Unionist Columnist Pens New Republican Ideology

DR JOHN COULTER, an author and journalist from a Unionist background, has just published a new e-book on a non-violent, pro-Christian Irish Republican ideology.

Entitled ‘An Saise Glas (The Green Sash): The Road to National Republicanism, the launch of the e-book has been timed to coincide with traditional Republican commemorations of the Easter Rising.

Dr Coulter openly styles himself as “an unrepentant Radical Right-wing Unionist” and while he has been in journalism since 1978, he has latterly been best known as a controversial columnist with the Irish Daily Star.

Dr Coulter, 54, is the son of the Rev Dr Robert Coulter MBE. His father – an Irish Presbyterian Minister and leading Orange chaplain – was an Ulster Unionist MLA for North Antrim for 13 years.

Dr Coulter said: “During the Troubles, I reported on the deaths of numerous people murdered by republican terrorists. But it was the murder of my friend Constable Steve Carroll in March 2009 which prompted me to write a new non-violent ideology for Republicanism.

“An Saise Glas has been a four-year journey and I am openly writing this e-book as an outsider looking in. I hope my e-book will prompt discussion among Republicans as to how they take their ideology forward, and also among Unionists as to how they inter-act with Republicans.

“I also seek to guide Republicanism away from the Godless Marxism which seems to have steadily gripped the ideology since the days of James Connolly and the 1916 Rising.

“The recent scandals involving convicted paedophile priests have driven a wedge between the Catholic Church hierarchy and Republicanism. My new ideology of National Republicanism seeks to re-introduce the Biblical teachings of Jesus Christ, especially the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount, into Republican thinking.

“The e-book also examines Republicanism’s relations with the European Union, the Unionist community, coping with its violent past, and international relations,” said Dr Coulter.

Dr Coulter began his journalism career with his local weekly papers in his home town of Ballymena. After graduation from Coleraine University, he became a freelance journalist with the BBC before joining the staff of the News Letter where he became Education and Religious Affairs Correspondent.

He has also worked as a deputy editor and editor of local weekly titles and as a public relations director, and latterly in journalist training. He is married with two sons, and is a member of Maghaberry Elim Church in Co Antrim.

Here’s the link to Amazon Kindle:




The Aftermath of McGuinness’s Free Dinner: Dr. John Coulter

John Coulter

Written By: John Coulter
Published: April 20, 2014 Last modified: April 16, 2014

Stand by for fresh concessions to Sinn Fein after Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness had a free dinner with the Queen Elizabeth at Windsor,

Dissident republicans will seek to spin McGuiness’ royal soirée as further evidence that the peace-loving wing of his party is getting too cosy with the British.

There is enduring bitterness about the negotiations that spawned the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921, a move which partitioned Ireland and sparked the bloody Irish Civil War in which republican butchered republican.

In Irish history, there is nothing so brutal as a republican feud. During the Irish Civil War, pro and anti-Treaty republicans carried out more atrocities against each other than the Black and Tans did in the War of Independence.

However, McGuinness did not become a senior Derry IRA commander for nothing. As he supped with the Queen, he out-manoeuvred both Taoiseach Enda Kenny and Irish President Michael D Higgins.

McGuinness sought to show the British and Irish establishments that Sinn Fein is worthy of being a minority coalition partner after the next Dail poll. Sinn Fein must prove that it has truly shifted from being the apologist for a well-oiled murder machine to a modern, democratic political party with which either Fianna Fail or Fine Gael could do business.

The message is simple: if the Queen goes to Croke Park (scene of the notorious massacre by British troops in 1920), and McGuinness entered Windsor, then Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams can become Tanaiste – Deputy Prime Minister – in Leinster House.

The “normalisation” and “democratisation” of Sinn Fein is underway.  In fact, Sinn Fein is reaching out so many hands to Unionism, the joke is that “PSF” should stand for Protestant Sinn Fein rather than Provisional Sinn Fein.

