Archives

March/April 2022 31Infamous Death-Squad Killer Diesserious shooting incidents, but he has escaped justice once and for all. He goes to his grave with many of the UK’s secrets regarding its dirty war in Ireland.That suits the British government and its armed forces but leaves victims and survivors bereft of truth and justice.Clive Graham Williams (British Army number 24031479) received a decorated soldier’s funeral, having risen to the rank of Major follow–ing an exchange with the Royal Military Police (RMP) in Britain and the Royal Australian Corps of Military Police (RACMP) in the 1980s.Lieutenant Colonel Craig Kingston of the Aus–tralian Army gave a cofn-side oration at Williams’ funeral:“Taf has many RMP highlights and the most notable being the award of the Military Medal when serving… in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Today’s not the occasion to detail the circum–stances of how Taf was awarded the Military Medal, however it is the day to detail why a AN INFAMOUS killer, wanted in connection with a series of murders and attempted murders of Irish civilians in Belfast in 1972, has died.Clive Graham Williams, or Taf as he known to his fellow gang members, died just before Christmas.Despite proof of their involvement in serial mur–ders and attempted murders, the British courts brought neither Williams nor any members of his gang members to justice.The reason is simple. They had a licence to kill; and killed Irish civilians for the British state.Clive Graham Williams was a leading member of Britain’s Military Reaction Force (MRF), an extra-legal, covert, ofensive British Army unit which stalked the streets of Belfast in the early 1970s.In 2020, I collated archival evidence from secret British military logs which proved that Wil–liams and his death-squad were guilty of a litany of unprovoked and vicious attacks on unarmed civilians, including young teenagers. I presented this evidence in a report for the charity Paper Trail (Legacy Archive Research) which we then submitted to an independent investigative police team working under former English police Chief Constable, Jon Boucher.Only in June 2020 did the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) refer fles on seven former MRF soldiers to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) although the British justice system has failed to hold any to account yet. Williams’ name had to be on one of those fles as I proved he was directly responsible for several By Ciarán MacAirtTaff’s secretive Military Medal was for nefarious murders in Northern IrelandThe reason for Lieutenant Colonel Kingston’s tasteless nudge-nudge-wink-wink about Williams’ medal citation may be because it covered the period when Williams and his death-squad were shooting unarmed civilians on the streets of BelfastMilitary Medal is bestowed on an individual. It is awarded to personnel for bravery in battle, for acts of gallantry and devotion, to duty under fre… Taf did not speak often about his medal and many who knew him in later years had no idea about his past, such was his humility”.Normally, the circumstances of the award of such a prestigious Military Medal would be the centre-piece of any British military commemora–tion, but, as I discovered over a decade ago, Williams’ Military Medal was recorded in the London Gazette of 3 October 1972.The reason for Lieutenant Colonel Kingston’s tasteless nudge-nudge-wink-wink about Wil–liams’ MM citation may be because it covered the period when Williams and his death-squad were shooting unarmed civilians on the streets of Belfast.Williams did not talk about the circumstances of his MM as it would have left him open to pros–ecution for serial murders and attempted murders. In my published research, I redacted his name and the other MRF shooters named in the fles to ensure I facilitated the work of the families’ legal teams.On 6 May 1972, then Sergeant Williams is named in relation to a report of the MRF sighting and fring upon 3 alleged gunmen beside Oliver Plunkett School in West Belfast. That area of Glen Road was a favoured hunting ground for Williams and his death squad.POLITICS 32March/April 2022The 39 Brigade Commander’s Diary records that the MRF fred 24 rounds from a submachine gun and claimed “1 hit defnite”. It alleged that the gunmen had a rife and 2 pistols, and fred two rounds in return. [See image i above]Williams and his unit had not hit a gunman. Wil–liams had just shot and badfrsly injured an 18-year-old unarmed teenager.The following night, an MRF patrol in the same area alleged it was fred on again and that they returned fre, claiming one defnite hit. [See image 2 above]. Lies again. The MRF had blasted and nearly killed a 15-year-old boy who was walk–ing home from the local disco.A few nights later, just after midnight, 13th May 1972, the MRF attacked local residents in nearby streets minutes apart. The neighbours were man–ning local vehicle checkpoints to protect the area from attack. [See image 3 above].A teenager was shot by the MRF whilst alight–ing from a taxi at one checkpoint in Slievegallion and a few minutes later the MRF alleged that it shot at seven gunmen in Riverdale. Again, there were no gunmen, just a group of local unarmed civilians – easy targets