Politics

Random entry RSS

  • Posted in:

    Proposed national maternity hospital: "We cannot even get guarantees there will not be religious iconography on the walls". By Marie O'Connor.

    by

    “We cannot even get guarantees there will not be religious iconography on the walls” – Deputy Duncan Smith on Government plans for the new  maternity hospital. Deputy Catherine Connolly has challenged the the Taoiseach to give a commitment on the planned maternity hospital “that reflects the will of the Dail”. Speaking in the Dáil in January, she stated that the new facility must be a public hospital on a public site that will be owned and run by the State. The existing plan is to build, with public funds, a privately owned hospital on a privately owned site that will be owned and run by Catholic private companies. See also: Rolling back the Eighth Amendment: the Church’s power grab for the new national maternity hospital­­ — backed by government. By Marie O’Connor. . Her demand followed a Dáil debate on 19 January, 2022, when Deputy Joan Collins (Ind) moved a Private Members Motion calling on the Government to use a compulsory purchase order to buy the proposed site at Elm Park, which is owned by the Catholic Church. The Religious Sisters of Charity have repeatedly refused to sell the land.  . The message from the Opposition, that, to guarantee reproductive healthcare free of religious diktat, the facility must be publicly owned and run on a site owned by the State, was transparently clear. The motion passed unanimously. . This was the third such motion in seven months to come before the House. As Deputy Duncan Smith (Lab) observed, “this debate would not be happening in any of our sister democracies in Europe”. He criticised the Government’s decision not to oppose the motion while not supporting it. Not saying it or not putting it to a vote, he said, was “a dishonest way of putting forward that Government position”.   Deputy David Cullinane described the current situation as “a mess of Fine Gael’s making”. Like other Deputies, he found the absence of the Minister for Health from the debate “completely unacceptable”. Frustration at the democratic deficit on this issue was palpable at times.  Supporting the motion, Deputy Catherine Connolly said: “if that [delay] is the strongest reason the Tánaiste can come up with for not using a compulsory purchase order on the site, it is totally unacceptable…All we want is for the Government of the day to listen to the overwhelming voices of the people in the Dáil on behalf of the people of Ireland who say enough is enough”. She described Minister Donnelly’s speech, read out by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, as “an insult to the women of Ireland”. If that [delay] is the strongest reason the Tánaiste can come up with for not using a compulsory purchase order on the site, it is totally unacceptable… Deputy Duncan Smith said: “nobody has convinced anybody in this House, including people on the Government benches, that the new national maternity hospital will be free from religious ethos … No guarantees have been given on that”. Illustrating just how thin the ice is on this particular government skating rink, he added: “we cannot even get guarantees there will not be religious iconography on the walls, as there currently is in the National Maternity Hospital”. Deputy Duncan Smith said: “nobody has convinced anybody in this House, including people on the Government benches, that the new national maternity hospital will be free from religious ethos…”. Deputy Roisin Shortall (Social Democrats) skewered claims that there would be no religious ethos in the new maternity hospital. ‘The constitution and the operational values of the hospital are intended to be based on the original values and ethos of the Religious Sisters of Charity.”. She anticipated a “major problem” relating to “the curtailment of services” in the new facility, and said that where jobs had been advertised by St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, there was “a requirement to follow the religious ethos of the [Group’s] owners”.  The constitution and the operational values of the hospital are intended to be based on the original values and ethos of the Religious Sisters of Charity. Deputy Duncan Smith emphasised the “massive risk” the Government was taking, post-Repeal, in driving forward the plan to build the maternity hospital on land owned by the Religious Sisters of Charity: “the Government is going down the path of least resistance, taking a gamble at a time when we are four years on from repealing the Eighth Amendment and we still have women having to travel”. In his view, “there is a critical mass within the Government that knows this [full State ownership of the new facility] is the right thing to do. The Government is not doing it”.  The project, he underlined, is fraught with uncertainty: “even the clinicians in favour of the move to Elm Park know they cannot provide these guarantees [of freedom from religious ethos] … They have said it to us”.   Even the clinicians in favour of the move to Elm Park know they cannot provide these guarantees [of freedom from religious ethos] … They have said it to us.   Deputy Thomas Pringle (Ind) zoned in on the operational control of the new hospital, saying he was “completely opposed” to St Vincent’s Healthcare Group or “any other religious or private group” running it. “The possibility of the Catholic ethos overriding legislation is very concerning”.   Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Anne Rabbitte told the House the Government was “very aware” of the “concerns voiced” that “centre on the ownership and clinical independence of the new hospital”. She stated that the “draft legal framework” aimed “to copper-fasten these arrangements”. How was left hanging.  Deputy David Cullinane was of the view it was “reckless to proceed with building a hospital when the State will not own the land”. He assured the Minister that his (the Minister’s) assurances that there would be no “religious interference” in the new hospital were “not good enough”. Describing St Vincent’s as “a proxy organisation for the Religious Sisters of Charity”, Deputy Mick Barry asked a rhetorical question: “is the Government seriously considering allowing