The well-polished behaviour of many in 2014 SF is reminiscent of the 1970s democratic republican organisation run by the late Protestant councillor, John Turnley of the Irish Independence Party, who was murdered by the UDA

in 1980.

But two more hurdles still have to be cleared before the transformation is complete. First, like the Scottish and Welsh nationalists, Sinn Fein MPs need to take their Westminster seats. Second, Sinn Fein needs to find less provocative ways of commemorating dead IRA members.

The Queen Elizabeth may have laid a wreath commemorating Irish patriots who fought against Britain during the War of Independence, but if there is to be any royal presence at the centenary of the Easter Rising in two years’ time, Sinn Fein cannot afford a repeat of the Tyrone Volunteers debacle in Castlederg. That was little more than an “Up yours” to the Unionist community, following loyalism’s demand to march past the Ardoyne Shops in north Belfast.

Just as McGuinness will want something in return for meeting the Queen, so will the British want a favour from republicans if she is to lay a wreath in Dublin in 2016 in memory of James Connolly and company.

The immediate benefit for Sinn Fein could be to return up to four MEPs across Ireland in May’s European poll, as well as take the majority of Northern Ireland’s nationalist seats in the new super council elections.

But how does Sinn Fein please its hawks? Sinn Fein bosses have been relatively successful at maintaining a public image of a well-disciplined party. A dissident republican political alternative is a non-starter. Unlike the Unionist family, there will be no split republican vote. The worst-case scenario is a slight rise in nationalist voter apathy.

If McGuinness is really smart, he’ll appoint a few republican hard men to seemingly important posts thereby bluffing the hawks into thinking they have a future in Sinn Fein.

However, in this era of the normalisation of republican politics and the democratisation of Sinn Fein, does Gerry Adams really have the profile, personality and appropriate past to become Tanaiste?


Letter of Protest – Bush House Separated

Recently, there has been a steady increase in Loyalist prisoners being refused access to Bush House Separated landings by the Northern Ireland Office – NIO.  We believe these Loyalist prisoners have a right to be located in Bush House either through being associated with or supporters of an organization or due to the fact they are incarcerated for political action in support of Loyalism. Read more »


There Is Nothing Loyal About Racism: William Ennis

There is nothing Loyal about racism

The first letter I ever had published was in the Newsletter.  In it I questioned the need to burn the flags of other countries on our 11th night bonfire celebrations.  I questioned whether or not the time had come to phase out practices which where much more understandable during the violent conflict than in the more politicised current one.  In all honesty, I would still like to see that happen, but another development has alarmed me since.  One I consider to be much more serious.  Racist attacks against the immigrant community are by no means exclusive to Loyalist areas of Ulster, but they do happen here and there is no excuse for leaving them unchallenged.

The Loyalist protest movement, (which retains an impressive head of steam even yet) mobilised with gusto in the wake of the SF/APNI/SDLP attack on the Union flag of Belfast city hall.  Like most Loyalists I attended these protests.  What alarmed me was the flagrant political aggression of the far right.  In many ways, when leadership was not apparent, the BNP and like minded groups had no compunction about trying to claim this movement as its own, if only in a superficial way.

Fascism makes my skin crawl.  Racism does too, and it does so not despite my Loyalism, but because of it.

The degree to which Republicans leap gleefully into spinning this problem to its full propagandistic value is one of my buttons, but it is not the only reason I have decided to write this article.  I have decided to write this article because racism is as harmful a social cancer to my community as it would be to any other.

I would like to address the unfortunate (perceived) association between Ulster Loyalism and British Nationalism.  Put bluntly, I believe it to be misleading at best and outright absurd at worst. I think it happens due to the fact that the two movements share symbols such as the Union flag.  I don’t do Nationalism.  Not Irish, British, white, Scottish, Ulster or any other kind.  Nationalism to me is a tool for those who wish to divide.  I can’t bring myself to apportion value to a human being on the basis of which lump of rock they may or may not have been born upon.  I prefer citizenship, political union, tolerance, equality, and the resolve to help others where these things are denied because these are the values which the Principles of Loyalism encourages us to embrace.  When those on the (far) right behave in an ultra-nationalist way under the impression that it is Loyalist behaviour, they are mistaken.

