Contents

Meeting with Armed Forces Minister

In a surprise development earlier this week the PFC was informed that the Armed Forces Minister, Doug Henderson MP, was prepared to meet the family of Peter Mc Bride accompanied by a representative of the centre. The meeting took place at Stormont on Tuesday evening. The meeting was deeply distressing for the Mc Bride family. The Armed Forces Minister showed no understanding of the position of the family and insulted the memory of Peter Mc Bride. Jean Mc Bride eventually walked out in disgust. Below is a summary of the discussion. Points 1-6 were the so-called 'exceptional circumstances' offered to us as justification for the decision to retain the two guardsmen in the British Army despite their convictions.

1. The Army was responsible for training of the Guardsmen. Minister claimed that this was no longer an 'exceptional circumstance'. Became agitated when pressed as to why it had been included. Were a court of law to suddenly state that part of a trial judgement was no longer applicable there would be a right of appeal. No explanation offered.

2. The security situation in the area of the incident was tense and there had recently been a soldier who suffered a recent casualty. We explained that this justified every state killing including Bloody Sunday…Minister refused to respond. Pressed on where this information came from he responded that the Army had provided it. We pressed him on the issue of the regiment suffering a recent fatality and argued that this could in fact have been used by the prosecution against the two guardsmen. Martin Bell MP had already told Jean Mc Bride and the PFC that the Commanding Officer LT.Col Spicer, had a 'gung ho' attitude which was reflected, in his opinion, in the general relationship between the Scots Guards and the civilian population during the tour of duty. Did the recent fatality instil any sense of a need for revenge among patrols in the New Lodge in 1992? No response.

3. The soldiers had shown contrition for their action, which they had admitted was an error of judgement which they very much regret. Asked whom they had shown contrition to Minister explained that the Army Command had informed the Army Board that they had shown contrition. This led to heated exchanges. Showed no understanding of the position of family. None. We pointed out that it would be strange had they not informed the Army Command that they regretted the incident given that A) it had landed them in jail and B) given their desire to remain in the army they were hardly going to state that they enjoyed shooting a man in the back. Minister continued to refer to their acceptance that an "error" had been made. We pointed out that chasing an unarmed man for three streets, shouting "shoot the bastard" and firing five shots at him did not constitute an "error" in our view. To claim that it was an "error" strongly suggests that the Army Board accepted the defence case which was rejected by the court, namely that they believed Peter Mc Bride to be carrying a coffee jar bomb and/or weapon and the whole incident was a sad misunderstanding. The court did not accept that the murder constituted an 'error of judgement." Had they done so the two would have been acquitted.

4. They had paid the price for their action with a lengthy prison sentence. Refused to accept in any way that 6 years is not a lengthy sentence. It was unstated but obvious that 'lengthy' was measured against Clegg and Thain, the only other soldiers convicted of murder here. Both were released after serving less than three years. Showed no sensitivity whatsoever that his argument might ring hollow in the presence of the victims family. Repeated ad nauseum that "six years is a lengthy sentence."

5. Continued loyalty to the Army and previously unblemished military records. We pointed out that it was hardly surprising that they were loyal given that the Army allowed them to remain in their regiment while in jail, flew their families over for prison visits, paid their pension benefits, allowed campaigners to work from Scots Guards HQ and made clear that they would be retained in their regiment. Asked whether he could at least understand this argument he replied "No, I do not understand your argument". Regarding unblemished military records we argued that this was irrelevant given their murder convictions and the short timespan of their military career….no understanding.

6. Their wish to continue serving their country. It became impossible to cover point 6 since Jean Mc Bride interjected, quite rightly, and laid the situation on the line from her perspective. For almost half an hour we had heard illogical, ill-thought out and insulting justifications for every single murder carried out by the British Army since the conflict began. Jean made a powerful and impassioned contribution, banged the table and left the room. The situation became worse since the minister continually referred to the retention of the two guardsmen as "purely an issue concerning employment". He categorically refused to accept that any other issues were involved. The MOD statement issued within an hour of the meeting only poured salt on the wound.