for the Brit–ish Army death squad. The MRF shot fve men, murdering one. Patrick McVeigh was a married man with six children.The British Army admitted no responsibility for the shooting but informed the media that there was a gun battle which was disputed by the local parish priest. Then, British Army PR told the media that the attempted mass murder was “an apparent motiveless crime” and only admitted it involved its troops many weeks later.At the time of his death, Clive Graham Williams was wanted for questioning for this murder and attempted mass murder too.He escaped justice for another attempted mass murder of unarmed civilians a few weeks later, although he was questioned and brought before the court, albeit a pro-state British court that was heavily weighted against the innocent civilians.Around midday on 22nd June 1972, Williams and his MRF death squad attacked the bus termi–nus on the Glen Road just

28March/April 2022EnRight, twicelanguage”. Content andtone. And also found that “Mr Enright did not act in good faith”.Nevertheless by 30 in favour and 1 abstention [Councillor Pat Barden] the Councillors voted to “note [SIPO’s] Report and to take no further action in the matter”. Director of Services Eamonn Hore then made a statement on behalf of the Management Team “strongly supporting the Chief Executive Mr. Enright”.It is clear that legal advice to the Council, which perhaps improperly was not minuted, was ofered by its law agent who, being responsible to the CEO and normally providing his legal advice – sometimes in the face of the Councillors – must be deemed to lack the necessary independence and to be objectively biased. Section 168 of the Local Government Act provides: “In carrying out their functions it is the duty of every member and every employee of a local authority to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest”.Section 2.2 of the Code of Conduct for Employees provides inter alia: “Local authority employees must maintain the highest standards of integrity by:- • acting in a way which enhances public trust and confdence;• ensuring that their conduct does not bring the integrity of their position or of local government into disrepute. • serving their local authority conscientiously, honestly and impartially”Readers will make up their own minds as to whether the CEO of Wexford County Council, his congratulatory management team and Councillors who applauded him with a standing ovation on the occasion of consideration of a report from SIPO detailing serious ethical contraventions have themselves, in so doing, breached the Ethics Acts and Code of Conduct. contraventions too.On 14 January 2022 the Irish Timesreported that Wexford County Council voted that day not to take any action against Tom Enright following the fndings. They were legally required to consider what action to take. At a special meeting to do so they gave “a standing ovation to Mr Enright at the meeting’s conclusion”.A Statement delivered by Tom Enright that day, went as follows:“I welcome that the Elected Members of Wexford County Council have today decided that no action will be taken in relation to the fndings in the SIPO report published last week.I wish to state again that I regret the tone of the two e-mails sent to South East Radio. However, I was standing up to the radio station who were shown to have breached the Broadcasting Act and who I was informed were acting in a deliberately biased manner against the Council.I am very passionate for the work that Council staf and Councillors do to make County Wexford a better place and some of that passion overfowed into these two e-mails. I cannot thank people enough for their support during this time. I have been overwhelmed and humbled by the large outpouring of support. Hundreds of messages of support, many from people I don’t even know and have never met…”. Skimpy minutes of the Council meeting record that:“The Council invited the Chief Executive to make a submission in respect of the Report…There followed a lengthy discussion to which many members contributed. Members spoke positively about the Chief Executive’s contribution to the Council and to the County, with many expressing the view that Mr. Enright had acted in good faith at all times and in the best interests of the Council.But SIPO had found the CEO’s emails “fell below what is expected of someone in his position, in terms of content, tone, style and In December 2021 the Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO), found that Wexford County Council CEO Tom Enright breached the Local Government Act in sending two emails to South East Radio in August 2019 in which he threatened to withdraw Council advertising with the station, during a dispute over the station’s coverage of the Council.SIPO set out detailed particulars of contraventions of the Local Government Act: of section 168 (failing to maintain proper standards of integrity, conduct and concern for the public interest); and of section 169(3) – (failing to be guided by the Code of Conduct for Employees).The three contraventions related to Mr Enright’s emails and the second and third contraventions were premised on the contention that the emails amounted to “putting pressure on the station to alter their broadcasting