“Civil and religious liberty are natural and fundamental rights that must be promoted and defended by all who claim the title of Loyalist” (From Principle 2 of Billy Mitchell’s Principles of Loyalism Document)

Nationalism is about drawing a line around a group of people and saying ‘this is us!  Everyone else is them’.  This is inconsistent with cultural Loyalism and political Unionism as ours is a United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the clue is in the title.  It’s a political Union with multiple nations, countless cultures and a rainbow of peoples.  It is a Democracy which does not blandly conscript its citizens into one single identity, nationality or stereotype.  To claim a person is not British or is some how less British on the grounds of their skin colour or first language is a vile wrongdoing.  If you consider the immigration or political systems to be wrong, then address this as you see fit with your vote and your right to campaign politically.

Politics is now the battlefield, and every vote will count as we endeavour to bring representation to our people and security to the Loyalist culture (and every other).  Acts of racism claimed falsely as acts of Loyalism is manna from heaven for those who would have our country expelled from the United Kingdom.  How could a Chinese person with an emerging interest in Ulster’s history pursue her studies of Carson and Craig toward a Loyalist path when her community is being hounded with racial slurs by those who claim affection for Northern Irelands Britishness?  Why should such a voter be pushed away from learning of David Ervine’s journey from prison to politics?  Why should an African student, in Northern Ireland to study, be denied full participation in the song, dance and craic of the mini-twelfth?  Why should a young couple from Eastern Europe just settling in Belfast not be invited to bring their children to watch the 11th night Bonfire?  Why should a person from Pakistan not receive an invite from his neighbours to hear the remarkable passion of the Lambeg drums on the 12th of July?

If you allow the ill-conceived mindset that every Loyalist must be Christian, White, heterosexual, and born in Ulster to stagnate your mind, then you are surrendering Northern Ireland by ignorance as these potential Unionists just may hold the votes to secure your grand-children’s British citizenship.

Many of our community’s problems stem from isolation, but this is not entirely our fault.  The conflict drove Ulster’s peoples into isolationist positions, particularly the working class.  But this need not be the case any longer.  Tolerance of racism will create and perpetuate a cycle of isolationism.  Streets of people adjacent to streets of other people with all the same problems yet no predilection to strategise together.  It is not because of the Polish family down the street that you have to wait on medical treatment, it is because funding is diverted from hospitals to maintain huge salaries in the financial sector.  It is not because of the Chinese community that there is insufficient housing; it is because the Tory Government have promised private landlords they won’t build social housing in order to keep private rents inflated.  It is not a disgrace that foreign born workers work in Northern Ireland for low wages, it’s a disgrace any of us do!

Our blaming those who live nearby because they look or sound different is a key strategy of those in charge who couldn’t care less about any of us.  Every minute a young Loyalist blames the Polish population in Northern Ireland for his inability to find employment is a minute that young Loyalist lets those who really are responsible off the hook.  Businesses can now quite easily gain free labour through government “work experience” programmes and so have no incentive to employ people on a living wage.  Our government and others turn a blind eye to barbaric working conditions in third world countries and so mass manufacturing operations now don’t exist in countries such as ours.  Even the brightest children who succeed in school will be culled by huge tuition fees unless their parents can afford to support them well into adulthood, and if they can they are unlikely to also be able to support them through a no-pay internship which is par for the course toward a high flying professional career.   There are obvious reasons for our lack of employment opportunities, but none that will be solved by participation in, or tolerance of racism.


