Conference tallis::celt

Mark,

I invite you to condemn that IRA's murder of two entirely innocent British
civilians.

//alan

  Alan,

    I invite you to answer the questions I posed in .0
    Then if we're in a revivalist condemnation session, I invite you and
    the other British noters in here to condemn the violence perpetuated
    by the British forces, the British bombings, as well as the Irish
    Republican Army bombings.  Let's not be selective in our condemnation.


                          Mark

Okay Mark, here goes:


   Eighteen Months of British Bad Faith/ Followed by IRA reverts to violence
   Anybody see a correlation here?

I do not believe that the British have in general shown bad faith, so the
question is moot.

   Can you have peace without negotiations?

Probably - for a time at least.  But negotiations tend to be less messy.

   Can you have peace without justice?

Same as above.

   I have a question, why does security in north east Ireland need to be
   stepped up, when the violence occurs in London?

Because "north east Ireland" is where the violence originated, and the 
evidence of the past is that it is a volatile place when IRA bombs explode.
I belive that security will also be stepped up in Central London.

   2 men dead, 175 million dollars in damages...  Why is it that this is the
   only time the British negotiate?

I suspect that this will stop the British from negotiating, rather than 
help it.

   How many more dead, how much more damage to the English economy before
   negotiations with democratically elected representatives can begin?

I understood that the constitutional parties were all already in negotiations
with the British government.  How many democratically-elected Sinn Fein MPs
are there?



Okay, Mark - I've carried out my part of the deal.  Will you please answer
the question I posed in .1?

regards,
//alan

>Let's not be selective in our condemnation.

That sounds rather strange, coming from you, a person who continuously 
condemns the British government, both for things they are responsible for as 
well as something which you attempt to pin to them (ie it's the British 
govt.'s fault that the Unionists are being difficult), yet I don't ever 
remember seeing you utter even the tiniest criticism about the IRAs 
activities.

Even in .0 you manage to condemn the British government's position, but 
selectively leave out any criticism of the actions of the IRA.

Er, now who's being selective, and hypocritical to boot?  Can't say I'm 
surprised, though.

Chris.

>How many more dead, how much more damage to the English economy before
>negotiations with democratically elected representatives can begin?

this, in particular, disgusts me.  Perhaps I am misreading it, but it almost 
seems that you're suggesting that the IRA *should* continue to murder innocent 
people until it is able to force its own agenda upon the British government.  
Still, this shouldn't surprise me either, being penned by the one person who 
refused to condemn the IRA's murder of the children at Warrington.

Chris.

    
    Heres another Brit... not usually a noter but on this occasion I make
    an exception. 
    
    Yes I condemn ALL acts of violence - from the British Army or the IRA
    or anyone else. 
    
    Let me pose this though.... The IRA claim to be an Army.. they say the
    bombings are legitimised by this... should the British Army decide to
    Bomb any areas which are know to have IRA sympatisers living there and
    innocent men, women and children are killed in the process and should
    they justify it by claiming it to be fair tactics in a "war" how do you
    think public opinion would go ???? 
    
    I believe we should have talked after 12 months without violence there 
    had been a real chance there and we lost it but i can NEVER agree with
    the mindless violence involved in this "struggle".
    
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

re .6,

careful, if you comment about the British Army not targetting civilians, we'll 
get the same old articles already posted here a million times about Lee Clegg, 
and the other sad examples where the tragedies of Irish civilians at the hands 
of the British Army are cynically dredged up yet again to vindicate all the 
atrocities perpetrated by the IRA.

Chris.

   Alan, First answer this, and then I'll respond to .1

   Alan, how can you say, "I suspect that this will stop the British
   from negotiating, rather than help it."  I mean, since they were
   still refusing to sit down with the democratically elected representatives
   from Sinn Fein.  I can't see the London bombing as making matters worse.

   History has shown however that economic damage directed towards the
   heart of the English economy does get the British government talking.

   I'd suspect that if this first attack doesn't work, then more will
   follow.  The eventual outcome, being the start of peace talks.  

   Here's an idea, why not start the talks immediately, and skip the
   further attacks part.  Gee, someone needs to pass this idea by the
   British government.

                       Mark
   

    .3
    
    Don't hold your breath Alan, Mark still hasn't answered half of the
    questions that I asked him last week, and he didn't respond to my
    comments about his answers - even though in 1547.11 he wrote about me...
    
    >Time and time again I answer your questions, and still you broach each
     new question with, "You see time and time again I have requested you
     answer questions that I have put to you and you haven't".  What
     pray tell type of lies are you trying to concoct?<
    
    He then gave sensible answers to *3* out of the twelve questions I asked.
    
    After further analysis of the questions and replies that I noted, one
    thing was totally clear - The questions that he didn't answer at all,
    these were impossible for him to reply to without irrevocably making a 
    mockery of his standpoint, making him look a hypocrite as it were.
    
    The one's that Mark did answer were answered with �Blah Blah British
    this, British that" these I replied to in kind and, not surprisingly
    I have heard nothing since.
    
    
    CHARLEY

   Alan, First answer this, and then I'll respond to .1

Hmmm...glad to see you don't keep changing the preconditions under people's
feet.

   Alan, how can you say, "I suspect that this will stop the British
   from negotiating, rather than help it."  I mean, since they were
   still refusing to sit down with the democratically elected representatives
   from Sinn Fein.  I can't see the London bombing as making matters worse.

I believe that it was a mistake by John Major not to talk to Sinn Fein after
the conclusions of the internation commision were published. 

However, how many Sinn Fein MPs are there?  To whom should the British 
government be talking?  That was not clear, hence the suggestion of elections.

By going ahead with negotiations now, the government would be making a 
statement that murdering people in London is a legitimate way of pursuing
political ends.  That is why the British government now cannot allow itself
to be seen talking to the IRA.

//alan

    .8
    
     >I mean, since they were still refusing to sit down with the
     democratically elected representatives from Sinn Fein.<
    
     I think it was the other way round actually Mark.
    
     
    CHARLEY

  Hello Shelley,

   "should the British Army decide to
    Bomb any areas which are know to have IRA sympatisers living there and
    innocent men, women and children are killed in the process"

   Ever heard of the Dublin, Monaghan bombing.

   In answer to your question, I don't think the British should have bombed
   Dublin, and I don't think the Irish Republican Army should bomb London.
   I have family who live and work in both London, and in Dublin.  I don't
   want to see them, or anyone else killed.

   This is why the British should sit down and negotiate with all democratically
   elected representatives.  This is why censorship was wrong when the British
   first imposed it.  This is why, the coverups of Irish people murdered by
   British forces was wrong, and never should have happended.  This is why
   negotiations should be chosen over war.

                       Mark

    .10
    
    >Hmmm...glad to see you don't keep changing the preconditions under
    people's feet.<
    
    
    HA! HA! HA!
    
    
    CHARLEY

     I don't think the Irish Republican Army should bomb London.

It was grudging, but it was said.  Thank you, Mark.  I just wish that Mr
Adams would have the balls to say the same.

//alan

    .12
    
    >should the British Army decide to Bomb any areas<
    
    >Ever heard of the Dublin, Monaghan bombing.<
    
    I was under the impression that the U.V.F. were responsible.
    
    
    CHARLEY

My answers to the base note:
    
                <<< TALLIS::SYS3$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CELT.NOTE;1 >>>
                               -< Celt Notefile >-
================================================================================
Note 1549.0  Eighteen Months of British Bad Faith/ Followed by IRA re  4 replies
GYRO::HOLOHAN                                        30 lines  12-FEB-1996 08:48
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eighteen Months of British Bad Faith/ Followed by IRA reverts to violence

 >  Anybody see a correlation here?

Yes I can, but that doesn,t make what happened any less sick.
 
   >Can you have peace without negotiations?  Can you have peace without 
   >justice?  Obviously you can not.

Can you achieve justice through killing and terror?
  

  > I have a question, why does security in north east Ireland need to be
  > stepped up, when the violence occurs in London?
   
   The bull that goes on in NI has nothing to do with security, but
   where do you think the bombers came from Mark? Do you think they should do
   it again ?

   >2 men dead, 175 million dollars in damages...  Why is it that this is the
   >only time the British negotiate?
   They aren't and they won't

   
   >How many more dead, how much more damage to the English economy before
   >negotiations with democratically elected representatives can begin?  
 
    The economic damage is marginal. But that is not where the IRA were at on
Friday. They wanted to terrorise workers relaxing after work. Your mistake is
that you think this will bring progress. It won't. 
   

   >If the British government does not get moving now, the Irish Republican
   >Army will be back to business as usual.  God help the innocent people
   >in London, and the innocent people in north east Ireland whom the British
   >will take it out on.

   Your analysis is simplistic and your prayers insincere. If the IRA go back
to "business as usual" as you call it, there will be no progress but an orgy of 
retalliation and state repression. The unionist hardliners are delighted this
morning. It is clear that nothing will happen between now and the UK election.
Your indifference to the suffering is not new, but nonetheless depressing.

And now I have some questions for you Mark: Given that Adams and McGuinness 
assure
us that they were not party to the IRA decision, which was apparently taken by 7
people in Dublin, what mandate do these seven people have to condemn the 75 odd
million people on these islands to a renewal of terror which may continue for
another 25 years? Why do you not reject terrorist methods unequivocally? 

Do you not see that it plays into the hands of those who want the status quo
and who themselves use terror ond brutality to maintain their power?

Kevin   
    

    
    Mark,
    
    Re: .12
    
    I admit, I havent heard of the Dublin, Monaghan bombing and as such I
    cant comment.. I'll leave that to those who can. 
    
    I agree that negotiations are the way forward.. but if talks are agreed
    RIGHT NOW then the bomb has won..  I cant agree with that. As I said I
    think talks should have started a while back.... and yes I blame the
    British government in part but no-one forced the IRA to resume
    violence.. I'm sure the vast majority of Irish people are in favour of
    peaceful methods and the IRA does not speak for the majority. I have
    Irish roots on both the Catholic and Protestant sides..... I can look
    at both points of view but I will NEVER condone terrorism or brutality
    WHOEVER commits it.
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

    RE: .0
    
    .16 says it all for me. Well said.
    
    Mark, I have condemned violence and terrorism by all sides many times.
    I have stated my position in this conference many times. To refresh
    your memory, once again, I condemn all acts of violence and terrorism
    whether they be by the British Army, the IRA, the UVF, Uncle Tom
    Cobbley and all.
    
    Right, we now know that you've said that you don't think the IRA should
    be bombing London... I'll ask you, do you condemn that bombing, yes or
    no? No waffle, yes, or no.
    
    Laurie.

  Shelley,

   "I agree that negotiations are the way forward.. but if talks are agreed
    RIGHT NOW then the bomb has won..  I cant agree with that."

   Maybe it's not about winning.  I don't think anyone is winning with
   solutions that require troops, special legislation, coverups, or bombs.
   What is the harm of talks, RIGHT NOW?  The absolute worst that can 
   happen is that no more bombs will be going off in London.  Is that
   a bad thing?  

   Could anyone in their right mind justify denying a place at the peace
   table for all the representatives of the democratic parties in north
   east Ireland.  Could you tell the next group of Irish or English people
   who lose their lives in this war, that it was because we didn't want
   the "Last bomb to win" or the "last murder by British troops to succeed".

                          Mark

    Re .17
    
    Shelley,
    
    There is a discussion on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings in note 1236
    of this conference. Recent evidence from senior British army officials
    who were involved at the time confirmed that the British Army were
    behind these bombings.
    
    Ed.
    

    
    Mark,
    
    the absolute worst that can happen is that The Unionist will decide
    that if the IRA got negotiations by the bomb then they might as well
    bomb Dublin... is that what you want ???? If talks were to begin
    without some agreement of a permanent ceasfire on ALL sides then
    retaliation WILL take place and that brings things no further on.
    
    Solutions should begin with People rather than Politicians... I'm not a
    great fan of ANY politician but I still stand by my statement that the
    vast majority of Irish people, Southern or Northern, would not be a
    party to the violence perpetrated by the IRA. Similarly I doubt most
    English people would condone acts of violence on innocent people
    perpetrated by British Army Personnel or any group or individual in any
    situation. People in general want Peace.
    