practices by threatening to withdraw funding from the station”. As regards the frst contravention, SIPO found: “The emails were not the appropriate recourse and amounted to an over-reaction and inappropriate confation of issues on Mr Enright’s part. They fell below what is expected of someone in his position, in terms of content, tone, style and language. The emails amounted to an inappropriate confation of the issues of, on the one hand, the coverage of the Council on South East Radio and Mr Enright’s dispute with Mr Fitzpatrick, and on the other hand, the Council’s commercial relationship with the station. In this way, Mr Enright misused the Council’s position as the station’s primary advertiser, in efect ‘throwing around the weight’ of the Council’s purse. Mr Enright’s conduct in this regard was a serious contravention of the statutory provision. In addition, the Commission fnds that Mr Enright did not act in good faith, nor in the belief that his actions were in accordance with guidelines published or advice given in writing under s. 12 or s. 25 of the Ethics Act”. He was found to have committed the two other NEWSAfter SIPO decided he’d breached the Ethics Acts Wexford County Council CEO Tom Enright and Councillors who ovated him breached Ethics Acts again by disrespecting the decision, and in Enright’s case by denying fndings of bad faith and of impropriety of content not just tone against himBy Michael SmithTom Enright: not good faithWrong

24March/April 2022ON 7 April 2009, the Minister for Finance, the late Fianna Fáil TD Brian Lenihan, introduced the National Assets Management Agency, a “bad bank”.In response to the Ministerial announce–ment, Bank of Ireland assembled an internal ‘Specialist Property Group’ with the task of identify–ing what they could sell to Nama.By that September, this Group collated loans styled as ‘Financial Assets Held for sale’ (AFS). In their announcement, Bank of Ireland stated this AFS was worth €16 billion. This was a valuation already based on better days. This €16 billion toxic loan bundle was responsible for 12% of their total loan book.Brian Lenihan always made it very clear that Nama would not be stumping up on the valuations the par–ticipating banks were citing.In total, these banks quoted roughly €77.4 billion for these toxic AFS lots.When all the dust settled; Nama would pay €31.7 billion. So the banks took a 59% price reduction on their ‘high hopes’ valuations to sell to NAMA. The Financial Statements for the year ending 31.03.2008 contained within the Annual Report pre–sented at the Bank of Ireland AGM earlier that year (July) reported that they had doubled the rate of impairment charges against their loan book; 14% of total loan book value (LBV) at year-end 2007 as against 28% LBV by 2008. So an avid reader of the Bank of Ireland Annual Report and accompanying (Almost) nobody could read the accounts properlyBy Vanessa ForanHow Bank of Ireland opened the gateway to private equity and morphed Ireland into a fertile habitat for cuckoos and vultures Nothing points you to receipts, only to impairments and lossesFinancial Statements would already have know their loan assets were heavily impaired by the time NAMA was instigated.So the 12% of customer lending assets now being treated as a toxic AFS on the same balance sheet, had already thrashed the bank and its shareholders with impairments.Providing for estimated bad debts is a standard practice usually based on specifc events assessed on industry standards: on payment history and on external factors, like market and regulatory condi–tions such as taxation and legislation. What the originating drawdown value of these loans, plus the loss of their expected interest income was before their send-of to Nama, is anyone’s guess, but we do at least know, because PWC confrmed it in their Audit Report, that within domestic lending oper–ations alone, standard debt provisions went from €63 million in 2007 or 14% of total LBV, to o 28% LBV (or €146 million) by year end 2008. You might now also recognise that Bank of Ireland was still aggressively growing its loan book throughout 2008. Then there are additional Impairment Charges. In the Annual Report for the nine months of the year to 31.12.2009, “impairment charges” are mentioned 73 times. Of the total Impairment Charges subtracted from the Loan Books, 55% of them or € 2.778 billion had to be taken from that AFS, leaving it worth €12.235 billion within months of its €16 billion prom–ise, before getting further treatment in the small print of notes.What the drawdown worth of the individual loans NEWSBank of Ireland was vulturised by funds that understood its confusing accounts March/April 2022 25within that AFS might have been when con–tracts were signed between the creditor bank and the borrowing debtor could give rise to some dirty thoughts, because that is the stage and value when agents’ commissions and bankers’ bonuses gets earned. In fact, I would contend that there is a public right to know about these sums, even as a ‘How it started; how it’s going’ exercise. We did after all guarantee and pay for many of the loans, after bonus’ and commissions were paid out.Those loans might have had vastly diferent originating values to where they now ended up, in an impaired toxic bundle quoting €16 billion in September 2009, that dwindled to €12.235 billion by December, that when matched with its year-end Impairment Adjustment, if you managed to follow it through the notes.