Minister also said that the Army Board had considered the evidence presented at the trial and other information presented to it by the army. This raised serious issues. The patrol leader, Lance Corporal Swift, actually searched Peter but was never called as a witness. Six years later he then claimed that he had not searched him though for some unexplained reason he was unable to go into court and give this evidence which would surely have led to an acquittal. Was this statement, made to a lawyer as part of the campaign to gain early release for the two guardsmen, considered by the Army Board? Minister was deliberately vague on this. This reinforced our view that the Army Board may well have looked sympathetically at the original defence case which was rejected by the court. Note the earlier reference to an "error". The judge stated that the defence case was 'concocted' that it was lies. During the lengthy period following the shooting when the RUC had no access to the men a story was concocted. LT Col Spicer, their CO, had lunch with the patrol leader and then went on to spend time with the two soldiers. Spicer now suggests that the two guardsmen were right all along and suggests that the civilian population may well have disposed of incriminating evidence. What transpired in the meetings between Spicer, the patrol leader and the two guardsmen? This question was avoided when it was raised. The situation as it now stands is that we intend taking the campaign to Britain, the US and the European Parliament. A case in the European Court of Human Rights is the next logical move. We urgently require financial support to do all of the above.

Return to Contents List.

Eamon Collins Murdered

The murder this week of Eamon Collins, a former IRA man who broke under interrogation and named alleged IRA members in the 1980s, has led to wild speculation as to the identity of his killers. Collins was brutally attacked and left to die on a country road near Newry in the early hours of Wednesday morning. The finger of suspicion has been pointed at republicans given Collins' role as an informer and, in recent times, as a trenchant media critic of the armed struggle. It was clear that no love was lost between him and Irish Republicans. On the other hand Collins had voiced strong support for the Adams/Mc Guinness leadership within Sinn Fein and in recent weeks had penned an article for the Irish News advocating IRA involvement in policing. The truth may never be known about his savage killing. It is clear that he had enemies among loyalists due to his earlier activities as a member of the IRA, in the security apparatus due to his recent pronouncements and among republicans.

Return to Contents List.

Loyalist Attacks Continue

The series of loyalist petrol and pipe bomb attacks on Catholic homes continues unabated. Last weekend two Catholic homes in Larne were targeted with blast bombs. During the week there were further attacks on isolated families in Greenisland and outside Dungannon. No-one was seriously injured in any of the incidents which have gone unreported in the British press. The intention of the random series of attacks on Catholic families appeared to be focused on ensuring that no 'concessions' are made to nationalists in the political arena.

Return to Contents List.

Verbal Targeting by Paisley

A number of individuals have had their lives put at serious risk following a speech by the DUP leader Ian Paisley in the British Parliament this week. Using parliamentary privilege to avoid libel laws Paisley named a number of innocent people and claimed that they were involved in the Kingsmill massacre in 1976 when ten Protestant workmen were murdered by a group calling itself the Republican Action Force. To his disgrace Paisley named a man who had lost three brothers in a loyalist attack the day before the massacre. The suggestion that a man preparing for the funerals of his brothers, grieving at the family wake, should go out to murder others is beneath contempt. Another of those named lost a 12 year old sister, Majella O'Hare, at the hands of the British Army just a year earlier. That Ian Paisley should point the finger at anyone is more than ironic. Hundreds of young men have joined loyalist paramilitary groups over the past thirty years and gone on to commit murder as a direct result of his racist and sectarian rhetoric. Those named this week are taking legal advice. Should they eventually be targeted by loyalist paramilitaries then Paisley must shoulder the blame as equally as the then Junior Home Office Minister Douglas Hogg following his accusations regarding solicitors 'unduly sympathetic to the IRA. Three weeks later Pat Finucane was murdered.

Return to Contents List.

Ludlow Update

The family of Seamus Ludlow have recently provided us with an update on the case regarding the Red Hand Commando/UDR murder of the 47 year old forestry worker. A public meeting to provide details on the campaign will take place in the town hall in Dundalk on February 17 at 8pm. Access the update here along with further details on the case.

Return to Contents List.