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

    
    Re .20
    
    
    Mark,
    
    
    I will read note 1236. I am not narrow minded and I am well aware that
    all sorts of people commit all kinds of violence... it doesnt make me
    agree with any of it.
    
    What I find hard to accept is people who refuse to condemn acts of
    violence and try to justify it by any means... thats sick !!
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

    
    Sorry.. that last comment should have been to Ed.
    
    I am now more informed than I was, but still of the same opinion. Any
    decent human being would condemn ALL such acts of violence.. it goes
    nowhere.
    
    I had actually seen a documentary on the alleged "shoot to Kill" policy
    and was just as disturbed by that.
    
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

    re .20
    
    Eddie, can you publish or point to the evidence you are referring to.
    Sometimes I get the feeling you are a bit loose on facts. 
    I thought the question was still open, there are people in Monaghan
    calling for an enquiry.
    
    Kevin

    .24
    
    I was going to ask that.
    
    
    CHARLEY

  Shelley,
   So you believe there should not be talks, because the Unionist might decide
  to bomb Dublin.  Isn't this allowing a terrorist threat to stop peace 
  negotiations?  Isn't this, giving in to the Unionist terrorists?

   I don't think there can be any excuse for not having all party talks
  immediately.  Anything less will lead to a return of the last 25 years.

                    Mark

    I think we've got the cart before the horse.
    
    Typically, when wars end the armies sit down and work out a cease-fire
    and agree arrangements that lead to civil administration. This
    eventually leads to elections etc.
    
    Why not get the Loyalist Paramilitaries, IRA and British army to sit
    down and work out a real cease fire and way forward to civilian rule.
    
    The politicians lack a mandate to do so and, unfortunately andother
    election will not give them that mandate. One bomb will negate the
    result.
    
    Any creative ideas chaps?
    

    RE: .27

    One way forward was through the international commission -
    which Britain ignored.

    I don't see a solution now. There doesn't appear to be one
    acceptable to all the parties.

    I feel bad for the ordinary people of London and Northern Ireland
    who bear the brunt of the violence - and certainly don't deserve it
    in any way. Not a good situation...

    George

>    One way forward was through the international commission -
>    which Britain ignored.

well, there were a number of avenues which could've been explored in time, 
perhaps including this one.  Unfortunately, time isn't something which there 
is much of now, and I fear that the relevant parties may have to hastily 
choose a path which may not lead to an optimal solution.

Chris.

    
    This is so tragic for all directly affected and potentially tragic
    for all people in The UK and Ireland.  I am really sickened by this
    and the thought of how is might escalate.
    
    Although the IRA pulled the trigger, I also partially blame Major and
    his government for failing to take hold of a rare opportunity
    in forcing the Unionist to the table with the Nationists.
    I could feel this coming!
    
    The IRA was not a defeated army (aka terrorist group).  They are armed
    to the teeth and have a fair amount of sympathized following.
    
    The Ceasefire was a welcomed rainbow, but it needed to be acted upon.
    
    If the UK is not willing to negotiate a peace with its enemy then what
    are its options?  
    - Take off the kid gloves and start the search and seizures.
      Attack all Nationist and eliminate them and their "sticks".
      Thus finishing what the Ulster Plantation started.
    - Pull out and let the blood bath begin.
    - Force all parties to the bargaining table and introduce a new order
      fair economy with equal civil rights.  
      No preconditions, except for another immediate ceasefire.  Let the 
      talks define the conditions and abide by the "6 Mitchell Principles".
    
    I do not think the involved countries and fighting factions can find 
    peace on their own.  Just too much history, rage and feelings.
    
    I pray for my relations in Armagh and Dublin.
    
    Paul

                                IRA STATEMENT

A statement was issued 9 February, 1996 by the Irish Republican Army.

The full text of the IRA statement reads:

``It is with great reluctance that the leadership of �glaigh na h�ireann
announces that the complete cessation of military operations will end at 6
p.m. on February 9th, this evening.

``As we stated on August 31st, 1994, the basis for the cessation was to
enhance the democratic peace process and to underline our definitive
commitment to its success.

``We also made it clear that we believed that an opportunity to create a
just and lasting settlement had been created.

``The cessation presented an historic challenge for everyone and �glaigh na
h�ireann commends the leaderships of nationalist Ireland at home and abroad.

``They rose to the challenge. The British Prime Minister did not.

``Instead of embracing the peace process, the British Government acted in
bad faith with Mr Major and the Unionist leaders squandering this
unprecedented opportunity to resolve the conflict.

``Time and again, over the last 18 months, selfish party political and
sectional interests in the London parliament have been placed before the
rights of the people of Ireland.

``We take this opportunity to reiterate our total commitment to our
Republican objectives.

``The resolution of the conflict in our country demands justice.

``It demands an inclusive negotiated settlement.

``That is not possible unless and until the British Government faces up to
its responsibilities.

``The blame for the failure thus far of the Irish peace process lies
squarely with John Major and his Government.''

P.O'Neill,
Irish Republican
Publicity Bureau,
Dublin

re IRA statement,

although initially tempted to argue the finer details, there really isn't much 
point.  It's so shallow that any right thinking person can see straight 
through it.

The statement is a load of crap.  Just crap.

Chris.

    How any organisation that has blown the peace process apart as it has
    can accuse another party os "squandering" the opportunity for peace is
    beyond my comprehension. The way that document reads, the IRA had no
    alternative than to return to violence as a means of gaining a "just
    and peaceful settlement". That premise is sick in the extreme, and
    utterly wrong.
    
    What a pile of crap.
    
    Laurie.

    Once again, Holohan, I invite you to answer the following questions
    with yes or no answers:
    
    Do you condemn the Docklands bombing?
    Was the Docklands bombing justified in any way?
    
    Laurie.

    
    If the employees of Digital cant reach any compromises and agree ANY
    parties comitting violence are TOTALLY wrong... what chance is there of
    any lasting peace.. we're surely representative of the people at large
    rather than extremist groups... try looking at things from ALL angles
    for a change.. you might get somewhere....
    
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

    RTw  02/12 1903  British, Irish insist IRA renounce violence
    
        By Patricia Reaney
    
        LONDON, Feb 13 (Reuter) - British and Irish leaders promised to try
    to salvage the tattered Northern Ireland peace process but insisted
    that before talks can move forward the IRA must reinstate the 17-month
    ceasefire it ended with a bomb in London.
    
    Friday's Irish Republican Army bomb that killed two people and
    caused damaged estimated at 150 million pounds ($230 million) left the
    peace process as shattered as the dozen high-rise buildings it destroyed
    in the capital's Docklands financial district.
    
    British Prime Minister John Major, addressing the nation in a televised
    speech, said the IRA and its political wing Sinn Fein must renounce
    violence.
    
    "Only when they commit themselves unequivocally to peace, and reinstate
    the ceasefire, can they have a voice and a stake in Northern Ireland's
    future," he said.
    
    "The IRA will never bomb their way to the negotiating table. Until
    their violence genuinely ends, British and Irish ministers will not
    meet Sinn Fein."
    
    Irish Prime Minister John Bruton, who criticised Major during the
    weekend for his insistence that an elected forum in Northern
    Ireland
    was the best way forward, agreed that only an end to the killing
    willopen all the doors.
    
    "We cannot be satisfied...until the IRA army council issues a further
    statement saying the cessation of violence has been reinstated.That's
    what we are working towards as our immediate objective," he told Channel
    Four television news.
    
    Major angered his Irish counterpart and Sinn Fein last month when he
    announced his proposal for elections to break the impasse between
    pro-British Unionists politicians, who want the IRA to give up its arms
    before joining all-party talks, and Sinn Fein which is demanding talks
    begin before arms are scrapped.
    
    They saw it as a means of shelving a report by an international panel
    led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell proposing that guerrillas
    should disarm in stages as all-party talks get underway.
    
    Warning that London could be the target of more bombs, Major told
    parliament the purpose of elections in Northern Ireland was to lead to
    negotiations among all parties and that he would not close his mind
    to other ideas.
    
    Irish Foreign Minister Dick Spring welcomed Major's comments. "We
    were reassured by his very clear and direct speedy link between possible
    elections negotiations. That's the direction that the Irish
    governmenthave been pursuing obviously before Friday last."
    
    But Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said Major's remarks were
    stalling tactics and Britain was still blocking the peace process by not
    calling all-party talks.
    
    "I had a forlorn hope that perhaps Mr Major would have used today as an 
    opportunity once again to get this thing back on the rails," he said 
    in Belfast.
    
    As security measures were stepped up in Britain and Northern Ireland,
    Mitchell said there was no alternative but to press forward with the
    search for peace.
    
    "One of the problems that has led to this state is the constant
    search for blame and the constant looking to the past to assign
    responsiblity.It is an endless, no win process," he told Channel Four news 
    in an interview from Washington.
    
    "I think it is very important that people and parties there break
    out of the habits and modalities and thought patterns of the past and
    look to the future."
    
    REUTER

    >If the employees of Digital can't reach any compromises and agree ANY
    parties comitting violence are TOTALLY wrong<
    
    Actually, 98% of us can Shell.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Laurie,
    
    Sinn Fein has never condemned the IRA outright and it never will. They
    haven't done so for the last 25 years. You are asking questions that
    you already know the answer to. Both governments seem to be getting on
    with the peace process, they know that Sinn Fein won't condemn
    Docklands. Elections seem to be the favourite outcome at the moment but
    not elections as tabled my HMG. I think that if elections are to take
    place and the Repub/Nationalists are to participate then there will
    have to be a hard and fast agenda, i.e. All-party negotiations within
    x-amount of days after the election, which would include discussion on 
    decommisioning, and no more obstacles. This will need compromise from all
    sides but then everyone knows that this is what the peace process needs
    in order to succeed. Everyone knows that Unionists and Nationalists
    will have to sit round a table one day to discuss their future. If an
    election is the only feaible way for this to happen then it has my 
    (grudging) support....
    
    Ray....

re .19

   The absolute worst that can 
   happen is that no more bombs will be going off in London.  Is that
   a bad thing?  

Looking at .19 I would guess un-spoken answers might be the following.

re .34 

    Do you condemn the Docklands bombing?
NO
    Was the Docklands bombing justified in any way?
Yes

Personally I think ALL military/para-military forces should disarm/leave 
Northern/North East Ireland.

    Is this true, I wonder?
    
    Laurie.
    
    
    
    The Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996  The Front Page
    
    Bomb lorry's tax disc was stolen 3 weeks ago

    By Colin Randall and Neil Darbyshire

    EVIDENCE emerged last night to indicate the IRA was planning the
    Docklands bombing at least days and possibly weeks before the
    Government response to the Mitchell report on arms decommissioning,
    which Republicans claim prompted the end of the ceasefire.

    Security sources confirmed a claim in the Commons by Ian Paisley,
    Democratic Unionist leader, that the lorry used in the bombing bore
    false number plates relating to a tax disc stolen in Northern Ireland
    more than three weeks ago.

    Mr Paisley said plates bearing the number on the disc had been fitted
    to another lorry and taken to London.

    This would suggest that the lorry may have been packed with explosives
    before being driven to England.

    The tax disc was taken from a lorry parked on the forecourt of a car
    saleroom in a rural area. There was confusion last night as to whether
    the owner of the premises reported the theft immediately.

    Security sources suggest he did not. However, he did contact police
    after the bombing to say that the registration number read out on
    television related to the stolen disc. 

    One IRA source was quoted by an Irish newspaper at the weekend as
    claiming that the suggestion of an elected assembly was "the final
    straw for the rank and file"

    Mr Paisley's son, also Ian, DUP justice spokesman, said that when the
    saleroom owner, a party member, contacted his office, he said that the
    theft took place three and a half weeks ago. 

    This would suggest that the disc was taken about a week before Jan 24,
    when the Mitchell report was published. Mr Major responded on the same
    day by announcing plans for an elected forum as a way of enabling
    all-party talks to be held.

    The Prime Minister's response to Mitchell was bitterly attacked by
    nationalists. One IRA source was quoted by an Irish newspaper at the
    weekend as claiming that the suggestion of an elected assembly was "the
    final straw for the rank and file".