(pg 204-205 Note 25) was really €9.457 billion.The purpose of fnancial information is to help users make decisions and form opinions.My own confdent opinion is that if all their orig–inal contract drawdown values were combined, then a value of upwards of €40 bil–lion for that €16 billion AFS bundle is not impossible. By the end of 2012, when all the diferent transfer stages were completed, Nama agreed €5.433 billion for this AFS. Paid by using Nama bonds of diferent shapes.None of us would have known this, as none of the consideration is lined out as income earned; or as a beneft receipted from the sale of a material asset, even a toxic held-for-sale asset, on the bank’s 2010 Income Statement. That is the trading period during which the vast bulk of this loan book moved out from Bank of Ireland.No matter who was reading those accounts, this AFS asset was most defnitely material (capable of infuencing a decision) to the fnan–cial position of Bank of Ireland as 12% of Total Lending Assets makes it material, even if based on a March 2009 Balance Sheet position; 12% of total lending assets is self-evidently material. If you were reading those accounts, you might have got the gist of the sales to Nama from the netting and rounding of you can make out within the notes (specifcally 15, & 16, pg 240 YE2010). These all declared the impair–ments and movements in losses, but not the consideration or beneft received. Likewise in the 2010 Cashfow Statement nothing points you to receipts, only to impair–ments and losses. The post-transfer losses of this Bank of Ire–land AFS Loan Bundle were now around €10 billion.There is commentary in notes, small print of course, and there is mention of the loss being limited to €9.45 billion (pg 220 Critical Esti–mates and Judgements: also, pg 251 Note 28). When values are reported in millions and bil–lions, rounding can be signifcant. However, even from the September 2009 market announcement informing the world of Bank of Ireland’s newly prepared €16 billion toxic loan bundle, tracking its

March/April 2022 23Ifrst reported in Villagethat Leo Varadkar had improperly passed a draft contract to a friend Maitiú O Tuathail. The article was published on 31 October 2020.The story was headlined “Leo always delivers’, the cover was ‘Leo Law Breaker’. The cover of the following edition was ‘It’s a Crime’. Under cover of Dáil privilege Varadkar said he’d received advice the frst Villagearticle was defamatory, accused Villageof being “fringe” and said it had no resources so he’d been advised suing would be “like suing Twitter”. It would not. He also swiftly issued a long and badly conceived statement saying he had not broken the law. There was a furore. I wanted at all times to frame the issue as one of breaking the law. Few enough of the TDs, who debated the issue with much heat on two occasions as an issue essentially of impropriety, or the media, saw it thus. After that I drove an initiative to have the matter investigated by the Garda. On 13 November 2020, I wrote to the Detective Chief Superintendent in charge of the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau on behalf of myself and Chay Bowes, who had informed the entire Law Breaker story and who, unlike me, had direct evidence. He and I separately met detectives from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation soon after. I have met them several times since, the last time in January 2022.The position of a journalist or editor making a criminal complaint is invidious and I have tried to balance the proprieties – for example my obligation to the truth with my concern for justice. I’m also a lawyer by training.All this has led I believe to extreme circumspection on my part and considerable circumspection on the part of the magazine in commenting on the ongoing investigation.I have never predicted the outcome of the detectives’ work, never given details of, or described the nature of, the evidence I have given, never commented on whether Mr Varadkar should be prejudiced in his advancement if the investigation remains unresolved, or indeed on whether he should resign. I have not given interviews or replied to his disparagements including that some of those behind the complaints (and there are NEWSBy Michael SmithGarda investigation of Leo Varadkaronly two of us) support another political party in competition with his own. Whatever anyones says the document leaked was a draft contract, a “confdential” ‘Terms of Agreement’ between the Irish Medical Organisation, the HSE and the Department of HealthI do, however, reserve the right to clarify the basic record. I have a right to say I have at all times facilitated the inquiry and reacted quickly to requests for meetings. I don’t believe there have been any attempts to frustrate the Garda’s work, which they seem to be carrying out carefully and efectively. Some basic errors have become received wisdom in media reports.I also think it is appropriate to put the document above into the public demesne as it clarifes the rudiments of the complaint.