“An equal society is one in which all members have access to similar resources and opportunities and in which they all value each other for their common humanity.” (From Principle 4 of Billy Mitchell’s Principles of Loyalism Document)


In a recent debate with a Republican twitter friend I raised issue with his persistent use of the word “Brit”.  To me, it is a piece of conflict rhetoric with no place in this juncture of our history.  For the record, I know this man not to be a bigot of any kind, but I do consider this term to be a bigoted one.  How is “Brits out” for example not bigoted, I am British, and I was born here!  Why would anyone else who was born here want me thrown out?  I consider it a racist term, but the fact is that the racism of the British far right and specifically its apparent partnership with strands of individuals who claim to be Loyalists greatly inhibits my freedom to attack the bigoted behaviour of others.  We need to address this.  The sooner Loyalism challenges bigotry in a comprehensive way, the sooner we can challenge the bigotry of others.

I frequently say that non-Loyalists have nothing to fear from genuine Loyalism.  Let’s together set out to prove it.

Let’s be British.


All Political Careers End In Failure: Dr. John Coulter

John Coulter

Written By: John Coulter
Published: January 26, 2014 Last modified: January 22, 2014

“All political careers end in failure” may have been a maxim attributed to Enoch Powell, the leader Unionism never had, but it may be that ex-Stormont First Minister Ian Paisley senior, now Lord Bannside, is an exception.

The firebrand former leader of the party he founded, the Democratic Unionists, used two interviews on BBC Northern Ireland to fire broadsides at those within his own ranks he has accused of forcing him to quit the posts of First Minister, DUP boss, and Moderator – or leader – of the Protestant fundamentalist denomination he founded in 1951, the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster.

Now in his 80s, plagued by health problems in recent years and confined to the backbenches of the House of Lords, ironically Paisley has committed the cardinal sin on which he had frowned throughout his political career – airing the party’s dirty linen in public. Like any political movement, his DUP has had its share of splits, rows and factions. But, to the media, the DUP was always united.

The fall of Paisley, to be replaced by his long-time deputy Peter Robinson, the current First Minister and former East Belfast MP, has seen the modernising wing of the party take over from the once dominant Christian fundamentalist faction.

Even Paisley’s brand of Free Presbyterianism was seen as the DUP at prayer. Although it had only around 16,000 followers out of an Ulster population of one million Protestants, its influence within the DUP was substantial. Under Paisley, discipline within the DUP was Stalin-like. The same had been true of the party under Robinson – until now. The fallout from the two Paisley interviews could see a revival for the fundamentalist faction.

While Paisley himself may never be back at the helm of either his party or church, exposing and attacking those who forced him from office will have massive repercussions for the DUP – and Unionism – with European and council elections looming in May.

The success of the present Stormont Executive is reliant on the DUP and Sinn Fein working together and holding the so-called middle ground of Ulster politics. If Paisley’s fundamentalist fans seize the initiative, the impact will be to force the DUP to the radical right, thereby putting an intolerable strain on its working relationship with Sinn Fein.

While Sinn Fein has been able to contain political opposition from dissident republicans, and a revival of the moderate Social Democratic and Labour Party, the DUP has been unable to control the growing tide of working-class Loyalism away from the power-sharing Executive.

The DUP had no option but to declare the recent talks hosted by American diplomat Richard Haass a failure. While Sinn Fein has adopted the Haass proposals, Robinson’s DUP has had to reject them to maintain party unity and discipline.

In May’s elections, all Sinn Fein has to worry about is republican voter apathy. The DUP has to contend with a range of rival pro-Union parties. Unionism currently holds two of the three Ulster Euro seats. Protestant disillusion and a split Unionist vote could put one of those seats in jeopardy.

The DUP rose to power by playing up the fear factor. Since 2003, it has won Stormont and Westminster elections by campaigning on a “Stop Sinn Fein” platform. So what will be the DUP’s focus in May?

The Robinson clique will champion saving MEP Diane Dodds’ seat by branding the other parties as splitters. But Paisley’s double whammy has put Robinson’s leadership under tremendous stress. And his outbursts have DUP grassroots members to ask privately question if Robinson is still the right leader to win elections.

Paisley loyalists think they have a strong hand because even though there is a wide range of pro-Union parties, none of them is in a strong enough position to replace the DUP as the lead Unionist party. If the pro-Paisley camp succeeds in replacing Robinson, could that encourage rival hardliners in Sinn Fein to view Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness, the architects of the republican peace agenda, as approaching their sell-by date? The focus is on the revival of the religious fundamentalists in the DUP. Is anyone watching the Young Turks emerging in Sinn Fein?