    But Ian Paisley Jnr said: "If the disc was stolen three and a half
    weeks ago, the IRA were obviously planning that theft for a further
    three weeks prior to that. This is consistent with my understanding
    that the IRA would take six weeks to plan a bombing of this kind.

    "What it means is that irrespective of what the Mitchell report was
    going to find, and whatever John Major was going to say about
    elections, the IRA were already preparing to blow the heart out of
    London."

    He declined to identify the saleroom owner but said he was "entirely
    reliable and genuine".

    I was just about to stick that in.
    
    It seems that this was planned a while back, in fact if I remember
    correctly, Docklands was the last target targetted by the I.R.A. before
    the ceasefire.
    
    Nevertheless, it seems that this was not a "spur of the moment job"
    
    
    CHARLEY

  Just out of curiosity ( 'cos I know I won't get a straight answer ), in a 
  democracy, what is so bad about wanting a free election?

   Stuart
  

    Because in a free election, Sinn Fein would not get the power they
    crave so badly. They have little support, and even that is fading as we
    speak. 
    
    
    CHARLEY

    .45
    
    Charley,    you're probably right about their support fading at the
    moment but they would still have their core support which would still
    give them a voice at any elected body in NI, and unless I'm mistaken,
    this election is not going to be a first-past-the-post election, it would
    be a proportionally representative body. I'm not sure what the exact
    percentiles are but Sinn Fein would come out with roughly 10% of the
    seats in this new body....
    
    as an aside, does anybody have the percentage results for all parties
    in the most recent elections in NI?...
    
    Ray....

    
    
    	I think I must be a cynic, does everybody really believe that
    	when the IRA have achieved what they want by bombing and
    	killing people, that their case will rest?
    
    	I dont think so - it's the type of group where they will find
    	another "cause" to "fight" for, and will go on like this 
    	forever more.  They will theoretically become their own police
    	force - i.e. - like the Mafia.
    
    	I think at the end of the day, all they are, are MURDERERS,
    	pure and simple.    
    
    	BTW: Im Scottish and can understand the frustration and 
    	infuriation of wanting something for your country and
    	not being able to achieve it.   But I cant remember the
    	last time the Scots planted a bomb in London.
    
    
    	I pray that one day these people will be captured and
    	tried for murder.
    
    	Debbie
               
                                      

    
    
    John Hume is touting a referendum proposal North and south...
    
    2 questions along the lines  
    
    (1) do you reject Violence as a means of achieving political objectives
    (2) do you support all party talks  etc etc
    
    So far there seems to be guarded support....though the result would 
    appear to be a forgone conclusion
    
    London is indicating a softening of its Elections first and foremost
    policy. 
    
    London and Dublin are indicating no talks with SF until a new ceasefire
    whilst the USA suggest that all avenues of communication must be kept open
    ie talking doesn't kill anyone...
    
    security measures increasing in UK, North and SOuth of Ireland. Though
    almost a consenus that the bombing was a one-off and the IRA will adopt
    a wait and see attitude on the political fallout and efforts to get the
    peace process back on track
    
    rgs,
    
    Mick
    mick

    This is the full terxt of John Major's statement to the House.
    
    
    
The Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996  Home News

The Prime minister's statement

End of the ceasefire: Major tells MPs that the 'peace process is by no
means over' as Blair gives full support to Government

THE Prime Minister said in his statement to the Commons on Northern
Ireland and the bombing of London's Docklands:

There is no doubt the evil act in London was the work of the IRA.

The bomb followed shortly after an IRA statement on the evening of Feb 9
that the complete cessation of hostilities ordered in Aug 1994 was now at an
end. The IRA admitted their responsibility on Feb 10.

The facts of the incident are briefly these: around 5.45pm last Friday
warning calls were made that a large bomb had been placed at South Quay
station, Marsh Wall, in London. Local police arrived shortly after 6pm and
Anti-Terrorist Branch officers shortly after that.

At around 6.30pm a suspect vehicle, a Ford flat-backed lorry, was identified
and the immediate area cleared. While the area was being evacuated the
vehicle exploded, causing extensive damage to buildings and a large number
of casualties.

Two people were killed and 43 injured, two critically. Three police officers
were among the casualties. The House will join me in extending our deepest
sympathy to all innocent victims and their families. It is little short of a
miracle that the casualty list was not much longer.

I would like to pay tribute to the emergency services. Despite being
hampered by a fractured gas main at the scene, they responded
magnificently.

This may not be the last such atrocity. More may follow, both here and in
Northern Ireland if the IRA ceasefire is not renewed. We will do all we can
to prevent them and to catch all those responsible.

On the mainland, security has immediately returned to pre-ceasefire levels.
In Northern Ireland we have been careful from the first moment of the
ceasefire to take no irreversible steps to downgrade our security capability.

All measures to cope with the present situation are in place. The RUC is on
full alert. We have sought to make an appropriate and proportionate
response to the increased threat without disrupting daily life more than
necessary.

The IRA has brought the 17-month ceasefire to an end. There is no shred
of an excuse for this return to violence - least of all now, when all-party
negotiations were clearly in sight.

After the Aug 1994 ceasefire declaration we called repeatedly on the IRA to
make clear that it was permanent, despite criticism by some for doubting
IRA good faith. We did doubt their good faith, and the IRA did not say it
was permanent.

Nonetheless, after a prudent period of time, in order to move the process
forward, we were prepared to act on the working assumption that the
ceasefire would last.

In the months that followed we reduced the more visible and inconvenient
aspects of security. We took soldiers off the streets and opened border
crossing points.

We did everything possible to create new jobs in Northern Ireland through
renewed investment and helped to produce a remarkable economic upsurge.

We talked to Sinn Fein leaders at official and ministerial level. We
constantly sought to move the peace process on to the all-party negotiations
everyone agrees are necessary. No one - no one - took more risks for peace
than this Government. But we never lost sight of the fact that the IRA
commitment had not been made for good.

That was why we saw a start to the decommissioning of illegal arms as a way
of creating confidence in Sinn Fein's acceptance of peaceful methods and
showing that the violence really has ended.

But all the time that Sinn Fein were calling for all-party talks we knew that
the IRA continued to train and plan for terrorist attacks. Punishment
beatings and killings continued.

They remained ready to resume full-scale terrorism at any time. We could
never be confident their behaviour was that of an organisation which had
decided to renounce violence for ever. Their's was not true peace.

I regret to say that the events of last Friday showed that our caution was only
too justified. The timing of the violence may have been surprising. The fact
that violence could resume was not.

We must continue the search for permanent peace and a comprehensive
political settlement in Northern Ireland. The Government's commitment to
this is as strong as ever.

We will work for peace with all the democratic political parties and with the
Irish government. But a huge question mark now hangs over the position of
Sinn Fein. Their leaders have spoken often of their commitment to peaceful
methods. But they have always ducked and weaved when questioned about
the IRA and their methods. After the events of last Friday their ambiguity
stands out starkly.

The test for eligibility to take part in all party negotiations was set by the
British and Irish governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing Street
Declaration: they should be democratically mandated parties which establish
a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and which have shown that
they abide by the democratic process.

Sinn Fein's leaders claim that they did not know about the bomb at South
Quay and the IRA's ceasefire statement. But they have refused to condemn
or to dissociate themselves from either.

Sinn Fein must decide whether they are a front for the IRA or a democratic
party committed to the ballot and not to the bullet.

In the absence of a genuine end to this renewed violence, meetings between
British ministers and Sinn Fein are not acceptable and cannot take place.

That is also the position of the Irish government. They have made it clear
their attitude and willingness to meet at political level will be determined by
whether the IRA ceasefire is restored.

We and the Irish government are at one on this: the ball is in the court of
Sinn Fein and the IRA, if indeed that distinction means anything.

It is for them to show through their words and actions, whether they have a
part to play in the peace process or not. I am not in the business of slamming
doors. But the British and Irish peoples need to know where Sinn Fein now
stand.

The peace process will go on. I commend all those who have had the courage
and sense, in the face of this atrocity, to work to prevent a wider return to
violence.

The Northern Ireland Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew, and I have met all the
parties in the last two weeks. This process will be intensified with those
parties which have not, for the present, disqualified themselves. The aim is,
as it has always been, to establish the necessary confidence to enable
negotiations between all the parties.

The objective of all our actions and policies has been to get to a position
where all constitutional democratic parties can get round a table together.
Everything is a means to that essential end.

I told the House on Jan 24 that, if the paramilitaries would not start
decommissioning their illegal arms, one alternative way forward was
through elections to give the mandates and confidence which could lead
straightaway to negotiations.

As proposed by the Mitchell report, decommissioning could go ahead in
parallel with these negotiations.

This proposal has been consistently misrepresented by Sinn Fein and
misunderstood more widely. I repeat now that its purpose is to lead directly
and speedily to negotiations between all parties committed to peaceful and
democratic methods, aimed at reaching a comprehensive political
settlement.

An elected body would have to be broadly acceptable and would be strictly
time-limited. I am not proposing an assembly with legislative and
administrative powers.

The proposed elections are a door to full negotiations. I continue to believe
that they provide the most promising opening available. We will pursue this
proposal and seek to persuade all concerned that it is a way forward, not a
means of delaying progress.

Our ideas are still in discussion with the parties. But there are ways forward
to negotiations with all the parties and these could include Sinn Fein - but
only if there is an unequivocal return to the ceasefire.

Others have ideas too, including the Irish government. Our minds are not
closed. Nor, I know, are theirs. I have talked to the Taoiseach twice since the
bombing. We plan to meet in London soon to discuss all the possibilities. I
intend to find a way through to the negotiations with all those committed to
democracy.

The peace process has received a serious setback from the men of violence.
But it is not over by any means.

We have seen the benefits of what has been achieved since the ceasefire: the
freedom to live and work normally, and to enjoy life; increased prosperity
and new jobs; new hope for the future. These must not be thrown away.

This Government will not be deterred by terrorism. The people of Northern
Ireland have tasted a peace that changed their lives. I will leave no stone
unturned in the search for peace. That is true today and will remain true in
the future.

The people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve no less.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996  Home News
    
A supple display by Major to save peace

By Boris Johnson

FROM the moment the Prime Minister asked the Speaker's permission to
make a statement on Northern Ireland at 3.30 pm, the House was
overwhelmed with a sense of bipartisan sobriety.

At least, that was the intention. The suits were of the darkest grey, the tones
were hushed and the ties largely inoffensive.

On the Tory benches, the fulminations against the IRA killers were
curiously muted. Not a single member, let alone the Prime Minister,
attacked Gerry Adams.

On the Labour benches Kevin MacNamara, Labour's former spokesman on
Ulster, appeared to have been the victim of a Tony Blair gagging order.

The Labour leader himself was limpet-like in his adherence to the
Government line. "On this we shall stand four-square together in support of
peace," he said.

While the glaziers are still poring over Canary Wharf, while funeral
arrangements are being made and while two people remain critically ill, MPs
were in the grip of a concerted desire to persuade themselves that Gerry
Adams and Sinn Fein could still be worth the time of day.

The House wanted to be persuaded by the Prime Minister that the "peace
process" was not yet dead.

After the bomb, it was unrealistic to expect full mastery of the emotions.
Tony Marlow was the first to break the truce. He took exception to Mr
Blair's assertion that the future of Northern Ireland was a matter for the
people of Ireland and Northern Ireland. "What about the United Kingdom?
" he growled.

It was too much to expect Ian Paisley to resist roughing up the SDLP

"Of course, the United Kingdom. Of course, the United Kingdom," said Mr
Blair hastily, with the air of one who knows his path to power may yet
depend on the nine Ulster Unionists. 

It was too much to expect Ian Paisley to resist roughing up the SDLP. He
rose and bellowed at Mr Major: "I find it strange that, when any of the
nationalist leaders condemned what the IRA had done, they then repeated
the propaganda line that the people to be blamed were you, sir, and the
Unionist leaders."

No Irish Nationalist MP dared to put it quite that way yesterday, to blame
John Major for the bomb.

Many people might agree with the Prime Minister that the guilt for the
bombing lay squarely with the terrorists. For that reason, a Unionist
hardliner might raise his eyebrows at some parts of Mr Major's statement.

