Contents

Bloody Sunday Controversy

It has emerged that the Bloody Sunday Inquiry has postponed the beginning of formal hearings until February 1999. A spokesperson for the Inquiry chairman put the delay down to the difficulties involved in gathering the necessary documentation. The news comes however amid a growing row between representatives of the families and the Inquiry team. A preliminary hearing will however take place on July 20 in the Guildhall in Derry. The row centres on issues surrounding legal representation and admission of independent experts to give evidence. A further concern for the families is the fear that, to date, the only documents provided to them have been those already in the public domain. No classified documents have yet been released to their legal team. Unless these matters are resolved it has been made clear that the families will withdraw cooperation from the Inquiry. This week the families issued the following press statement.

For 26 years we, the families and wounded of Bloody Sunday, have endured the trauma of a campaign for justice. While understandably cautious, we welcomed the announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair of a new Inquiry into the event of that tragic day in our lives and the life of our city. Given our experience at the original Widgery Inquiry, at which our trust was blatantly betrayed, we expected Lord Saville to conduct his Inquiry with greater sensitivity and fairness. It now appears Lord Saville will conduct this Inquiry in much the same way as Lord Widgery, by reducing and attempting to control our legal representation. Twenty-six years on, and given our experience with the Widgery Inquiry, we cannot and will not tolerate such treatment.
We have learned from our lawyer, Peter Madden, that the Saville Inquiry has engaged him in protracted correspondence, aimed at restricting our right to adequate legal representation. This is both shocking and deeply disconcerting to the families and wounded, at a time when we need to concentrate on preparation for the Inquiry. Such a development is not, in our opinion, in the spirit of 'fairness, impartiality and thoroughness' which Lord Saville promised in his opening statement on 3 April 1998. Consequently, the Bloody Sunday families and wounded wish to make it absolutely clear that we will not accept any weakening or reduction in Madden & Finucane's assessment of what minimum legal and support team is needed. We are entitled by law, and by natural justice, to individual representation at the Saville Inquiry, if we so wish. However, Madden & Finucane, in response to a request made by Lord Saville, have assembled a minimum but adequate legal team.
Any attempt by Lord Saville to reduce and weaken our legal representation at the Inquiry will cause us to seriously re-consider our current willingness to participate in the Saville Inquiry.

Return to Contents List.

Drumcree and all that

The decision by the Parades Commission earlier last week to reroute last Friday's Tour of the North orange parade away from contentious areas of North Belfast has been greeted widely with relief. The Orange Order however has expressed anger at the decision but has agreed to accept the rerouting. Despite this small groups of loyalist protesters have caused widespread traffic disruption in the past days with a series of protests at key traffic junctions. At the centre we have been led to understand that some within the Order may in fact be relieved that the decision has been taken out of their hands. The background to this is the fear within orange circles that the potential for violence is not restricted to orange marchers versus nationalist residents. There are also divided and highly volatile loyalties within the various loyalist working class areas in North Belfast. The protestors who have been blocking roads in the last days come from the Tigers Bay area which is strongly supportive of the paramilitary UDA and hostile towards the UVF and their political representatives. Within recent weeks a loyalist band parade in the area involving bands close to the UVF led to scuffles. Six people were injured in the incident including one who was hit with a machete. No nationalists were involved. There is a body of opinion within the Orange Order which accepts that parades which lead to violence are damaging in the long term. This lobby within the organisation may well prefer to be rerouted and then portray themselves as the victims in the controversy.