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Palace of Discord and Deception. [Updated] Prince William's officials covered-up his uncle's involvement in the Epstein-Maxwell sex trafficking scandal.

    by

    Buckingham Palace went to extraordinary lengths to cover-up the involvement of Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, in the Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking scandal. The Royal was supplied with a 17-year-old-girl, Virginia Roberts (Giuffre), who was commanded to have sex with him three times, once in London. Palace officials threatened to blackball ABC, an American TV station which got hold of the story in 2015. The latest development is that Prince Andrew has sold his Swiss chalet which will provide him with millions with which to finance a settlement with Roberts. The case will proceed as the judge in the US has rejected his application to discontinue it. What if it is now to late to settle with his victim having branded her a liar? To make matters worse for the Duke, a witness has come forward who can confirm that Roberts spoke to her about her involvement with the Duke at the time of the abuse. The witness saw the infamous picture of the Duke with Roberts and Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after it was taken. What will the Metropolitan Police do if he  manages to settle the civil action by handing over five or six million – or even more – to Roberts? An innocent man would fight his corner rather than enrich a liar who has destroyed his reputation, especially to the extent of making her a multi millionairess. The Duke will hardly settle with Roberts without a guarantee from her  that she will boycott any future criminal prosecution brought against him in London. A criminal prosecution would be doomed to failure without her full co-operation and testimony. Surely, Met. Comissioner Cressida Dick would have to resign if a deal on those terms Is concluded. She refused to investigate the case when Roberts was prepared to co-operate fully. The behaviour of the Royal Family has been a shambolic disaster thus far. In 2015 ABC was warned  that Prince William and Kate would shun them in the future if they ran an interview they had recorded with Roberts. She was 17, he was 41. ABC backed down. More details can be found here: Judge a (future) king by his courtiers: Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge, pawns in the cover-up of a transatlantic paedophile network. A video of Amy Robach, the ABC reporter can be accessed via the video in the links below: Remember when @ABC dropped the ball on this investigation, because they were threatened by #PrinceAndrew family? #JeffreyEpstein #GhislaineMaxwell pic.twitter.com/SwDGUaAaDb — Resilient (@KaindeB) January 4, 2022 https://twitter.com/AliciaJ1985/status/1477687840473554944?t=B8z0BI8jD34n1oEQEfJUcA&s=19 In the wake of the conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, the Palace is now trying to rewrite its sordid role in the cover-up. So-called ‘anonymous’ sources are pretending that there was no concealment, rather that matters got out of hand because of the arrogance of the Duke. The Duke has enjoyed the  unwavering support and protection of his devoted mother,  Queen Elizabeth. Clearly, he is now being thrown to the wolves by her courtiers. It is not fanciful to speculate that the monarch is  viewed as a lame duck by her senior retainers as she battles ill health, fatigue and great old age. If the control of Buckingham Palace is indeed passing to Prince Charles, it can be inferred that he has decided that his brother’s sexual excesses are not going to ruin his forthcoming reign as king. The latest message from the Palace via The Daily Mail  is that the Queen is refusing the bail out Prince Andrew, her reputed favourite child. It is more likely that she has had her elderly arm twisted than that she has abandoned Prince Andrew out of a sudden disgust at his behaviour. The Daily Mail was the conduit for the new PR line which the Palace began taking last week. It reported last week that: “Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior former royal adviser stressed that while there was no knowledge of the extent of the duke’s friendship with Epstein and Maxwell to anyone outside of the prince’s private office, the ‘Andrew problem’ was a long-running issue for the royal household in general. ‘Anyone who even dared to offer their professional advice that maybe his way wasn’t the right one was met with a decisive ‘f*** off out of my office’,’ the source said”. The account is backed up by other former royal staff, all of whom claim the prince acted as if he “didn’t have to answer to anyone” and was allowed to “go rogue”. Particularly troublesome, it was said, was Andrew’s role as a roving trade ‘ambassador’, which saw him repeatedly criticised for cosying up to highly controversial world leaders and businessmen. A former Buckingham Palace staff member recalled how it was an “impossible job” to persuade the prince or his advisers to take any instruction. “The duke made clear that the only person he answered to was the Queen”, they said. “He wouldn’t take advice from anyone. [He] acted with total impunity and staff were just too scared to stand up to him as a member of the Royal Family. Her Majesty almost always backed him and he fully exploited that. There’s an element of Buckingham Palace sleepwalking into his whole crisis. Andrew would tell his family that it was all untrue and it would all go away”. It would stretch credulity beyond breaking point to suggest that the Mail’s primary ‘source’ and the other ‘former’ courtiers have all emerged at the same time with the same deceptive story by coincidence. The sources also appear to have no fear of any repercussion for breaking their duty of silence to the Palace. There can only be a tiny pool of people with this background who have retired in the recent past. It would be easy to identify them. Would they all risk losing a pension just to vent some exasperation at the Duke? Or is this all part of a structured PR offensive? More importantly, why are the Mail’s sources concealing the true history of the Royal