He told John Hume that he would consider his proposal for a referendum of
the people north and south, on whether to move to all-party talks. He
stressed that other options were being considered, in addition to the
elections proposed by David Trimble, the Unionist leader.

All Sinn Fein had to do to buy a ticket back to discussions, he said, was
unequivocally to declare a ceasefire - another one. What is more it seemed
possible from his statement that talks with Sinn Fein could carry on at
official level.

A hardliner might say that Mr Major had shown much more suppleness
than hitherto, and in that sense allowed himself to be deflected by terror.

Mr Major might retort that he had given nothing essential away and that, in
so far as he had moved, it was for the sake of that which is beyond price:
peace.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996  Home News

                          

No concessions for 'men of war'

By Joy Copley, Political Staff

TONY BLAIR, the Labour leader, yesterday condemned without
reservation the IRA bombing in London and said he stood "four square"
behind Mr Major in the quest for peace.

Mr Blair told the Commons: "The bombers should not gain concessions
from the bomb, but neither should they be allowed to thwart peace. The
question now is hard but simple - how do we regain the momentum for
peace without concessions to the men of war?"

If Sinn Fein wanted to participate in negotiations, "then they must accept
the same peaceful methods as everyone else".

Mr Blair said that decommissioning weapons remained the obvious way to
establish with confidence that Sinn Fein would accept exclusively peaceful
methods in the future.

He said if elections went ahead, there should not be a return to Stormont
and should lead directly to substantive negotiations with decommissioning
beginning in parallel. "No option can include Sinn Fein unless they come
within the democratic process in a genuine, complete and irreversible way,"
he told MPs.

"That means that they have to be prepared to play by the rules of democracy
- that sometimes you can get your way, but sometimes you don't. But you
cannot achieve by violence what you are denied by the will of the people."

He said the people in Northern Ireland should know "that, whatever the
political differences between myself and the Prime Minister, on this we shall
be four-square together in the cause of peace".

Tom King, the former Northern Ireland Secretary, said terrorists should not
be allowed "to dictate the agenda".

John Taylor, for the Ulster Unionists, said a terrorist attack had been
increasingly inevitable because Sinn Fein had totally isolated itself.
Abhorrence in Northern Ireland about what had happened could be used to
isolate the terrorists and involve the people in the democratic process.

"That is why we believe that an election is the one way of opening up an
opportunity," he said.

John Hume, the nationalist SDLP leader, "utterly condemned the terrible
atrocity" and said the people in Northern Ireland and the republic had
shown "their massive will for peace".

He called for a referendum in the north and south, asking people to say if
they totally disapproved of violence and if they wanted all parties to start
dialogue to bring about a lasting peace.

"I think that one of the best ways forward now is to let the people speak and
let them speak very clearly. Because if they do, neither the IRA or anybody
else will be able to ignore them," he said.

Paddy Ashdown, the Liberal Democrat Leader, said: "Is this not the moment
when Sinn Fein must decide whether they are going to be a democratic party
committed to peace, or whether they are going to be the prisoner of every
callous and arbitrary decision made by the IRA council?"

Robert McCartney, the UK Unionist MP for North Down, said the latent
threat of un-decommissioned weapons been converted into "an act of
horrific violence".

He said: "The restoration of a ceasefire and the entering into further
negotiations with Sinn Fein/IRA begs the question, will they simply further
down the line, when they meet with another impasse, or some situation
which does not meet with their approval, simply blast it out of the way in the
manner of Canary Wharf?"

David Wilshire, the Tory MP for Spelthorne, said terrorism would have won
if the election plans for Northern Ireland were scuppered. He said: "The
suggestion from some quarters that all Sinn Fein have to do is say sorry and
we can get back to where we were and pretend nothing has happened is quite
impossible to accept."

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Electronic Telegraph Tuesday 13 February 1996    Home News

                          

Terrorists spent last 18 months training recruits

By John Steele

   THE IRA has spent the 18-month ceasefire improving its recruitment
and training to recover from a series of debilitating arrests and prosecutions
which deprived it of trusted, middle-ranking terrorists. 

It had been forced to rely on valuable senior figures, who were known to
police and MI5, or a range of unlikely recruits, including English
sympathisers, to carry out mainland attacks.

The authorities have tried to keep abreast of IRA personnel changes during
the ceasefire but fear that a new generation of unknown activists may have
emerged, security sources said.

It is believed that the IRA, which has kept its command structure intact, has
taken advantage of the break in hostilities to provide recruits with training,
including dummy bombing runs.

As they sift through the wreckage of South Quay, detectives from Scotland
Yard's anti-terrorist branch will try to establish the exact nature of the
bomb, the history of the lorry and what help, if any, members of the public
and security cameras in Docklands can offer.

A further question faces them - were the South Quay bombers "away day"
terrorists sent from Ireland or activated "sleepers" established in Irish
communities on the British mainland?

    Unlike the Irish National Liberation Army, which was thoroughly
    penetrated by MI5 in the late Eighties, the upper echelons of the IRA
    seem to have resisted infiltration by "moles".

This has meant that where the IRA uses unknown recruits, from Ireland or
England, the security services face difficulty in identifying them.

English-based sympathisers, usually with Irish background or leanings, have
become involved in bombing activities but more commonly they have
provided support for terrorists sent from Ireland.

The traditional notion of a series of tight, unconnected IRA active service
units does not always accord with the reality. Although some cells have been
self-contained, there has also been evidence of links, sometimes through
family, between terrorists operating in different parts of the country.

Detonation of a lorry containing fertilizer and Semtex high explosive
follows an IRA pattern since 1992 of using "home-made" vehicle bombs on
the mainland. The Baltic Exchange and Bishopsgate bombs in the City of
London were such devices.

However, assembling more than a ton of fertilizer is a difficult task, which
may leave a trail.

Police are likely to inquire of manufacturers in Britain whether large
amounts have been bought by unlikely customers and also to check any
records of thefts of chemicals.

There is evidence in previous cases of the fertilizer mix being prepared in
England, but the ingredients may be imported from Ireland, where
agricultural chemicals are widely used. Irish police might have information
about suspicious trade in fertilizer.

The IRA has been known to bring vehicles destined for use in bomb attacks
from Ireland to the mainland by sea. Ferry records and the Irish police will
be consulted. Terrorists have also stolen vehicles, re-painted them and
fitted false number plates, the latter a feature of the Docklands attack.

In other cases, vehicles have been bought at auction and altered. Detectives
will try to check all outlets for the sale of the kind of flat-back lorry used at
South Quay.

Further atrocities cannot be ruled out. Active service units have usually had
access to caches of arms and explosives sufficient for a series of bombings,
in addition to "hit lists" of economic centres, transport networks, military
bases and a range of individuals, including politicians and military figures.

Further attacks could take a number of forms. The IRA has exploded huge
lorry bombs like that seen at South Quay, shot down victims, planted
incendiary devices and placed bombs in litter bins.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996    Home News
                          

Mother tells rally of a 'life sentence of grief'

By Colin Randall in Belfast

   MORE than 2,000 people, victims of terrorism among them, stood in
silence in Belfast yesterday in a vigil reflecting fears that the IRA's
abandonment of its ceasefire could lead to renewed violence in Ulster.

Crowds gathered in front of the City Hall a few yards from where, at the end
of November, President Clinton switched on Belfast's Christmas lights and
celebrated 15 months of peace.

Anne Carr, co-ordinator of the vigil organisers, Women Together, said:
"Although we were devastated by Friday's bomb, we must make our voices
heard. We must keep on saying that violence achieves nothing."

Traffic in the city centre was halted as shoppers and office workers swelled
the crowd, which observed a minute's silence.

One of the speakers, Maria McShane, 38, wore the Manchester United scarf
of her 17-year-old son, Gavin, who was murdered by loyalist gunmen a few
months before the ceasefires.

Mrs McShane, from Keady, Co Armagh, said she burst into tears after being
telephoned by her sister with news of the London blast. The shooting of
Gavin in May 1994 was Mrs McShane's second encounter with terrorism.
When pregnant with him in 1976 she lost an eye in a pub bombing, carried
out with no warning, that killed two people, including one of her friends.

"The cowards who hide behind guns and bombs have given me a life
sentence of grief," she said. "If they could see me crying, and my other two
children crying, maybe they would put down their guns and stop the violence
and stop ruining our lives."

Three men were recovering yesterday after being beaten by paramilitaries in
so-called punishment attacks in Belfast and Londonderry.

In East Belfast two men, aged 45 and 24, were injured when masked men, at
least two armed with handguns, burst into a house and beat them with
hammers and baseball bats, the RUC said. Both men suffered head wounds
and other injuries.

In Londonderry a 19-year-old was in hospital with a broken leg and other
injuries after being attacked by a masked gang with baseball bats in a lane in
the Creggan area.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996    Home News
                          

IRA council was divided over resuming hostilities

By Richard Savill and Robert Fox

THE decision to end the ceasefire was taken more than a month ago by the
IRA Army Council, whose seven members come from north and south of
the border. The council, which meets every month and is the top
decision-making body within the terrorist organisation, has been closely
monitoring the talks at Stormont between government ministers and Sinn
Fein.

It is now known that their decision to resume terrorist attacks pre-dated
both the Mitchell report and the announcement of forthcoming elections in
Ulster. For several months it has been believed that the Army Council was
split over resuming hostilities, with three for and four against.

It is not clear who changed the vote or at what stage Gerry Adams, the Sinn
Fein president, was informed. He said he had no prior knowledge of the
Docklands bomb.

Intelligence services had warned that the IRA was likely to resume attacks
in mainland Britain, but knew nothing of where or what form they would
take.

    They have also warned of the emergence of several new groups of
    "sleeper" terrorist cells in the rural south of the country, mainly
    Hampshire and Wiltshire, where the bulk of the British Army is now
    stationed. 

There are three main centres of IRA influence - Londonderry, Belfast and
Dublin - who receive input from other areas such as South Armagh and
East Tyrone.

Among the key Republican figures in Belfast is Gerard Kelly, a bomber
convicted of involvement in IRA attacks on the mainland, who helped to
organise the break-out by 38 prisoners from the Maze in 1983.

He is a regular member of the Sinn Fein delegation in talks with
Government ministers and provides one of the party's links with the IRA
leadership. He was involved with Martin McGuinness, a Sinn Fein executive
member and another key republican strategist, in the secret negotiations
with the Government before the ceasefire.

Kelly was jailed for life in 1973 for his part in bomb attacks at the Old Bailey
and Scotland Yard and was released in 1989.

Other republican figures include Pat Doherty, Sinn Fein vice-president,
from Co Donegal; Rita O'Hare, Sinn Fein director of publicity; Kevin
McKenna from the Monaghan border area, and Brian Keenan, from Belfast,
an associate of the Balcombe Street gang who was jailed for 18 years in 1980.

Sources close to the intelligence community indicate that elements in the
Provisional IRA had proposed an assassination campaign.

Some prominent officers and politicians were given some warnings a few
hours before the Docklands bomb.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Electronic Telegraph  Tuesday 13 February 1996    Home News


Gun police return to a city under siege

By Caroline Davies

THE end of the ceasefire bought chaos to the City and Docklands yesterday.
On the first working day since the South Quay explosion, the "ring of steel"
imposed after the Bishopsgate and Baltic Exchange bombings was 
strengthened and manned by armed police.

Throughout the day officers were called to bomb alerts, as reports flooded in
of suspicious packages and abandoned vehicles.

Holborn station was sealed off at 10am as police were called to an
unattended car. The Blackwall Tunnel was closed as a controlled explosion
was carried out on a parked car.

Sir Paul Condon, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, appealed to the
public: "Please be tolerant and understanding of the armed patrols you may
see on the streets, and be co-operative if we ask to search you or your
vehicle."

At the Isle of Dogs, armed police manned checkpoints on the main roads
leading on to the island. 

    At South Quay, the area around the scene of the blast remained cordoned
    off. Behind the cordon someone had placed a bunch of carnations and
    daisies in tribute to Inan Ul-haq Bashir, 29, and John Jefferies, 31,
    who were killed as the bomb exploded at 7.01pm on Friday. 

Some South Quay workers who had been injured in the explosion returned
to the scene yesterday.

One, Neville Walker, 31, had been released from hospital on Sunday after
glass cuts to his face were stitched.

