Nolan

James Carrick Annette Sefton, an appreciation

James was born on 25 February 1925, the second  son of William and Cissie Sefton.

He left school at fourteen and was , like many of his contemporaries, apprenticed in Harland and Wolff.

Despite being good at maths he was in love with literature and history. He read three books each week, borrowed from Shankill Road public library.

When I was eight, he took me there and signed me up. We went to the childrens’ section. “Here is a book you might like”. It was a Tale of Two Cities. I remember taking it home and reading the opening lines. How inspirational is that for any boy?

James wanted to be a teacher but his circumstances did not permit.

He was always smart  and well turned out and eventually found his way into the RUC.

Not your usual officer, he completed a crossword every day and counted Paddy Devlin amongst his friends. That friendship may not be surprising in that James was a socialist and Paddy was born a few streets away.

Never an unthinking loyalist, he used to take amusement in observing that the Orangemen were having their ‘ annual’ church visit,

He married my mother , Ellen, a beauty and rich , and a year older than him in 1949. That must have made his friends jealous.

They were in love right to the end.

They represented all that was good about Northern Ireland in those years that many observers  have rubbished. They had honeymooned in Dublin [ where I was made]  and visited the Republic regularly.

James had a dry sense of humour that could convey a concept. I remember reading out my letter of offer of a place to read law at QUB, at the breakfast table.

His reply was “anyone who gets a university place and fails should be shot” That got my attention and is probably explained by  his wish to have been a teacher.

When I explained that I was prosecuting my first historic sex abuse trial, he remarked that “those people steal childrens’ childhoods”. It was the first time I really understood abuse.

James served uncomplainingly in B division for many years.

The rector of St Matthew’s, with whom he loved to debate , said of him and my mother; “they were ordinary decent caring people…[James] was not the sort of man to talk about politics, he was a tolerant sort of individual who didn’t hold any unyielding views”

I still hold the memory of him going out on night duty , after the Anglo Irish Agreement, when he was more likely to be attacked by loyalists.

I never told him how much I loved him.

I know that I am not alone in my loss and that many people suffered more than I did.

But he was my Dad, the bravest man I ever knew and I’m only half the man he was.

Cameron and platitudes

Here is a question for the relatives and loved ones of the British citizens, butchered on a  Tunisian beach.

How likely is it that Cameron will do anything material in response?

The British government negotiates with , appeases, protects, gives letters of comfort and Royal Pardons to murdering terrorists within its borders. Gerry Kelly , who blew up the Old Bailey, got a Royal pardon.

PIRA terrorists, responsible for thousands of deaths and injury were supplied by Islamic terrorists, yet these  internal terrorists are in power in part of the United Kingdom and Cameron refuses to help compensate their victims.

So don’t imagine Dave is doing anything more that spouting platitudes.

Sorry.

Perfidious Albion

Those who are perplexed by British foreign policy would do well to consider the treatment of the Bolsheviks.

In 1918 the British Government, with the support of that great professional warmonger, Churchill, ordered the Marines to attack the Bolsheviks and support the White Russians [ for them read Tories] . The Brits got their asses whipped.

Guess which army beat Adolf in 1945?

Cameron, the International Toad

Once again, British  [and other] citizens have been killed by Islamic terrorists.

Leaving aside the valid  counter argument that we have killed an awful lot of Muslims in the last fifteen years, let’s look at what happens next.

Wheel out the platitudes!

“I say Rupert , old man, dust off that ‘they won’t succeed’ speech, for Dave”

“the 1972 version?”

“Yes, obviously, with the names changed, again.”

Puffed up Toad of Toad Hall was big on talk when it came to the weasels but he had to be rescued by Badger , Mole and Rat.

Let me translate Dave’s words for you.

“we will defeat the terrorists”= “we are currently in talks with them , offering all sorts of incentives, if only they would stop”

“these terrorists will not succeed”= “my officials will invite them to Chequers”

“there is no place for these Islamist extremists in the modern world”= “OTR letter, Royal Pardon, Abdul?”

Anybody who has had dealings with the Cameron Government over the last five years knows what a liar he is. For example ,he promised that Sir Kim Darroch would negotiate on behalf of the Libyan victims but Sir Kim, properly, told me that that was not the brief that he had been given.

The fact is that the British Foreign Office is a mealy mouthed pathetic excuse for an organisation which fails to represent British Interests. On this Armed Forces Day I’m sure that most veterans would not disagree.

Dave/Toad will do nothing much, except bluster.  He will rely on stronger friends to wield the cudgels on the weasels.

Wheels within wheels

Liam Clarke, in his article in the Belfast Telegraph on 18 June says: “the Castlereagh raid allowed the IRA to identify the entire agent network in Belfast through a process of elimination.”

It is interesting that this observation, relating to events which occurred in 2002, passed without apparent comment in the media.

Was the “raid” in fact a hostile act by a devilishly cunning SF/IRA unit or was it staged? Was the insider in fact Larry the Chef, a state agent, and was the object of the state to further destabilise SF/IRA?