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The covert plan to smash the IRA in Derry on Bloody Sunday by David Burke

    by

    Introduction. The 50th anniversary of the Bloody Sunday massacre falls next month. The official position of the British Government is based on the 2010 report of Lord Saville of Newdigate, i.e., that a group of paratroopers engaged in the massacre of thirteen innocent people in Derry with a fourteenth dying later, for no reason. Unfortunately, Saville ignored or discounted much evidence that indicates that the soldiers were acting on orders. He paid scant attention to the crucial role played by a deceitful agent run by Military Intelligence and MI5 called ‘Observer B’. He was unduly harsh on Byron Lewis, a paratrooper who blew the whistle on his colleagues. The two companies of paratroopers of 1 Para that went to Derry on Bloody Sunday were meant to be on the same mission, following the same orders. Yet, they behaved as if they were on different operations. The orders followed by Support Company, also known as ‘Kitson’s Private Army’, indicates that a secret mission was assigned to them, or some designated number of them. The ‘Kitson’ referred to here  was Brigadier Frank Kitson, the counter-insurgency specialist who ran Belfast and its environs. 1. Chain of Command The senior British officers present in Derry on Bloody Sunday and mentioned in this article in order of their seniority were: General Robert Ford, Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland. Brigadier Patrick MacLellan of 8 Brigade, which ran Derry. Colonel Derek Wilford, who commanded 1 Para. Major Edward Loden who commanded Support Company of 1 Para. No criticism is made of Brigadier MacLellan in this article. If there was a hidden plan that unfolded on Bloody Sunday, it was conceived and executed behind his back. 2. General Ford foists 1 Para on Brigadier MacLellan In the run up to Bloody Sunday, the Brigadier of 8 Brigade in Derry, Patrick MacLellan, was ordered by his immediate superior, General Robert Ford, to make preparations to prevent a Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association (NICRA) march from reaching the Guildhall in Derry on 30 January 1972. Ford was based at HQNI at Lisburn. MacLellan was lent troops from 1 Para to assist him on Bloody Sunday, or so he was led to believe. 1 Para was based at Palace Barracks, Hollywood, outside Belfast. They normally conducted their operations in that city. 3. ‘Corking the bottle’ Ostensibly, the plan for 30 January was to prevent the NICRA march from reaching the Guildhall and, if appropriate, arrest likely rioters. The rioters were to be caught by putting “a cork in the bottle”, as Captain (later General Sir) Michael Jackson of 1 Para has described it. This meant encircling and trapping the rioters before arresting them. This operation was to take place at the end of William Street. Please look at the map which accompanies this article. The rioters were to be captured between Barrier 14 (shaded yellow) and the junction of Little James Street and William Street. The Support Company troops who were meant to be behind Barrier 12 (shaded red) could have swung around from Little James Street (red arrow) and blocked an escape route back along William Street or up Rossville Street. The peaceful NICRA marchers followed the line shaded in purple from William Street to Rossville Street. A group of rioters did present on the day. 4. Two Companies which were meant to – but didn’t – perform the same task Two different companies from 1 Para were sent to Derry on Bloody Sunday:  C Company and Support Company. In theory, they fell under the temporary command of Brig. MacLellan. (Their brigadier in Belfast was Brigadier Frank Kitson). Although both groups were allegedly assigned the same task by their commander, Col Wilford, Support Company behaved in a completely different manner to C Company. C Company was put behind Barrier 14. Support Company was sent to a yard at a Presbyterian Church on Great James  Street which was much further away from the area where the rioting was expected to take place. 5. Differences in preparation and deployment There were a number of differences in the deployment of the two companies  [C company and Support Company], which include the following: Location of Forming Up Points (FUPs) Use of rifles instead of batons; Application of war paint; Use of vehicles; Discharge of shots. {i} Location of Forming Up Points (FUPs) C Company’s FUP was behind Barrier 14 which is shown on the map that accompanies this article. This makes sense in terms of MacLellan’s plan. They were well positioned to block the march should an attempt have been made to break through to the Guildhall. It also left them strategically placed to rush forward and encircle any potential rioters. Support Company would have been well advised to have formed up as close to the junction between William Street and Little James Street as possible. Barrier 12 should have been moved up much closer to the junction. They should have been behind it in light clothes ready to swing around to ‘cork the bottle’. The two companies could have infiltrated the side roads as well and thereby blocked any attempts to escape through them. Yet, Support Company – based at the churchyard – were not within running distance from the likely rioters whom the army termed the ‘DYH’ [the Derry Young Hooligans]. There was little chance that Support Company could ‘cork the bottle’ from a starting point at the Presbyterian Church on Great James Street. The rioters would have seen soldiers running at them from Little James Street in plenty of time to make an escape by sprinting up Rossville Street. The deployment of Support Company at the church was guaranteed to defeat the purpose of MacLellan’s arrest plan. {ii} Primary use of rifles instead of batons; C Company wielded batons or kept their arms free to grab, wrestle and tackle the rioters when they went into action. Some may have used the butts of rifles strapped over their shoulders to strike the rioters. Crucially, they did not deploy with fingers on