"I haven't been able to sleep at all," said Mr Walker, who works for the US
mail-order firm Franklin Mint. "I just had to come and have a look."

His office had been evacuated on Friday afternoon but minutes before the
blast he and his colleagues were wrongly given the all-clear and went back
inside.

"We went in and it was just bang," Mr Walker said.

Jeanine Edwards, human resources manager of the Leeds-based Carl Bro
Group, said: "We were all in the Spinnaker pub when the bomb went off and
the windows were all blown in.

"I think that it is not until you actually see the damage that it all sinks in."

Claire Crane, 27, a newspaper employee who knew both the men killed in
the explosion, wept as she arrived at the cordon.

"I did not sleep all weekend thinking what might have happened to me," she
said.

"I cannot describe how I feel looking at this mess here. Why did they have to
die? What point has been made by doing this?"

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Re .37

>   >If the employees of Digital can't reach any compromises and agree ANY
>   parties comitting violence are TOTALLY wrong<		       ^^^
>   
>   Actually, 98% of us can Shell.
    
    
>   CHARLEY

CHARLEY,
	At last you have finally admitted that your beloved HMG forces are
as wrong as the other terrorists.

Well done! It's compromises like this which will aid the peace process.
    (Assuming of course that you count yourself among the 98%)
    
    Ed.

    
    Ed.... how about you... will you count yourself among the 98% ??? I've
    heard no condemnation of violence from you...
    
    Whoever commits the violence is wrong English, Irish, protestant,
    catholic, Black, White,, (green or spotted for that matter).
    
    Cant you at least agree to that ????
    
    
    
    
    Shelle

    .56
    
    Eddie....dear, dear, sad little Eddie.
    
    I have never said that anyof the parties involved are completely blameless.
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Re .57
    
    Shelley,
    
    Check your facts.
    
    See note 1548.40
    
    Re .58
    
    CHARLEY,
    
    	I love it when you run out of arguments and resort to childish
    	behaviour. It's just a pity that it happens so often.
    
    Ed.

    
    Ed. Thanks. when I'm wrong I'll admit it.. apologies for missing your
    condemantion of the bombing... 
    
    Maybe if people start listening to each other we can go a long way to
    understanding each other.
    
    
    
    
    Shelley

>    	I love it when you run out of arguments and resort to childish
>    	behaviour. It's just a pity that it happens so often.
    
Come off it, Eddie, you're hardly a paragon of mature noting yourself.

Chris.

    .59
    
    I've proved you wrong, time and time and time again Eddie, exposed you
    as a hypocrite, been greatly saddened by your bigotry and greatly
    amused at some of your babbling whinges. You are great entertainment.
    Please keep it up.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Re .62
    
    OK CHARLEY ;-)
    
    That reply had as much truth in it as your usual rantings.
    
    Keep taking the medicine (or is it elctrco-convulsive therapy now?)

    <yawn>

RE:       <<< Note 1549.46 by IRNBRU::HOWARD "Lovely Day for a Guinness" >>>

�    as an aside, does anybody have the percentage results for all parties
�    in the most recent elections in NI?...
    
    This note contains the most recent by-elections, and the following one
    all elections since 1970. Both grabbed from the Alliance Party's home
    pages.
    
    Laurie.
    
    
    
Local Government and Parliamentary by-elections 
================================================
in Northern Ireland since May 1993
==================================

Because local councils in Northern Ireland are elected by proportional
representation in multi-member constituencies, it is possible that
by-elections to fill casual vacancies can actually distort rather than reflect
the wishes of the voters by over-representing the largest party. For instance,
as a result of the UUP victories in the Balmoral and Macedon by-elections,
the party now holds three out of six council seats in both areas with less than
a third of the vote. 

It is therefore legally possible for a vacancy to be filled by co-option,
although a single councillor objecting to the proposed co-option will prevent
it and cause a by-election. Whether or not there is a co-option will depend
on the political mileage to be gained from forcing an election, and
sometimes other factors as well.

Since the full elections of 1993 I am aware of the following co-options, all of
which replaced a councillor who had died or resigned with another of the
same party: Castlereagh East (DUP), Lisburn: Dunmurry Cross (UUP),
Omagh: West Tyrone (SDLP), Coleraine East (UUP), Armagh: Crossmore
(SDLP), Lisburn Town South (UUP) and Carrickfergus: Knockagh
Monument (UUP).

Other pages available include the present state of the parties on each council,
a list of Alliance councillors, and a summary of Northern Ireland election
results since 1973. 


Pending by-elections:
=====================

1996
----

 o None as yet 

Previous by-elections:
======================

1995
----

 o North Down: Bangor West (4 October 1995) Alliance gain from
   UUP 
 o Ards West (20 September 1995) UUP hold 
 o Coleraine East (6 September 1995) DUP gain from UUP 
 o North Down Parliamentary by-election (15 June 1995) UK Unionist
   gain from Popular Unionist
 o Belfast: Balmoral (31 May 1995) UUP gain from DUP
 o North Down: Bangor West (22 March 1995) UUP gain from DUP 
 o Newtownabbey: Macedon (1 February 1995) UUP gain from Alliance

1994
----

 o Ballymena South (1 December 1994) UUP gain from Ind Unionist
 o Carrickfergus: Kilroot (12 May 1994) Alliance gain from UUP
 o Belfast: Victoria (10 February 1994) UUP hold

1993
----

 o Lisburn: Downshire (24 November 1993) UUP hold
 o Derry: Cityside (21 October 1993) SF hold
 o North Down: Holywood (10 October 1993) Alliance gain from
   Conservative

[Top of page]


Abbreviations
-------------

For each by-election, the following information is given:

 o The name of the District Council and the District Electoral Area or
   constituency concerned 
 o The number of seats in the DEA 
 o The cause of the by-election 
 o The first preference votes for each party at the previous full election
   and the seats gained (indicated by one * for each councillor) 
 o The first preference votes for each party at the by-election 
 o Any other information about changing party strengths in the
   constituency before the by-election.

The following abbreviations are used for the various parties:

DUP
   Ulster Democratic Unionist Party 
UUP
   Ulster Unionist Party 
UDP
   Ulster Democratic Party 
Ind U
   Independent Unionist 
Cons
   Conservative Party 
Alliance
   Alliance Party of Northern Ireland 
Nat Law
   Natural Law Party 
Swimming Pool
   Holywood Swimming Pool Campaign 
Green
   Green Party 
Labour
   (South Belfast, Newtownabbey or Derry) Labour Party 
Dem Left
   Democratic Left 
W'kers Party
   The Workers Party 
SDLP
   Social Democratic and Labour Party 
SF
   Sinn F�in 

[Top of page]


Pending by-elections
====================

None as yet


Previous by-elections
=====================

1995
====

North Down: Bangor West: 7 seats. (UUP cllr's death) 

          Full election     By-election    By-election
          (19 May 1993)   (22 Mar 1995)  (4 Oct 1995)
DUP       1052  18.77% *    -             494  15.99% -494 =    0
UUP       1148  20.48% ** 1752   49.53% * 757  24.50% +300 = 1057 +326 = 1283
Ind U      286   5.10% *    -             615  19.90%  +75 =  690 -690 =    0
Cons       722  12.88% *   261    7.38%    -
Alliance  1831  32.66% ** 1488   42.07%  1202  38.90%  +32 = 1234 +204 = 1438 *
Others (5) 567  10.11%      36    1.02%    22   0.73%  -22 =    0

NB: There have been two changes in party strength already in Bangor West:
the councillor elected as a Conservative now sits as an Independent
Unionist, and UUP won the by-election caused by the DUP councillor's
resignation. The Independent Unionist candidate in the October 1995
by-election was endorsed by the local Independent Unionist MP. 

Ards West: 5 seats. (UUP cllr's resignation) 

             Full election                  By-election
             (19 May 1993)                (20 Sept 1995)
DUP          1217   24.38% *
UUP          2232   44.72% **             2098   63.90% *
Loyalist                                   179    5.45%
Ind U                                      102    3.11%
Cons          292    5.85%
Alliance     1250   25.05% **              904   27.54%

The winner of the by-election ran as a "United Unionist" but is a member of
the UUP and sits with the UUP councillors in Ards. 

Coleraine East: 5 seats. (UUP cllr's resignation) 

             Full election                  By-election
             (19 May 1993)                 (6 Sept 1995)     Count 2
DUP          1072   29.69% **              1019   48.02%    +64 = 1083 *
UUP          2089   57.85% ***              755   35.58%   +165 =  920
Alliance      369   10.22%                  208    9.80%   -208 =    0
Ind            58    2.24%                  145    6.83%   -145 =    0

North Down Parliamentary by-election caused by death of Sir James
Kilfedder MP (Ulster Popular Unionist Party) 

           General Election                 By-election
            (9 April 1992)                 (15 June 1995)
DUP          4414    9.82%                    -
UUP            -                            7232  26.41%
McCartney      -                           10124  36.97% *
Kilfedder   19305   42.94% *                  -
Ind. Unionist  -                            2170   7.92%
Cons        14371   31.97%                   583   2.13%
Alliance     6611   14.71%                  6970  25.45%
Nat Law       255    0.57%                   100   0.37%
Others (2)     -                             209   0.76%

Belfast: Balmoral: 6 seats. (DUP cllr's death) 

           Full election         By-election
           (19 May 1993)        (31 May 1995)     Count 2       Count 3
DUP        2773   23.44% **     2095   30.11%   +127 = 2222    +95 = 2317
UUP        3623   30.63% **     1840   26.45%   +488 = 2328   +499 = 2827 *
Cons        593    5.01%         159    2.29%   -159 =    0
Alliance   2196   18.56% *      1178   16.93%  -1178 =    0
Green       124    1.05%          45    0.65%    -45 =    0
Labour      113    0.96%          48    0.69%    -48 =    0
Dem Left     97    0.82%          -
W'kers Party 48    0.41%          46    0.66%    -46 =    0
SDLP       2262   19.12% *      1546   22.22%   +574 = 2120  -2120 =    0

North Down: Bangor West: 7 seats. (DUP cllr's resignation) 

             Full election             By-election
             (19 May 1993)            (22 Mar 1995)    Count 2
DUP          1052   18.77% *            - 
UUP          1148   20.48% **         1752   49.53%  +169 = 1921 *
Ind U         286    5.10% *            -
Cons          722   12.88% *           261    7.38%  -261 =    0
Alliance     1831   32.66% **         1488   42.07%   +85 = 1573
Others (5)    567   10.11%              36    1.02%   -36 =    0

Newtownabbey: Macedon: 6 seats. (Alliance cllr's resignation) 

       Full election     By-election
       (19 May 1993)    (1 Feb 1995)    Count 2     Count 3      Count 4
DUP     1135 20.36% *    836 22.06%   +19 =  855 +145 = 1000 -1000 =    0
UUP     1598 28.67% **  1178 31.09%  +124 = 1302 +223 = 1525  +686 = 2211 *
UDP       -              607 16.02%   +34 =  641 -641 =    0
Ind U    596 10.69% *     -
Alliance 769 13.80% *    544 14.36%  -544 =    0
Labour  1476 26.48% *    624 16.47%  +303 =  927 +149 = 1076  +175 = 1251

[Top of page]


1994
====

Ballymena South: 7 seats. (Ind U's resignation) 

             Full election                  By-election
             (19 May 1993)                  (1 Dec 1994)
DUP          1623   28.25% ***              946   37.23%
UUP          1420   24.71% **              1332   52.42% *
Ulster Party  224    3.90%                  146    5.75
Ind U        1301   22.64% *                117    4.60%
Ind (2)       157    2.73%                   -
SDLP         1021   17.77% *                 -

Carrickfergus: Kilroot: 6 seats. (UUP cllr's resignation) 

             Full election              By-election
             (19 May 1993)             (12 May 1994)     Count 2
DUP           548   12.98%              765   24.50%  -765 =    0
UUP          1133   26.84% **           831   26.61%  +533 = 1364
Cons          561   13.29% *             -
Alliance     1239   29.35% **          1527   48.90%   +68 = 1595 *
Ind           389    9.21% *             -
Others (2)    352    8.34%               -