Larry was never prosecuted, a decision made jointly by the police, who took him out of the jurisdiction and the PPS.

Guess who was asked to investigate? A man call Chilcott.

Could Barney Rowan help?

Imagine the scene at the army council when the product of the raid was tabled. “Gerry, I never knew….you too Marty….gosh and you , and you”. It is unlikely that anyone on the army council failed to make the grade.

So why the silence both from the media and from SF/IRA?

It’s the Peace Process Stupid!

The wonderful world of the PPS

Aside from the considerable interest the press and public would have taken had Barra appeared as a witness for the defence or the prosecution  [see Larkin para 4.49-4.51] in the trial of Liam Adams, a number of other points arise from the Starmer and Larkin reports.

1. Why was Gerry Adams, Barra’s former client, not called in the second trial? The answer to the justice committee from the Deputy director was “technical reasons” [ a well known legal term] and the volume of potential disclosure. One wonders if this disclosure related to Gerry’s terrorist activities and/or his usefulness to the state. It may well be another example of where intelligence held by the state intrudes into the administration of justice.

2. Whilst taking responsibility for the AA/BB/Cahill shambles Barra blamed the two prosecuting barristers. Asked by the justice committee about his civil servants , his response was that of the three involved , one had retired and the other two were not in the places they had been when the events happened. This is an obscure remark. Does it mean that they have been sent to the PPS equivalent of the Russian Front or Siberia? He went on to tell the committee that neither would be disciplined because their actions “did not raise issues of indiscipline”. So there you have it. No harm will befall the civil servants, they will eventually retire on their inflation proofed pensions. Meanwhile they may be performing incompetently in your case, dear reader. Their names have never been made public. Meanwhile the two barristers face a public disciplinary hearing.

3. Moving on from that demimonde , Barra was asked a number of questions by Edwin Poots. Barra initially declined to respond when Poots  asked him what ‘he put his thing in me” might mean. Having unsuccessfully appealed to the chairman for protection, he stated that it was a description of penetration. Poots point was that that remark by the complainant re Liam, her father, constituted a complaint of rape and that it had been heard by Gerry, bringing him within the ambit of the then legislation on with holding information. Larkin concluded that Aine’s evidence re Gerry called at the very least for clarification.

4. Alban Maginness told Barra that Larkin’s report gave the PPS “a clean bill of health”. Let’s examine that. The real nub of the PPS performance is set out by Larkin at paras 6.17- 6.22. Larkin notes that in relation to the assessment of the evidence against Gerry, neither the acting director nor senior counsel appear, from the acting deputy director’s minute, to have been provided with the two transcribed interviews of Aine. Nor did senior counsel have access to a minute from the directing officer. So , another PPS communication failure. Larkin was not asked to comment on the decision not to prosecute Gerry but it is clear that had communications been working properly , at the least the PPS would have sought clarification from Aine or Gerry. Larkin describes the “obvious steps” that should have been taken at 6.40. This all leaves out of account Larkin’s view that the PPS did not follow its own procedures.

5 Enter the PSNI, stage left. The police told the PPS that Gerry Adams had “quite rightly…Aine’s welfare at the forefront throughout”. Contrast that astonishing statement with his performance under cross-examination in the first trial. Is this a genuinely held belief by the PSNI or was it another smokescreen? They lobbied the PPS for no prosecution of Gerry “in the public interest” Did it fall within example [x] in the PPS list of some grounds for not prosecuting in the public interest ” where details may be made public that could harm sources of information, international relations or national security”?

6. A number of the members of the justice committee voiced concern at the performance of the PPS. It is hard to disagree.

6. Larkin’s report was spun by the PPS as a vindication of its activities. It is no such thing.

Nolan -elephant man

While I have great respect for many of the issues that Nolan raises on his radio programme, the television programme is awful. It is a freak show. I would be unsurprised if he were to produce the Elephant Man.

Stick to being the official opposition along with Jim Allister and the Green.

Mairia Cahill -some words of caution

Those of you who read my blog would know my views on Sinn Fein and PIRA. However there are some disturbing aspects of this case.

  • Mairia was a republican
  • She was related to Joe Cahill, a founder of the Provisional IRA and close friend of Adams
  • The alleged rape took place in 1997
  • The alleged internal inquiry or whatever one wants to call it, took place when Joe Cahill was still alive
  • Would not Joe have wanted to protect his grand niece?
  • She made no complaint until an unknown date , perhaps four to five years ago, Over ten years after the event.
  • A decision to prosecute was made, therefore someone in the PPS thought that there was a reasonable prospect of success.
  • It is alleged that the Director did not involve himself in the prosecutorial decision
  • Mairia ultimately declined to give evidence against Martin Morris, the reason for this is not known
  • Consequently he was [ rightly] acquitted
  • She now wishes to make the same case in public and in the media which she was unwilling to make before a jury
  • If we are ever to become a humane a sophisticated society, we need to observe the rule of law.
  • Trial by media , even Nolan, is not the way to go.

Those rushing to judgement for whatever their personal beliefs ought to consider these matters.