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    BBC Blackout on 50th Anniversary of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre?

    by

      By Ciaran MacAirt. Family campaigners on legacy cases in the north of Ireland learn not to be precious about media coverage, especially when the British state is involved in the murders and subsequent cover-ups. On any other occasion, there are many reasons why a media outlet will not cover a story. In the fast-moving environment of the media, they may run out of time to report it or may miss it altogether. The outlet may not even consider it news, or it could be bumped by another article. If an article does not appear, it may even just be down to human error or misjudgement; on our part, it could be poor timing or media management. We all make mistakes. Last week, for example, our families were busy media-managing new evidence, a protest against police withholding evidence, and the build-up to the 50th anniversary of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre. 15 civilians including 2 children were murdered in the no-warning Loyalist bomb attack on 4th December 1971. Our families’ grief was compounded because the British state and its media blamed our loved ones for the bombing, so before we buried our loved ones, the British state buried the truth. Our Campaign for Truth began the moment the bomb exploded as first we had to prove the innocence of the victims. Since then, mostly through our own legacy archive research, we proved that the British armed forces knew that McGurk’s Bar was attacked, but instead colluded to blame the victims to suit the British state’s own narrow, sectarian, political agenda. In general, the British media followed suit and published the lies. Our Campaign for Truth began the moment the bomb exploded as first we had to prove the innocence of the victims. Since then, mostly through our own legacy archive research, we proved that the British armed forces knew that McGurk’s Bar was attacked, but instead colluded to blame the victims to suit the British state’s own narrow, sectarian, political agenda. In general, the British media followed suit and published the lies. Fast forward nearly half a century and the week before the 50th anniversary. We had a lot to tell the public in the run-up to Saturday 4th December and we launched our new website especially. We used a mix of web content, social media and press release. PR to the media specifically included: A complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in London against the Cabinet Office and its failure to investigate new evidence we found – the first complaint of its kind in a legacy case we believe [link] New archival evidence recorded by the British armed forces within minutes which was completely at odds with the lies told to the press by the British armed forces about McGurk’s Bar [link] A protest two days before the anniversary at the Policing Board against the Police Service Northern Ireland’s deliberate withholding of evidence relating to police collusion with the British Army in creating the McGurk’s Bar lies and blaming our loved ones. We even named a key architect of this secret agreement as we have archival proof – it is the infamous General Sir Frank Kitson, former Commander-in-Chief, UK Land Forces and Aide-de-Camp of the British Queen [link] The subsequent snub by the Chief Constable at the Policing Board of our families two days before the 50th anniversary of the atrocity [link]   Now, we were conscious that this was a lot of information for the press and public to manage but the families wanted me to press ahead and release. Each press release staggered throughout the week highlighted the fact that the week led to the 50th anniversary of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre. All of our other key local media outlets, including UTV, Belfast Telegraph/Sunday Life, Irish News and North Belfast News picked up on these press releases during the week, as did the Morning Star and The Canary in Britain and the Irish Times and Village Magazine in the capital. All of our other key local media outlets, including UTV, Belfast Telegraph/Sunday Life, Irish News and North Belfast News picked up on these press releases during the week, as did the Morning Star and The Canary in Britain and the Irish Times and Village Magazine in the capital. I spent most of Friday – the eve of the 50th anniversary – engaging with these outlets in time for the following day. I did not submit another press release on the day as we did not want to snowstorm the outlets and we had already drawn attention to the anniversary throughout the week. Nevertheless, nowhere on BBC NI News was the 50th anniversary marked in the week before, on the day or thereafter. I believe one of the religious ministers marked it during his Thought for the Day on Radio 4 which was very welcome, but to the best of my knowledge, nowhere on BBC Northern Ireland TV, Radio or Web was the 50th anniversary of the murder of 15 civilians marked in any way. I believe that we are diminished by the death of every victim and our loved ones are no more special than another family’s loved one, but the McGurk’s Bar Massacre is notable [unfortunately] if only for its ferocity and the death toll in a single bombing – 15 souls including 2 children. Another 16 could have perished but survived. The McGurk’s Bar Massacre remains the greatest loss of civilian life in any single murderous attack in Belfast since the Nazi Blitz in 1941. The McGurk’s Bar Massacre remains the greatest loss of civilian life in any single murderous attack in Belfast since the Nazi Blitz in 1941. The families’ Campaign for Truth is very much live and driven in the most part by the our own intensive legacy archive research which has been missed or buried by historical police investigators, academics, lawyers, and journalists over the last half century. So, history, death toll, human interest, notable anniversary could make for interesting