Belfast: Victoria: 7 seats. (UUP cllr's death) 

             Full election              By-election
             (19 May 1993)             (10 Feb 1994)      Count 2
DUP          3882   28.70% **          2445   27.21%  -2445 =    0
UUP          4124   30.49% ***         2805   31.22%  +1783 = 4588 *
Cons          684    5.06%               -
Alliance     4657   34.43% **          3646   40.58%   +214 = 3860
Green         180    1.33%               89    0.99%    -89 =    0


1993
====

Lisburn: Downshire: 5 seats. (UUP cllr's death) 

             Full election              By-election
             (19 May 1993)             (24 Nov 1993)    Count 2
DUP          1481   24.66% *            778   28.62%  +142 =  920
UUP          2501   41.64% ***         1328   48.86%  +353 = 1681 *
UDP           283    4.71%              230    8.46%  -230 =    0
Cons          945   15.73% *             -
Alliance      796   13.25%              382   14.05%  -382 =    0

Derry: Cityside: 5 seats (SF cllr's resignation) 

             Full election                By-election
             (19 May 1993)               (21 Oct 1993)
Labour        189    3.14%                168    3.17%
W'kers Party  135    2.24%                 -
SDLP         3010   49.96% ***           2290   43.20%
SF           2691   44.66% **            2843   53.63% *

North Down: Holywood: 5 seats (Conservative resignation) 

             Full election              By-election
             (19 May 1993)             (20 Oct 1993)     Count 2
DUP           523   11.83%              820   33.80%  +252 = 1072
UUP           835   18.89% *            (see below)
Cons          528   11.94% *            234    9.65%  -234 =    0
Alliance     1014   22.94% *            814   33.55%  +282 = 1096 *
Ind           871   19.70% *             14    0.58%   -14 =    0
Swimming Pool 651   14.60% *            544   22.42%  -544 =    0

NB: The losing DUP candidate in May 1993 ran as a 'Unionist' with UUP
support in October. He is recorded here as a DUP candidate on both
occasions. A losing Swimming Pool candidate in May ran as an Independent
in October; he is recorded here as a Swimming Pool candidate on both
occasions. 

Election results in Northern Ireland since 1970
***********************************************

 o Abbreviations 
 o Local Government Elections 
 o Westminster Elections 
 o Stormont Elections 
 o European Elections 



Abbreviations
=============

The five main political parties are:

DUP
   Democratic Unionist Party. Led by Ian Paisley. 
UUP
   Ulster Unionist Party. Led by David Trimble since 8 September
   1995. The former party of government in the old Stormont. 
Alliance
   The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland. Led by John Alderdice. 
SDLP
   Social Democratic and Labour Party. Led by John Hume. The main
   Irish Nationalist party. 
Sinn F�in
   Sinn F�in. Led by Gerry Adams.

I have had to group other parties and individuals together for reasons of
space. Oth U includes Vanguard, various Loyalist groups and the pre-1974
anti-Faulkner Unionists, as well as the post-1974 Faulknerites, Jim
Kilfedder, Robert McCartney and the Conservatives; and Others includes
both Bernadette McAliskey and the Northern Ireland Labour Party, who
would have very little time for each other.


Local Government Elections 
===========================

Elections to the 26 district councils are held on a four-yearly cycle. At
present each council is divided into 3 to 5 District Electoral Areas (Belfast
has 9) which return 5 to 7 councillors by proportional representation, using
the Single Transferable Vote. (Until 1985 there was greater variation in the
number and size of districts.) 

Other relevant pages on this site include: the present state of the parties on
each of the 26 councils, recent by-elections, and a list of Alliance
Councillors. 

         DUP   UUP  Oth U  | Alliance  | Others  | SDLP  SF 
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1993     17%   29%    4%   |     8%    |    7%   |  22%  12%
 cllrs: 103   197    28    |    44     |   32    | 127   51
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1989     18%   31%    6%   |     7%    |    6%   |  21%  11%
 cllrs: 110   194    32    |    38     |   27    | 121   43
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1985     24%   29%    3%   |     7%    |    6%   |  18%  12%
 cllrs: 142   190    14    |    34     |   26    | 101   59
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1981     27%   27%    5%   |     9%    |   15%   |  18%
 cllrs: 142   152    22    |    38     |   69    | 103
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1977     13%   30%    9%   |    14%    |   13%   |  21%
 cllrs:  74   178    34    |    70     |   57    | 113
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1973      4%   41%   11%   |    14%    |   16%   |  13%
 cllrs:  21   233    53    |    63     |   73    |  83
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------


Westminster Elections
=====================

Northern Ireland had twelve MPs at Westminster between 1948 and 1982,
and has had 17 since then - though the latest redistricting will introduce an
18th seat. Elections are by the antiquated single-member constituency
method; supporters of electoral reform need look no further for an example
of how badly this can distort results in a multi-party system. 

Other relevant links: David Boothroyd maintains a list of Westminster
election results across the UK since 1983. Also details of the 1995 North
Down parliamentary by-election, in which Alliance increased its vote by
10%. Another example of horrendous distortions caused by an voting
system incapable of adequately representing five major parties is the 
Canadian federal election of 1993 (courtesy of Alex Ng's election archive).

         DUP   UUP  Oth U  | Alliance  | Others  | SDLP  SF 
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1992     13%   35%    8%   |    9%     |    2%   |  23%  10%
 MP's:    3     9     1    |    0      |    0    |   4    0
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1987     12%   38%    5%   |   10%     |    3%   |  21%  11%
 MP's:    3     9     1    |    0      |    0    |   3    1
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1983     20%   34%    3%   |    8%     |    4%   |  18%  13%
 MP's:    3    11     1    |    0      |    0    |   1    1
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1979     10%   37%   11%   |   12%     |   12%   |  18%
 MP's:    3     5     2    |    0      |    1    |   1
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1974b     8%   36%   17%   |    6%     |   10%   |  22%
 MP's:    1     6     3    |    0      |    1    |   1
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1974a     8%   32%   24%   |    3%     |   10%   |  22%
 MP's:    1     7     3    |    0      |    0    |   1
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------


Stormont elections
==================

Since the old bicameral Parliament at Stormont was prorogued in 1972,
there have been three elections to bodies which sat in Parliament Buildings.
All three elections were carried out by proportional representation using the
then 12 Westminster constituencies, each electing between 4 and 10
members by the Single Transferable Vote. The 1973 Assembly was intended
to take back most of the functions of government from Westminster, and
indeed did so between January 1974 and May of that year when it was
brought down by a Loyalist-led general strike. The 1975 election was to a
Constitutional Convention, which failed to produce a draft constitution
which was accptable to the British Government. The 1982 Assembly had
scrutinising powers only. It was boycotted from the start by the SDLP and
Sinn F�in, and was abolished after Unionists refused to work it in the wake
of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement. Any future Assembly or Convention
election will probably use the 18 new Westminster constituencies, each
returning five members. Since the old Stormont debating chamber was
badly damaged in a recent fire, such a body would probably have to meet
elsewhere. 

         DUP   UUP  Oth U  | Alliance  | Others  | SDLP  SF 
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1982     23%   30%   6%    |    9%     |   3%    |  19%  10%
 seats:  21    26    2     |   10      |   0     |  14    5
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1975     15%   26%  22%    |   10%     |   4%    |  24%
 seats:  12    19   21     |    8      |   1     |  17
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1973     11%   29%  22%    |    9%     |   7%    |  22%
 seats:   8    24   18     |    8      |   1     |  19
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------


European Elections
==================

Members of the European Parliament have been directly elected since 1979.
The whole of Northern Ireland forms a three-member constituency, and
elections are by proportional representation (using the Single Transferable
Vote) as for local councils and Stormont. (European elections in the rest of
the UK are in single-member constituencies, but in Northern Ireland they
have to be fair.)
The four elections to date have produced depressingly similar results, with
the DUP (Paisley), SDLP (Hume) and UUP (Taylor in 1979 and 1984,
Nicholson in 1989 and 1994) taking one seat each at every election. Jeff
Inglis has archived the first preference votes from the 1994 election,
including a somewhat misleading comparison with the 1992 Westminster
election. 

The Alliance Party is a member of ELDR, the European Liberal, Democratic
and Reformist Party. The three Northern Ireland MEP's currently sit with
the Non-Aligned, Socialist, and European People's Party groups
respectively.

         DUP   UUP  Oth U  | Alliance  | Others  | SDLP  SF 
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1994     29%   24%   2%    |    4%     |   3%    |  29%   9%
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1989     30%   22%   5%    |    5%     |   3%    |  25%   9%
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1984     34%   21%   3%    |    5%     |   2%    |  22%  13%
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------
1979     30%   22%   7%    |    7%     |   9%    |  25%  
---------------------------+-----------+---------+-----------

    .66 .67
    thanks Laurie,
    
    a veritable feast of information. I read the 2 notes and it's pretty
    clear to me even without close scrutiny of this data that there has been 
    hardly any change in voting patterns,(percentage-wise), in recent 
    elections. Elections will probably occur now but everyone knows the 
    results already!...
    
    Ray....              

The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 14 February 1996  The Front Page



Hope of breakthrough on Ulster elections and
********************************************
'proximity talks'
*****************

Bruton and Major edge near to deal
==================================

By George Jones in London, Ben Fenton in Dublin and Stephen
===========================================================
Robinson in Washington
======================

THE London and Dublin governments were moving closer last night to
==================================================================
a new deal to break the deadlock in Northern Ireland based on
=============================================================
Bosnia-style talks and elections to a peace convention. Five days after
=======================================================================
an IRA bomb devastated a large area of Docklands, in London, John
=================================================================
Bruton, the Irish prime minister, said that he was prepared to talk to
======================================================================
John Major about an Ulster elective process.

But Mr Bruton emphasised that any elections in the province would have to
come after "proximity" talks, in which all parties would be brought into the
same building, if not the same room.

That would be a process similar to the negotiations in Dayton, Ohio, which
brought the warring Bosnian factions together.

British officials confirmed that ways of combining the idea of proximity
talks with elections were now being discussed in preparation for next week's
Anglo-Irish summit in London.

While there is no agreement yet on whether elections or the talks would
come first, there were clear signals in London and Dublin that a compromise
was likely.

The Prime Minister told Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionists,
after "friendly" talks in Downing Street yesterday that he was preparing a
consultation paper setting out the options for elections that would open the
door to full-scale negotiations on the future of Northern Ireland.

Mr Bruton said at the weekend that elections would "pour petrol on the
flames" in Northern Ireland. But he adopted a more conciliatory tone when
he addressed the Irish parliament for the first time since the docklands
bomb ended the 17-month IRA ceasefire.

Mr Bruton said that an elective process was "broadly acceptable", but
emphasised that it should lead "directly and speedily, without equivocation",
to all-party negotiations.

He confirmed that his ministers would not hold talks with Gerry Adams, the
Sinn Fein president, until the IRA ceasefire was reinstated. But he wanted
to find ways of bringing Sinn Fein back into the search for a political
settlement without being seen to reward IRA violence. Mr Bruton
underlined the new bridge-building mood adopted by both governments
since the bombing. He praised the "openness" that Mr Major had shown to
the ideas of others in finding a way to restore the ceasefire.

But he also demonstrated enthusiasm for the alternative proposal of a
referendum advanced by John Hume, the leader of the nationalist SDLP, to
ask the population of north and south to reject violence.

Yesterday Mr Hume reaffirmed his opposition to elections, saying that they
had been tried twice and had not worked.

Mr Bruton said the idea of a referendum had considerable merit, as it would
afford "all those on this island the opportunity to state in an unique way
their opposition to violence and their wish for all-party negotiations". 

Dublin was prepared to give "top priority" to the necessary legislation to
speed through a referendum in the republic, he said.

But there is little support for the idea in London and Mr Major is said by
Cabinet colleagues to believe that elections in Northern Ireland remain the
best way of enabling the political parties to establish a mandate to take part
in talks.

Mr Bruton said the British Government had made a "mistake" in its
response to the Mitchell report, which made clear that the IRA would not
disarm.

The Unionists had also made a mistake in not sitting down to talk with Sinn
Fein.

But he delivered a fierce attack on the IRA for the docklands bomb and said
that his "act of faith" in believing that Sinn Fein had made an irreversible
commitment to peace had been thrown back in his face by the IRA.