This post first appeared in www.tribunemagazine.org



Lethal Allies:  Anne Cadwallader (Mercier Press)


Seen all the media hype and ‘who-ha’ around the book but as usual I won’t know what’s its really like until I read it for myself.  It doesn’t  take very long to get into the slant of the book which in fairness the author makes explicit early on.  So the author must take on board that this will sound like Republican propaganda dragging up the old, old stories. Everyone in the early 70s knew dirty tricks where going on. The recent fuss over the MRF is puzzling to a person, like myself,  who was involved in the troubles,  went to prison,  had friends killed,  seen buildings blew apart, etc, etc.

I read the book with a rather untypical slant. I was a UVF life sentence prisoner, I grew up in central Belfast  (admittedly a long way away from most of the events in the book) but I had one friend executed by the police on a  Belfast street and another friend shot and seriously wounded by the police.  It is a given, that my wounded friend was to be executed also only for the intervention of a bystander. I had friends killed by loyalists and British soldiers. I had friends killed by Republicans. I may be a Prod but am no stranger to dirty tricks, beatings by the police, harassment by the army, etc.  For many people the ‘70s in N.Ireland was a semi-war zone.

The basis of the facts are taken for granted. The shootings,  bombings and events are well documented and now supplemented by the HET. But, as noted in a previous book review on this site there is a distinct lack of context.  The early ‘70s in this country were ferocious and horrible. What of the continued IRA violence, which we as young loyalists, responded to,  especially after 1972? The emotional aspects to the killings and the suffering of the families are powerful testimony in this book. I just hope that the many readers will consider the anguish and pain that took place in thousands of homes here and in England, Scotland and Wales. Mother losing sons and never really getting over it.

There are some details I am puzzled over. Given the nature of the book with so many names flying about why was the author coy about not naming the two people convicted of killing young Duffy? (see page 72) I know the two men well and they were regarded as different,  namely in that they were innocent compared to the rest of us. So maybe this fact does not fit in well with the thrust of the book namely that the UVF and security forces were in cahoots, slaughtering innocent Catholics. In this case 2 UVF men were set up by the very security forces that were in collusion with them? The two men served out 15 years each for something they did not do.

On page 80 there is reference to a named source. Given nearly everyone else (except 2 ) are named why not reveal this? This is a form of censorship by the author?

A bigger question that arose while reading this book was, given the power of the security forces, why did they not target the real activists, operators, players?  It appears from every case here  (bar Green who could not be easily denied as an activist) that each and every victim was innocent.  (The majority of people killed by Republicans were innocent.)  The question is;  why would these trained soldiers and policemen,  presumably with an agenda to halt IRA violence,  not target the IRA men they knew where involved?  As a reader of the book I have to assume from the author that the police and army were so stupid they had not the foggiest idea who the IRA activists were?  This also do not sound reasonable when one considers today just how infiltrated the IRA had become.  There appears to be no IRA supporters in south Armagh, no usual haunts or pubs they frequent. I think we all accept now that the British Army and more so its intelligence branch took time but riddled the PIRA from the inside. (The RUC/Special branch riddled the loyalists from the inside.) I suspect there were deeper moles in the IRA long before Stakeknife and Callaghan.  Why would the security forces target innocents and drive people towards the IRA?

The author is asking us to believe that the police, the courts, the Lord Chief Justice and senior civil servants all are in cahoots here. I leave out the army because they were fighting a terrorist movement using all means at their disposal for a political end.

This is a well-researched book with a clear agenda but that does not mean we have to take it to be the entire truth.   Finally, what does this book mean in the larger context of N.Irealnd, its future and dealing with the legacy of the conflict? Does it help and heal? Given the way the story is delivered it will not be seen as helpful within the  loyalist community.  It has the feel of continuing the ‘struggle’ in a different guise. All of us have to agree on something about the past otherwise we are all going to limp on to an uncertain future.