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    Rolling back the Eighth Amendment: the Church's power grab for the new national maternity hospital­­ — backed by government. By Marie O'Connor.

    by

    The big day. The sun shone, marquees fluttered, caterers bustled. Everybody who was anybody was there, ‘old boys’, former nurses, family friends. The No 1 Army band heralded the arrival of the Archbishop of Dublin; His G33race was followed five minutes later by the Tánaiste and Mrs Childers. The Archbishop said Mass for some 1200 people after leading a procession to bless ‘the new Vincent’s’, also known as the Mary Aikenhead School of Nursing. After the speeches came a two-tier lunch, turkey in the cafeteria for staff, cold meats, salads, wines and coffee for distinguished guests. Acquisitions The following year, the Religious Sisters of Charity acquired St Michael’s Hospital, Dun Laoghaire, from the Sisters of Mercy. Thirty years later, in 2001, they established St Vincent’s Healthcare Group to own and manage their hospitals. In 2010, the RSC expanded their portfolio again, mortgaging a publicly-funded asset, St Vincent’s University Hospital, to fund the building of their new private hospital at Elm Park. A decade later, the congregation is poised to acquire a new multi-million maternity facility — set to be one of the biggest in Europe — built and maintained from the public purse. Succession The key RSC objective today is to guarantee that their ethos will continue to determine care in their facilities. The congregation is dying out, so succession problems arise, as they do for religious worldwide, the dwindling owners of hospitals, schools and other non-profit enterprises. The order, which comprises some 250 members in all, mainly in their 70s and 80s, is headquartered in Dublin. Controversially, the congregation refused to pay its agreed €3 million share for victims of institutional child abuse in 2012, following the publication of the Ryan Report into industrial and reform schools. The order subsequently declined to compensate the Magdalene women, having netted €45 million in 2001 from the sale of its land at Donnybrook, Dublin, site of a laundry it ran for over 150 years. The flouting of public-pay policy by the Vincent’s Group was also widely censured.  Vincent’s and Holles Street Vincent’s has always had a special relationship with the National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, a privately owned-corporation under the aegis of the Catholic Archdioceses. For decades, the NMH led the way in symphysiotomy, an operation that unhinged a woman’s pelvis, performed in lieu of Caesarean section by doctors who disapproved of birth control.  Today a much more liberal regime prevails. As Tony Farmar’s centenary history of Holles Street shows, medical consultants practised privately in both hospitals from the 1890s. Archbishop John Charles McQuaid was the National Maternity Hospital’s (NMH) all powerful chairman when he performed the opening ceremony at Elm Park in 1970. Today, around 40 per cent of NMH consultants work in the RSC’s hospitals despite the religious restrictions imposed on their practices. A power grab In 2013, Minister for Health James Reilly announced the building of ‘the new NMH’ — then set to cost €150 million — at Elm Park. KPMG had recommended that Dublin’s three private maternity hospitals be co-located with acute general hospitals in 2008. Co-located single-speciality hospitals