"I still want to talk to Gerry Adams about peace," Mr Bruton said. "But I
cannot do so until Sinn Fein persuade the IRA to say, and prove by what
they do, that violence has no place in the political process."

He said that Mr Adams had real influence on the Provisionals. "Sinn Fein
must now speak to the IRA and convey a simple, unambiguous message:
killing does not serve our people."

Mr Bruton said that if the IRA clearly stated that the cessation of violence
was restored, his government would resume full political discussions with
Sinn Fein.

Tony Blair, the Labour leader, maintained the cross-party pressure on Mr
Adams. "Sinn Fein must now play by the rules of democracy or not at all,"
he said on television.

He emphasised that Labour would give its full support to the Government's
efforts to achieve a political settlement.

Although London and Dublin may be able to reach a compromise, selling it
to the political parties looked doubtful last night.

David Trimble, the Ulster Unionist leader who is in Washington, dismissed
proximity talks as "pointless" and a "face saver" for Mr Bruton after his
climbdown over elections.

Ken Maginnis, the Ulster Unionist security spokesman, who is with Mr
Trimble, said that when Bill Clinton walked into the room during their talks
at the White House, the President banged the table with his fist and twice
said of the IRA: "How could they be so stupid?"

At Westminster there were the first signs of Tory unease at the rapid move
towards a new agreement between Britain and Ireland.

David Wilshire, Conservative MP for Spelthorne and a member of the
Northern Ireland select committee, said: "My fear is that if there is now to
be something hailed as a breakthrough, far from telling the IRA they have
isolated themselves, it will lead them to think that the Government can be
persuaded by violence off what it believes to be right."


Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 14 February 1996  The Front Page



Sinn Fein delegates rebuffed by No 10
=====================================

By Richard Savill
=================

DOWNING STREET has postponed today's planned meeting with a
delegation of Northern Ireland councillors that included two members of
Sinn Fein.

The meeting between John Major and representatives of Northern Ireland's
26 councils to discuss economic matters had been called off because of
"diary pressures", a Downing Street official said.

The decision saved Mr Major embarrassment at a time when political
leaders in London and Dublin have been distancing themselves from Sinn
Fein after the bomb that destroyed South Quay in London.

Two Sinn Fein representatives, Mary Nelis, of Derry city council, and John
Hurl, the chairman of Magherafelt district council, were in the deputation.
They would have been the first Sinn Fein members to enter Downing Street
since the republican leader Michael Collins 75 years ago.

Ms Nelis is a defendant in a court case in Londonderry arising from
disturbances during Mr Major's visit to the city last May.

Last night Jim Rodgers, the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party on
Belfast city council, said: "The meeting could have gone ahead without the
the Sinn Fein councillors. That view is shared by a large number of
councillors right across the province."

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 14 February 1996  Home News
                          

Plans for election find fresh favour in Dublin
==============================================

Philip Johnston reports on a softening attitude 
================================================
to Major's idea for breaking the deadlock
=========================================

IF THE IRA hoped by their bomb last Friday to destroy John Major's plans
for an elected body to negotiate Northern Ireland's future, they
miscalculated.

The Irish government, whose act of faith in the republican ceasefire was
proved naive in London's Docklands, has now begun to soften its initial
hostility to the idea. 

It had been apparent since before Christmas that Mr Major had warmed to
the elections plan once he had concluded that there was little likelihood of
the IRA agreeing to disarm ahead of talks.

In December, Mr Major told colleagues that he was willing to bring forward
legislation to allow elections to proceed in the province on the basis of ideas
already promoted by the Unionist parties.

But he had to await the outcome of the Mitchell commission set up to
consider the prospects for paramilitary disarmament. This body confirmed 
that the IRA would not give up an ounce of Semtex until there had been an
overall settlement in Northern Ireland.

But the report also contained the seeds of an alternative strategy. Six lines
buried at the end of the document suggested that an elected body might be a
way of producing the confidence and trust needed to get all parties to the
negotiating table.

Mr Major seized on this when he made his statement to the Commons on
the Mitchell report last month; it was, he said, the only alternative to
disarmament.

In doing so, however, he infuriated Dublin ministers who accused him of
acting in "bad faith" for not accepting the compromise offered by Mitchell -
that arms could be given up in tandem with all-party talks.

Dublin's enthusiasm for this "middle way" ignored two substantial obstacles:
it was not acceptable to the Unionists and was not endorsed by the
republicans, who remained wedded to their demand for all-party talks
without preconditions.

In discussions before the IRA bomb attack on London's Docklands, British
ministers sought to convince their Irish counterparts that elections were a
way into all-party talks and not a substitute for them.

But Dublin came up with its own idea of Bosnia-style "proximity talks" of
the type that took place in Dayton, Ohio, to bring all parties together, though
not in the same room.

Judging by Mr Bruton's remarks in the Dail yesterday, diplomatic efforts will
now concentrate on an amalgam of the two ideas: proximity talks, followed
by elections to a peace convention. But will it work?

An elected body that might be acceptable to nationalists and the Irish
government would be different from that sought by Unionists.

Mr Bruton wants the convention to lead directly into all-party negotiations
on the future of the province. In nationalist parlance, all-party talks includes
Sinn Fein, but the Unionists, who would not sit down with republicans while
the ceasefire was in place, are certainly not going to talk to them when it has
been called off.

One leading Unionist said last night: "John Major sees this body as a
passport to all-party talks. We don't accept that and nationalists should not
be deluded about what such a body could achieve."

Some Unionists also believe that anyone who stands for election to the
convention should take a pledge committing them to democratic principles,
something that Sinn Fein will find hard, if not impossible, to swallow.

Mr Bruton and Mr Major will try to sort out the crisis caused by last Friday's
bombing at a summit before the end of the month. But when the two leaders
emerge to announce yet another joint declaration, only the most optimistic
would portray it as a breakthrough or the restoration of the "peace process".

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 14 February 1996  Home News
                          

Who wants what?
===============

Unionists: Preferably a 90-seat elected "peace convention", although
Unionists are flexible about the size and would accept a 54-seat body. The
Democratic Unionists want it elected on a list basis with each party and its
leader on the ballot paper. The Ulster Unionists want candidates chosen
from Northern Ireland's 18 parliamentary constituencies. The convention
would be time-limited, but would sit for at least six months.

Nationalists: John Hume, the leader of the SDLP, is implacably opposed to
elections. He says that assemblies have been tried twice before since direct
rule was imposed and have failed. He wants a referendum putting two
questions: do the people of Northern Ireland totally, absolutely and
unequivocally disapprove of violence for any purpose whatsoever; and do
they want to see all parties brought to the table to begin a process of
dialogue?

Ireland: The Irish government has proposed a two-day multilateral
meeting, similar in style to the talks that brought together the Bosnian
combatants in Dayton, Ohio. Its purpose would be to reach broad agreement
on a basis and timetable for the launch of all-party negotiations. It would
consider the Mitchell report on paramilitary disarmament, the agenda for
negotiations and whether an elected body could play a part in negotiations.

Sinn Fein: The republicans continue to press for a move directly to
all-party negotiations and claim these were promised before the IRA
ceasefire declaration.

British Government: John Major says his aim remains to establish the
confidence needed to get all parties around the negotiating table. The
Government sees elections as a doorway to all-party talks. A discussion
paper will soon be circulated among all the parties to see whether the various
positions can be reconciled.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 14 February 1996  Home News

                          

Charles visits Docklands bomb site
==================================

THE Prince of Wales made a sombre, reflective inspection of the
===============================================================
Docklands bomb site yesterday and told the emergency services:
==============================================================
"Thank God for people like you doing all the hard work," writes Robert
======================================================================
Hardman.
========

Wearing a hard hat, he walked along the road outside South Quay Plaza's
trio of office blocks and saw the remains of the small shopping mall where
two men died. He also saw the Docklands railway station that is unlikely to
see another train for several days. Declining public comment, his mood only
lightened as he chatted to police personnel about the sandwiches at a
Salvation Army canteen.

Just beyond the corporate wreckage lie the residential areas of the Isle of
Dogs with many homes and shops still showing the damage they suffered on
Friday. There have been complaints from the local community that all the
attention has focused on the business zones but the Prince was keen to meet
residents. Bertie Evans, 62, of Cheval Street, thanked him for his concern,
saying: "You're the first to come down and see this." Mr Evans's house lost
its front door and windows in the blast and brought back grim reminders of
the Blitz half a century before.

At Limehouse police station, he met rescuers who included Pc Roger de
Graaff, who was injured as he tried to evacuate people from the vicinity of
the lorry-bomb, and Sgt Anthony Gielty, who had been among the first to
arrive after the explosion.

One of the two victims was buried yesterday, after a service at the Croydon
Mosque, south London. Inan Bashir, a 29-year-old bachelor from
Streatham, was killed with his assistant John Jefferies, 31, when their
newspaper kiosk outside South Quay station was obliterated. Red and white
flowers, spelling out the words Son and Brother, symbolised the grief of Mr
Bashir's family.


Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

Re .69

> Sinn Fein delegates rebuffed by No 10
> =====================================

> By Richard Savill
> =================

> DOWNING STREET has postponed today's planned meeting with a
> delegation of Northern Ireland councillors that included two members of
> Sinn Fein.

> The meeting between John Major and representatives of Northern Ireland's
> 26 councils to discuss economic matters had been called off because of
> "diary pressures", a Downing Street official said.

This is the kind of small-minded pettiness that we need to get rid of in 
order to advance the peace process. These coucillors were going to be 
talking about "economic matters" so what harm could it have done to let
the meeting go on as planned?

Eddie.
    

re >included two members of Sinn Fein.
re what harm could it have done to let the meeting go on as planned?

Maybe he didn't want to meet with supporters of murder, extortion, etc

Simon

    re .74
    
    Maybe the government was being more selective than the NI councillors.
    
    Eddie.

Could be true Eddie, could be true.

  It's pretty simple.  You don't make peace with friends, you make peace
  with enemies.  You aren't interested in making peace with enemies if
  you refuse to talk to them.  End of story.

                     Mark

Mark, Eddie,

I don;t know about anyone else, but I'd be damned annoyed if Major started to
hold meetings with the colleagues of these murderers.  

News is that apparently there are clear video pictures of the scum who planted
the bomb.  Let's hope they're caught soon,

//atp

    .78
    
    Alan,
    
>>> I don;t know about anyone else, but I'd be damned annoyed if Major
>>> started to hold meetings with the colleagues of these murderers.
    
    
    there are numerous examples of this happening in other hot-spots
    arouund the world, South Africa, Israel-PLO....these people went the
    extra mile for peace and it worked....
    
    In this case we're talking about an economics meeting with a multi-party 
    council delegation. Cancelling it because of "diary-pressures" (sic) is
    petty in the extreme....
    
    Ray....

> I don;t know about anyone else, but I'd be damned annoyed if Major started to
> hold meetings with the colleagues of these murderers.  

  Alan,
   What is more annoying, having Major sit down and talk with the 
  representatives of all democratic parties, or having a continuation
  of this war.  Could you tell the family members of the next victims
  in this war, that it's better that there loved ones die or are maimed,
  than for you to be annoyed?

   You and the British government need to get past your "annoyance" and
  realize that real lives are at stake.  Lives of innocent people who
  probably don't give a F*ck about your annoyance, but do want peace.

   Think about this, the British government is actually in a luxurious
  position.  Their enemies are willing to sit down and talk with them.
  Can you imagine the fear and frustration if your enemy wasn't even
  interested in talking to you.  I suggest your government grab this
  straw, while it's still there to grasp.

                              Mark

    I have in the past, knowingly naievely, said that I think the governmet
    should sit at a table and invite the others to come. That way the world
    would see who was actually willing to talk and who was not.
    
    After this weekend it is hard to see the point. If the IRA don't like
    what happens they'll just let off some more bombs until the talkers
    "come round to their point of view". Before anyone says that things
    would be different if talks were underway, project time forward, if
    "THE SOLUTION" were that 3 of the 6 counties unite with Eire and 3 remain
    in the UK would peace be permanent or would the IRA et al fight on?
    
