against both the wishes of Londonderry and the spirit of true secularism.

After some disagreement with the UEC it was agreed that the new act would make it obligatory for paid state teachers to give “simple Bible instruction“, although this would remain non-compulsory.

Protestant ministers were also assured that school management committees, on which some continued to sit, would now have some say in the appointment of teaching staff, although still nowhere near as much influence as the Catholic church maintained within “their” schools.

With the act in tatters, Londonderry’s relationship with Craig worsened, almost certainly contributing to his resignation in January, 1926. The Marquess of Londonderry later entered the UK cabinet as ‘Secretary of State for Air’, serving in that ministry from 1931 to 1935.

The Consequences

Young hopes were denied . The vast majority of Ulster’s children would not be educated together. Division and distrust would continue to grow unchecked.

I have absolutely no doubt that had Londonderry’s strident and bold reforms passed unadulterated, or if he had gone further still and, as in France in the late 19th century, offered schools the stark choice between church control or public funds, the benefit to Northern Ireland would have been enormous.

Years of violence and upheaval could have been avoided. Discrimination (by either community) would have become unthinkable within one or two generations. Prosperity would have increased. Tens, possibly hundreds of millions of pounds would have been saved. Old parochial attitudes would have been consigned to history.

Both Unionism and Irish nationalism would have been obliged to keep pace with the changing attitudes of society. Moderation and forward thinking would have become the order of the day.

Indeed, Irish nationalism as an ideology may well have become a relic of a bygone era. The vaguely defined and laughably romanticised ‘utopia’ of a unified 32 county gaelic workers and farmers republic, of the type long dreamt of by Irish nationalists and republicans, would appear utterly ridiculous to a prosperous, well informed, well educated and forward looking populace.

Especially one which had been spared from years of sectarian slaughter, no-warning bomb attacks, “proxy bombs”, “security alerts” and the subsequent (and inevitable) militarisation of the entire country.

But, of course, history did not follow that particular path. Slavish, unthinking, child-like devotion to religion ultimately triumphed over secularism, logic and reason.

Integration died an early death, and with it died the dreams of Unionist radicals like Londonderry.

What Ulster got instead was generation after generation of children who were not so much educated as indoctrinated.

A “separate but equal” school system absolutely no different to the racially segregated school system in operation in the American South during the years of the “Jim Crow Laws.

Supporters of educational segregation in the southern United States, 1958

A virtual state within a state, in which children as young as 4 were (and are) taught that they are different to their neighbours, simply because they were born into a sect that interprets centuries old religious dogma differently to other branches of the same religion.

A school system which inculcates, however obliquely, opposition and hostility to the very state which funds it.

All that follows is tragically inevitable.

“Semper Eadem”

To this very day, Irish nationalist political parties and the Catholic church remain fundamentally opposed to integrated education, sometimes hiding behind the smokescreen of so-called “parental choice“, sometimes dreaming up other excuses to defend the appalling, backward and discriminatory “separate but equal” school system.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will ever be radical secularisation in Northern Ireland. We will never see religion taken out of the classroom, or rather, we will never see religion taken out of some classrooms!

Nevertheless, integrated education is something worth campaigning for. The children of Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve an educational system that does not pigeonhole them at age four.

Only we, the people of Northern Ireland, can end educational apartheid.

It is a goal that we should all be working towards. Everyone of us having our own small part to play.

As we have said before – don’t just complain about, do something to change it.

Such change will only come about through activism, engagement, dialogue, the highlighting of issues, the challenging of existing attitudes, the promotion of alternatives and application of incessant pressure on the relevant parties.

Write to (or email, or telephone) your local MP and MLAs, help to highlight the issue of educational apartheid, use your social media account(s) to call for change. Talk to your friends and family about it. Together we can end segregated education. Together we must end segregated education. Join us!

#EndSegregationNow

Þole Aȝe Umquhile Poustie