offer ready access to wider specialist care: hospitals retain their independence while sharing ancillary services. Initial agreement between Vincent’s and the NMH on co-location broke down. In or around September 2014, under a new chairman, James Menton, a former KPMG partner, the nun’s company made a takeover bid for the NMH, reportedly delaying the planning process until Holles Street caved in. The Mulvey report Incoming Minister for Health Simon Harris appointed Kieran Mulvey to broker an agreement between the two warring private entities in May 2016. Four months later, the then deputy chair of the NMH, Nicholas Kearns, and the hospital’s then Master, Dr Rhona Mahony, now a director of the Group, reportedly informed Mulvey that they were willing to dissolve the NMH charter to become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the nuns’ company. This offer was made without consulting either the NMH board or the governors, according to former master and former board member Peter Boylan, a strong opponent of the takeover by the nuns’ company. St Vincent’s Healthcare Group, the company founded by the order in 2001, was now set to own and control the new maternity hospital company, which is to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Group. Mulvey had no public-interest mandate. The report set out detailed proposals for the takeover: it did not question it, nor did it consider who should own the land underneath the new hospital. Simon Harris welcomed the publication of the Mulvey report in April 2017, in a U-turn from the government’s previous support for NMH independence from Vincent’s, expressed by his predecessor Leo Varadkar in May 2016. It was a watershed for the congregation’s plans. Pushback Public opposition grew. A mass demonstration took place at Leinster House, one of many, and over 100,000 signed a petition against the government’s proposal to gift the new facility to the RSC. Peter Boylan publicly expressed his concern that certain procedures would not be available in the new hospital because of its Catholic ethos. Responding on 25 April 2017, the chair of the Group, James Menton asserted that “in line with current policies and procedures at SVHG [the nuns’ company], any medical procedure which is in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ireland will be carried out at the new hospital”. This is a remarkable claim— later repeated — that gives the impression that abortion and other procedures banned by the Catholic Church were, and would continue to be, provided at Vincent’s hospitals. The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference healthcare code The Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference issued its ‘Code of Ethical Standards in Healthcare’ in 2018. Abortion is permitted only as a lifesaving  procedure.  Under all other circumstances, such as rape, the threat of suicide or the diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality, abortion is prohibited. Referral for abortion is also banned, because it  constitutes “formal co-operation with wrongdoing”, which is “never morally permissible”. Other prohibited practices include artificial contraception, IVF, surrogacy and

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    A loathsome dirty trick. 4 December was the 50th anniversary of the infamous bombing of McGurk's Bar. The families have made a complaint to Parliamentary Ombudsman Against the Cabinet Office. By David Burke.