Colossus like—head and shoulders—stands out from the crowd
Bellows—a frank acerbic stream—a torrent clear and loud
A  steadfast Giant—articulate–in his calculated prose
A new—and rising—reprising star—and the one the masses chose.

Charismatic and engaging—rhetoric skilled and finely honed
Representative of those who formerly felt alone
Talismanic—his astute charms did woo the common man
And lead the way– in disarray— to a distant promised land.

HE reached that shore-of a Province torn-and with disciples cast aside
HE gained his crown—did not look down—took censure in his stride
HE claimed his throne-and stood alone—and cast his gaze below
Contemptuous then-up to the end—still basking in the glow.


He Was A Friend Of Mine: Jeff

He Was A Friend Of Mine.

Freddie S.

     I remember Freddie standing in the dock of the Crumlin Road number 1 court. There was uproar in the court when the sentences got handed down.  I was with the wives and families of the 6 men as they were given sentences of 7 years,  5 years and other periods of imprisonment. Not one of them had in trouble with the law before the Troubles broke out.

But Freddie and thousands of others felt in these times sometime had to be done. Freddie reacted to his sentence as I would have expected. A wry smile on the face.  Freddie had a face that truly said that butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth. Having met thousands of prisoners during my stays in the Crum and the Kesh Freddie was one of those that always puzzled me. The young turks could easily use violence when needed but others like Freddie had a quietness and gentleness that belied his belief and determination.

Freddie was unassuming but he was easily one of the best artists I have ever seen at work.  He was a natural. You could ask Freddie to draw something and he would do it from memory in front of while you watched. Many of the wall paintings you see will see in associated photographs of the Kesh compounds will have been done by Freddie.  He also had a wonderful dry sense of humour. One time I had seen him before his health went down and we had the usual banter. ‘You’re looking well’ I says to him. ‘What’s your secret?’  “Breathing”, he says back with a smile. He would often walk past my father’s house and I would go out and chat. But the years rolled on and the Donegall Road got longer and longer for him to walk. I seen less of Freddie.

Freddie was one of the Border 6. A group of volunteers caught by the army in South Armagh.  Sadly 2 of the other South Belfast men have already gone. The Kesh had its fair share of characters but Freddie along with Tommy and Billy made for fun in the face of adversity.  They were 3 characters all right.  C Wing in 1974 was loyalist and it was a madhouse. A Belfast version of ‘Stir Crazy’ with more zany characters threw in.

One story about Freddie which borders on the unbelievable concerned his last day in Compound 21. A release date was eagerly awaited but always seemed to take ages to arrive. In the meantime men would give as much stuff as possible to those remaining.  I recall seeing Freddie sitting on his bed waiting for the bus to freedom. His room was bare. All his possession in a single brown bag. All the goodbyes were said and promises of writing letters made. Later I was in his hut and he was still there. He had to return from the gate as his release date was a day later. As good friends we done what good friends do. And slagged him all day. Finally he got away with that wee smile on his face. It would be over 10 years before I would see Freddie again.  No funeral is a nice occasion but it was good to see friends young and old behind his coffin.  It is nearly 40 years since I stood and watched Freddie in the Number 1 court.






Why there will not be a Truth Recovery process: Jeff

Why there will not be a truth recovery process.



“Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth”. Marcus Aurelius


Much has been made recently about the Haass talks.  I had no such expectations this time in contrast to the Good Friday agreement. The politicians cannot agree. I am with some of the Unionists in not letting the Union flag be debased or devalued. One element that still has to be resolved is ‘the Past’. I was convicted in the ‘70s of numerous terrorist offences and I was given Special Category status recognising the particular context and background to the serious violence that was happening in our country.  

I think there will not be a truth commission/recovery process for the following reasons. Firstly such a process cannot operate in N.Ireland because there has been no clear winner. The situations where truth recovery has worked has been where there was a clear winner, such as South Africa.