Speculation is now growing about the possible decision of the Parades Commission regarding the Drumcree parade in Portadown on July 5. On the one hand bitter experience would suggest that the British Government will again take the road of least resistance. That means ignoring international opinion, facing down nationalists and taking the consequences of serious unrest. This option has two advantages. The RUC would much prefer to take on nationalists than face down protest in their own community with the potential this has to foment mutiny within RUC ranks as happened in 1996. Secondly the option of permitting an orange parade down the Garvaghy Road would help to strengthen David Trimbles position as leader of the unionist family and heal divisions within unionist ranks that have emerged during the peace process. This week Trimble met with the Parades Commission to protest the Tour of the North decision and urge that the Drumcree parade be given the go-ahead. Ironically though this attempt to influence the commission may not have gone down well within orangeism given that the Orange Order has boycotted the body. Trimble has suggested that a rerouting of the Drumcree parade would destabilise the entire peace process. It is also argued that recent rerouting decisions will be followed by further 'concessions' to residents on less controversial parades but that this will be used to justify a quid-pro-quo regarding Drumcree. Parades in x,y or z have been rerouted therefore nationalists should accept Drumcree. The chairperson of the Commission, Alistair Graham, hinted in this direction during an interview with BBC Radio 5 recently when he suggested that one side should 'compromise' and then went on to advocate that Garvaghy residents, for reasons best known to himself, were in the best position to compromise. Finally the British Government is aware that a decision in favour of the Orange Order at Drumcree is unlikely to lead to an end of the IRA ceasefire. All of the above suggests that the Portadown lodges will be given the go-ahead. There is an argument against this scenario. The public stance of the Orange Order against the Belfast Agreement has opened up wounds between unionism and orangeism. Trimble argued for a yes vote while the Order mobilised along with Paisley/Mc Cartney for a no vote. Trimble won. The Order can no longer be seen as representing the mainstream of unionist opinion. Rank and file Ulster unionist voters, though unhappy, have remained with Trimble. In Portadown itself Trimble will not be welcome at the Drumcree parade and it is rumoured that his effigy may replace that of Gerry Adams on traditional Twelfth bonfires! The gulf that now exists between the unionist mainstream and orangeism will inspire the British Government to pressurise the unionist leader to consolidate his gains within moderate unionism and not endanger the future assembly. This is not to say that Trimble will not attempt to play the Orange card. It is however to suggest that this will no longer work. The Orange Order is not in a position of strength at the moment since it is seen to be swimming against the tide of public opinion. (With over 70% in favour of the Agreement) As argued above many within the organisation realise that parades accompanied by images of serious street disorder are ultimately damaging. In addition the Order can no longer depend on the 'unofficial' backing of loyalist paramilitaries should any mass mobilisations be attempted. The UDA/UVF are distinctly uncomfortable with the entire parades issue while the LVF, which is Portadown based, is seriously weakened. Following the killing of the LVF leader Billy Wright last December the organisation was further demoralised when their new leader upped and absconded to England with his family and a substantial sum of money belonging to the group. In addition the RUC may well see the time as opportune to win friends within the nationalist community and abroad in the context of the Commission on Policing which will soon begin deliberations. No single issue in recent years has caused as much alienation within nationalism as the events on the Garvaghy Road. Senior officers in the RUC are aware of this and may well wish to avoid images of baton wielding RUC men brutalising nationalist residents at a time when the Force is 'up for grabs'. Finally the Parades Commission, if it follows the logic of decisions already taken this year, have no alternative but to reroute Drumcree. Portadown lodges have refused to talk to local residents or the Parades Commission.

Return to Contents List.

Football hooligans and Peter Mc Bride

Following the publicity given to the scenes of violence involving English football fans during the World Cup this week in France the centre faxed the following letter to the British PM Tony Blair.

Dear Prime Minister,

I have been asked by the family of Peter Mc Bride to contact you urgently following your comments in the House of Commons on Wednesday June 17. Peter Mc Bride was an 18 year old unarmed man shot dead on September 4 1992 by members of the Scots Guards Regiment in Belfast. Two Guardsmen, Mark Wright and James Fisher were subsequently convicted of his murder and are presently serving life sentences. Despite their convictions they remain members of the Armed Forces and repeated appeals to the Armed Forces Minister, Dr John Reid, for a meeting have proved unsuccessful. The McBride family have been offered inaccurate and totally inadequate explanations by the your colleague, Dr Reid, as to why these two men, convicted murderers, are allowed to remain in the Armed Forces.

Speaking yesterday in the House of Commons you said, " We have to encourage employers to take strong action against those convicted of hooligan offences abroad." You are also quoted as saying that you " hope very strong action is taken over those employed in public service or the armed forces."

It is self-evident that the murder of another human being is a substantially more serious offence than involvement in football related violence. We presume you agree that the life of Peter Mc Bride should be more highly valued than a broken beer glass or lost national pride on the streets of Marseille. Surely British national pride demands that the Armed Forces should not include convicted murderers?

Given your forceful comments on the issue of members of the armed forces who may be convicted of football hooliganism the Mc Bride family requests that you take urgent and long overdue steps to ensure that the two men convicted of the murder of their son are dismissed from the Armed Forces without delay. Failure to do so seriously hinders the healing process and makes a mockery of the entire debate surrounding football related violence.

Return to Contents List.

Complaints against British Army

The independent assessor of military complaints has admitted that complaints against the British Army almost doubled between 1996 and 1997. The figures are contained in the latest annual report of the complaints body published last week. At a press conference the assessor noted his own inability to investigate some of the more serious assaults including an incident in S. Armagh involving Micael Caraher and Bernard Mc Ginn. The two men were badly beaten during a British Army arrest operation in S.Armagh in 1997. During interrogation at Gough Barracks one of the men had to be transferred to hospital for emergency treatment. It is now clear that no-one will be held to account for the assaults.