    by

    Saturday the 4th of December was the 50th anniversary of the infamous bombing of McGurk’s bar in Belfast by the UVF.  15 people were killed in the massacre. The bomb reduced the building to rubble. The attack was the most devastating atrocity suffered by Belfast since the bombing of the city during the Second World War. Brigadier Frank Kitson, the counterinsurgency specialist in charge of Belfast, knew that the bar had been attacked by Loyalist paramilitaries, yet participated in a black propaganda operation to blame the atrocity on the occupants of the premises. He and others  portrayed the explosion as an IRA own goal, i.e. that McGurk’s was an IRA pub and the bomb had been left there for collection by Republican terrorists, but had gone off prematurely. This was a lie. Kitson is alive. He has never been asked why he covered up for the actions of the Loyalist murder gang. Kitson is alive. He has never been asked why he covered up for the actions of the Loyalist murder gang. Kitson’s lies were used by Tory politicians to mislead the House of Commons. The record has never been corrected. The British government is refusing to investigate what really happened. The most likely explanation for the deception is that it was designed to avoid calls for the internment of Loyalist terror groups. At the time Ted Heath and NI PM Brian Faulkner had decided not to intern the UDA, UVF and Red Hand Commando. Furthermore, Brigadier Kitson had entered into a conspiracy with Tommy Herron of the UDA’s Inner Council. It amounted to nothing less than an agreement for mass murder. Herron ran the UDA’s assassination squads in Belfast. They killed Catholics whether they were connected to the IRA or not. Herron was aided by Kitson’s allies in the RUC. Some of these RUC men were stationed at Mountpottinger RUC station in Belfast. They supplied murder weapons to Herron’s killers. This was how British State collusion with Loyalist murder gangs began in Northern Ireland. Herron maintained contact with Kitson through a Captain Bundy. Bundy later ran the notorious UDA killer and sadist, Albert ‘Ginger’ Baker’. His codename was ‘Broccoli’. Herron, Baker and others participated in the ghastly ‘Romper Room’ kidnap, torture and murder programme of Catholics they abducted on the streets of Belfast. If the truth about the UVF’s responsibility for the McGurk bombing had surfaced, Kitson’s strategy of collusion with the UDA would have been severely jeopardised while still in its infancy. Members of both organisations might have been rendered subject to internment. Instead, Kitson chose to vilify the innocent victims of the bombing as patrons of an IRA meeting place. Ciarán MacAirt is the grandson of two of the McGurk’s Bar victims. His grandmother, Kathleen Irvine was one of the fifteen civilians killed; his grandfather, John Irvine, was badly injured but survived. He has written a book which exposes the scandal in forensic detail. He has also produced an addendum which can be read here: The McGurk’s Bar Bombing Post-Script: https://mcgurksbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/McGurks-Bar-Post-Script-Final-Redux.pdf See also, the McGurk’s Bar Bombing and the Plot to Deceive Two Parliaments https://mcgurksbar.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-McGurks-Bar-Bombing-and-the-Plot-to-Deceive-Two-Parliaments-Report-Redux.pdf The scandal ranks among the most repellent dirty tricks of the Troubles and is part of a pattern of criminal wrongdoing perpetrated by Kitson that can be discerned in the Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacre outrages. The scandal ranks among the most repellent dirty tricks of the Troubles and is part of a pattern of criminal wrongdoing perpetrated by Kitson that can be discerned in the Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday massacre outrages. Yesterday, the Chief Constable of the PSNI refused to talk to a delegation representing the relatives of the families who mounted a dignified protest outside his office. The families of those killed and injured are still trying to find out the full truth about what happened to their relatives. Last month they made a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) in London against the British Cabinet Office. As far as the families are aware, this is the first complaint of its kind to the PHSO regarding a conflict legacy case and the Cabinet Office. The complaint concerns: The Cabinet Office’s decision not to investigate a serious complaint regarding a high-level, coordinated and sustained plot by senior members of the Civil Service, British Army and RUC to deceive both Stormont and Westminster governments about the true circumstances of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre; The Cabinet Office’s handling of the original complaint which was first raised in December 2020. The original complaint to the Cabinet Office on 11th December 2020 also included a request to the Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, for an investigation following the publication of a report by Ciarán MacAirt. See pages 24-25 of The McGurk’s Bar Bombing and the Plot to Deceive Two Parliaments. The report also includes new evidence from secret British military and governmental archives proving that there was a high-level, coordinated and sustained plot to deceive both Parliaments at Stormont and Westminster. The plot and disinformation involved both Prime Ministers, Brian Faulkner and Edward Heath; the General Officer Commanding Lt. General Sir Harry Tuzo; Brigadier Frank Kitson; RUC Chief Constable Graham Shillington and his head of Special Branch; and leading Civil Servants across a number of government departments. The disinformation included blaming the victims of the McGurk’s Bar Massacre for the bombing following a secret agreement between the British Army and RUC hours after the explosion, and before all victims had even been identified; and burying evidence which proved that the British Army and RUC knew that the victims were innocent, and the bar had been attacked. Colum Eastwood MP, leader of the SDLP, counter-signed and submitted the complaint to the PHSO on behalf of the families on Wednesday 4 November 2021. Ciarán MacAirt has said: After undue delay, the Cabinet Office denied us access to an investigation despite new evidence of a high-level, coordinated and sustained plot by public servants and Government Departments to mislead Stormont and Westminster about the McGurk’s Bar Massacre,

    Loading

    Read more