Secondly, there is no immunity for ex combatants.(Does that include British soldiers and RUC men?) What good is limited immunity? What rational person would say ‘I will go and tell what I know  only to have that later come back and convict me  in a court of law?  Trust is  major element of the truth process and  I think its fair to say that that isn’t there. And could anyone envisage the day when an British Intelligence member would publically say , yes we were involved in bombing the capital of a neighbouring country that resulted in men, women and children being killed?

Thirdly there has been the most acute discrimination and vilification of loyalist ex-prisoners both from the statutory bodies and sadly the unionist community.  Republican ex-prisoners have the political power of Sinn Fein to protect them and their families. Disrespect and disdain has been actively shown from some unionist politicians to loyalist ex-prisoners who have cut their links with their respective groups, have raised families and tried to lead normal constructive lives. Time and time again there are those who will never let the past be the past.

Fourthly and more worryingly are the unaccountable agencies who agitate and character assassinate- the gutter press. I can imagine certain so called journalists rubbing their hands with glee as a truth commission would unearth facts that they would take and use, manipulate, sensationalise and exaggerate without redress. The process would be a farce.  If our gutter press can show suicide victims hanging on their front page and interview paramilitary touts who then turn up dead,  then they will think what they would  when honest  disclosures are made to a truth process. And on the same line if loyalists where honest in such a process would they then become targets for the dissidents?

Fifthly and most important would be the families of any ex combatant and I include security forces. If a truth recovery names people,  then what about protection for their current wives, partners,  children and in many cases grandchildren.   Would such innocent people become collateral damage? How their lives would be impacted?

If a truth recovery process did take place, what about the people who set up the circumstances that led to the Troubles? The politicians who did carry out prejudice and discrimination in a blatant way? Would they be called to account? Whoever asks about the ‘great and the powerful’   before the Troubles came?  What of their actions and behaviour?  I was a teenager in 1970 caught up in a melee of violence, fear and hate. I could have had a far better life without the Troubles. Will anyone hold their hand up to such a drastic failure to build a decent life for us? And by us I mean ALL the children of that time. Or is this a grand PR exercise to heap all the blame on the bad paramilitaries and divert attention from certain other sectors.

Finally and possibly the biggest stumbling block—-Would  elements of our society (both sides) accept the fact that some paramilitaries were also victims of the Troubles. Not all paramilitaries where victims. Many young Prods and Catholics joined because something happened to their family members. Will this be recognised?

At the minute I think there will be no truth recovery process because of the complexity of the issue. Because of party politics that will be played out.   Because of the spotlight that would be put on the security forces.  Could the public, both here and mainland, really cope with the truth? There won’t be a truth process because to many want to see the world from their perspective rather than get at the truth.




He was a friend of mine – Alec Smyth

It is with regret that we mourn the sad passing of our friend and comrade Alec Smyth.  Alec passed away in hospital in the early hours of December 18th.

Alec was a character and never changed.  He died the way he lived – challenging authority with his swift remarks and biting wit.  I can remember one day the governor coming to Alec to ask him did he want a job in the aviary to get him out of his cell and some fresh air, to which Alec retorted “If I want some fresh air I’ll open a window, now take yourself off”.

Most of the lads in here can remember a similar story or two about Alec.  We can all recall New Year’s Eve (2012) when we were in dispute with the prison authorities and refusing to lock up.  The SO with his staff team came in to individually call us for lock up and subsequent charge when we refused.  Not waiting to be addressed, instead Alec accosted the SO, grabbed him by the elbow, ushered him to one side and says “would you mind being our hostage?”.  With an adamant “No” from the officer Alec quipped “I’ll take that as a refusal shall I!”.  With all of us ‘in stitches’ he had successfully diffused the tension and matters were resolved peacefully.

Again, it is with sadness that we are even talking about the passing of Alec.  He certainly was a character and a ‘one off’ and is missed and fondly remembered by everyone in Loyalist Bush House.  We extend our sympathy to Ruby, Heather, Dougie and the family circle – our thoughts and prayers are with you all.

S. Brown