    The whole election business has raised a point I had not considered,
    who sits around the table. If Sinn Fein command 10% of votes surely
    they should have 10% of the decision making process. At the moment
    their terrorist activities give them far more apparent influence, in my
    opinion wrongly.
    
    Andrew

RE:       <<< Note 1549.79 by IRNBRU::HOWARD "Lovely Day for a Guinness" >>>

>>    In this case we're talking about an economics meeting with a multi-party 
>>    council delegation. Cancelling it because of "diary-pressures" (sic) is
>>    petty in the extreme....
    
    Agreed, it is petty, and I don't really understand the logic behind it.
    However, it pales into insignificance against the planting of 1,000lb
    of Semtex in the middle of London, doesn't it?
    
    Laurie.

>I don;t know about anyone else, but I'd be damned annoyed if Major started to
>hold meetings with the colleagues of these murderers.  

General Schwartzkopf met with proxies of Saddam Hussein in a
border town of Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War to discuss the
peace settlement. It's done all the time Alan. You have to
physically engage the participants to work out a peace plan.
It doesn't happen magically.

George

    I'm not arguing with your point as such, but that's not a good parallel
    George. Saddam Hussein was a defeated enemy after a short war on
    foreign soil, in which he was quickly defeated by coalition forces.
    Much more importantly, he hadn't been blowing up half of New York,
    Boston etc. for 25 years.
    
    Laurie.

>    I'm not arguing with your point as such, but that's not a good parallel
>    George. Saddam Hussein was a defeated enemy after a short war on
>    foreign soil, in which he was quickly defeated by coalition forces.
>    Much more importantly, he hadn't been blowing up half of New York,
>    Boston etc. for 25 years.

I agree with you that Hussein being a defeated enemy. Though,
since the Coalition (mainly US,British,French) had decided *not*
to go into Iraq, there had to be terms spelled out for a peace 
settlement (i.e. reparations, return of POWs, equipment matters,
etc...) These have to be settled by negociations. In fact,
Schwartzkopf wanted to negociate directly with Hussein. But
Hussein backed out at the last minute and sent 4 or 5 generals.
But the meetings did take place.

But the issue that I wanted to address was that one must
negociate with the parties in order to come to some agreement.
The IRA is not going away, whether or not you approve of (like
some) or detest (like many) their actions. The fact that they
are "not defeated", in my opinion, adds even more importance to
the talks.

There is even a smaller window now for negociation. And if this
doesn't amount to much within 1 month or so, I would predict a
full scale resumption to violence - which is a tragedy because
peace was in reach. Unfortunately, at this point I am not overly
optimistic.

George

    .80
    
    >Could you tell the family members of the next victims in this war, that 
    it's better that there loved ones die or are maimed, than for you to be 
    annoyed?<
                                              
    So what you're saying Mark is - give the I.R.A. what they want or
    more people die. Is that it?  Well that's a pretty sad mandate for
    peace isn't it? 
    
    
    CHARLEY
    
    

>I don;t know about anyone else, but I'd be damned annoyed if Major started to
>hold meetings with the colleagues of these murderers.


I think you are missing the point here. The choice is not between
talking and not talking, it's with whom?

If SF conduct the talks it's in public and everyone gets to see what
is going on. The alternative is that the "mountain climber" goes
between John Major and the actual murderers. I just don't see who
benefits from just being handed a decision made in secret.

M  

Okay, a bit of clarification.  I'd be "damned annoyed" if Major started 
talking to SF:

1) so soon after their pals murdered people in London, and
2) about anything other than ending the violence.

regards,
//alan

The following extract was taken from today's edition of "The Electronic
Herald". It is reproduced here without permission.

     By Sharon Philp

     John Hume and Iain Paisley announced last night that they would
     lead talks by their respective parties in Northern Ireland next
     week. The announcement follows news that a battalion of 500
     British troops will be sent to Northern Ireland.


     Fears are growing that the prospect of more troops being sent to
     Ulster, coupled with the announcement that decisions on future
     reinforcements will be taken "on a day-today basis", may prompt
     IRA hardliners to bomb Britain once again.

     Intelligence sources say that the reinforcements may provoke the
     IRA into planning another attack on the mainland, and may even
     shatter the ceasefire in Ulster which has so far remained
     unbroken.

     The 500 men from the 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment were
     preparing to fly from their base in Catterick, Yorkshire. Two
     other mainland regiments are also preparing to move at
     short-notice if needed.

		[END OF ELECTRONIC HERALD QUOTE]
	-----------------------------------------------------------

Does the British Government really want peace ?

Let's examine the evidence:-

Action				Time to react	Reaction
------				-------------	--------
IRA announces a ceasefire.	17 months	nothing
IRA ends ceasefire		 5 days		500 troops into NI.

It should be noted the the ceasefire in Ulster has remained unbroken so how 
does HMG justify this heavyhanded over reaction?

Is this the action of a peacebroker or a warmonger. I think the evidence 
supports the latter.

Eddie.
    

Selective memory you've got.
    
Dave

    Let's examine the evidence:-
    
    Action                          People murdered in 17 months 	
    ------                          
    IRA announces a "ceasefire."         I.R.A.      BRITISH
                                           
                                           9            0
    
    Britain requires decommissioning of weapons, I.R.A. refuse and kill
    more.
    
    Again, you have no argument Eddie.
    
    
    CHARLEY
                
    
    

Now let's look at some statistics:

Action suggested:					Time:
IRA conduct violent campaign against civilians		25 years
IRA stop killing people for a while			17 months

Yep, the IRA / SF really want peace, don't they?

Chris.

    The British Army is in Northern Ireland, which is British sovereign
    territory, to protect innocent men, women and children from murdering,
    cowardly scum terrorists, both Nationalist and Loyalist. The Government
    has a duty to take action to facilitate that protection.
    
    The action may well be deemed provocative, which is understandable, but
    as provocation goes, it pales into insignificance in the shadow of
    1000lbs of Semtex in Central London.
    
    HTH, Laurie.

    RTw  02/15 0842  IRA confirms London bomb marked end of truce
    
        By Martin Cowley
    
        BELFAST, Feb 15 (Reuter) - Irish Republican Army leaders on Thursday
        blamed Britain for the end of the 17-month ceasefire in Northern
        Ireland and pledged to keep up its armed campaign.
    
        In a hardline statement, the IRA vowed to assert what they described as
        "Irish national rights."
    
        Asked if a bomb in London last Friday was a one-off, a spokesmanfor
        the guerrilla commanders repeated the IRA's statement of that day
        announcing the end of the truce.
    
        He told An Phoblacht, the weekly newspaper of the IRA's Sinn Fein
        political arm: "We in Oglaigh na hEireann (IRA) will continue to
        assert Irish national rights in the face of British denial for as long 
        as is necessary."
    
        The IRA bomb in the Docklands area of London came just over an hour
        after they announced the ending of a truce which had brought a rare
        peace to Northern Ireland.
    
        The IRA spokesman condemned British Prime Minister John Major for not
        seizing the opportunity of the truce to make political headway andgive
        Sinn Fein a seat at all-party talks.
    
        Asked what brought about the London bomb, the spokesman replied:"Put
        plainly and bluntly, the end of the cessation was brought about by John
        Major's cynical misuse and betrayal of the historic opportunity offered
        by the Irish peace initiative."
    
        He said Major had acted in bad faith throughout the truce introducing
        "one new precondition after another" to win vital parliamentary support
        from the province's pro-British Protestant legislators to protect his
        government's slender majority.
    
        The spokesman accused Britain of subverting peace process efforts in an
        attempt to achieve an IRA surrender.
    
        Britain refused to convene all-party talks after the guerrillas called
        their truce, insisting they must first hand in their weapons.
    
        Major is now proposing elections in the region as a new route to all
        party talks. Anglo-Irish efforts are under way to salvage the peace
        process.
    
        The IRA spokesman said talks must be held. "There is only one place
        for all the political representatives of the Irish people to go and
        that is to the negotiating table."
    
        Media reports after the London bomb suggested it was evidence of a
        split within the IRA, but the spokesman said: "There are no splits,we
        are united in all our actions.
    
        "It is worth pointing to the high levels of discipline shown by the
        IRA volunteers over 18 long months of cessation in the face of
        continuous provocation.
    
        The IRA, which has for 80 years aimed to remove from the island of
        Ireland all British political influence, waged a bitter war against
        British troops and police.
    
        More than 3,200 people were killed. Protestant Loyalist guerrillas
        killed hundreds of Irish Catholics in a bid to thwart the IRA's
        campaign. The Loyalists are still observing a fragile truce they
        called in October 1994.
    
        REUTER

>           <<< Note 1549.89 by TAGART::EDDIE "Easy doesn't do it" >>>
>                   -< peacemakers or warmongers - you judge >-

>Does the British Government really want peace ?

>Let's examine the evidence:-

>Action				Time to react	Reaction
>------				-------------	--------
>IRA announces a ceasefire.	17 months	nothing
>IRA ends ceasefire		 5 days		500 troops into NI.


Shoot me if I'm wrong, but didn't HMG withdraw over 1100 troops during the 
ceasefire?

Al

    That's been conveniently forgotten Al, just like a lot of other things.
    
    
    CHARLEY

it certainly goes to prove just who does make rather selective use of the 
facts, I guess.  And we can add hypocrisy to that, too.

Chris.

    RTw  02/15 1323  London police explode suspected bomb
    
        By Patricia Reaney
    
        LONDON, Feb 15 (Reuter) - Police exploded a suspected bomb in the heart
        of London's theatreland on Thursday after receiving several threats
        less than a week after two people were killed in an IRA attack in the
        capital.
    
        The suspected bomb, which police destroyed in a controlled explosion,
        was found in a telephone box, a Reuter photographer at the scene
    said.
    
        Just hours before the Irish Republican Army had renewed an
    announcement that it had ended a 17-month-old ceasefire in its guerrilla
    campaign to end British rule in Northern Ireland.
    
        Traffic ground to a halt as police sealed off the prime tourist
    area inLondon's West End. People described scenes of chaos as they were
    left stranded in theatres, restaurants and cafes.
    
        "It's complete mayhem here. We have been told by the police to stay
        inside the theatre," the stage-doorkeeper at a theatre said.
    
        "A traffic warden told us they had found a bomb and it was for real,"
        an eyewitness said, adding the entire area was closed off.
    
        Police said they received several coded bomb warnings by telephone
        shortly after midday. They had not evacuated buildings but had warned
        people to stay away from windows.
    
        "Explosives officers made safe a device found in the Shaftesbury Avenue
        area. It has been submitted for forensic examination and searches of
        the area continue," a spokeswoman said.
    
    She refused to confirm media reports that the device contained one
        pound (0.4 kilogram) of Semtex explosive. "It was a small device,"she
        said.
    
        Police stepped up security in London after an IRA truck-bomb killed
        two people in the Docklands financial district. The bomb exploded last
        Friday shortly after the IRA issued a statement saying it was ending
        the ceasefire.
    
        Earlier on Thursday IRA leaders blamed Britain for the resumption of
        violence and vowed to keep up its armed campaign.
    
        "We in Oglaigh na hEireann (IRA) will continue to assert Irish national
        rights in the face of British denial for as long as is necessary," the
        group told An Phoblacht, the weekly newspaper of the IRA's
    political arm Sinn Fein.
    
        The IRA spokesman condemned British Prime Minister John Major for not
        seizing the opportunity of the ceasefire to make political headway and
        allow Sinn Fein to participate in all-party Northern Ireland peace
        talks.
    
        Anglo-Irish efforts to find a lasting peace have been stalled by
        Britain's insistence that the IRA scrap its arms before being allowed
        into full-scale negotiations, a position Sinn Fein rejects. Britain
        has also added a demand that elections be held to choose delegates to 
        any talks.
    
        Major and his Irish counterpart John Bruton condemned the IRA for the
        Docklands bomb which caused an estimated 150 million pounds ($230
        million) damage and shattered the fragile peace process.
    
    Major and his Irish counterpart John Bruton condemned the IRA for the
        Docklands bomb which caused an estimated 150 million pounds ($230
        million) damage and shattered the fragile peace process.
    
        Bruton is urging Britain to agree to "proximity talks," along the lines
        of the Dayton, Ohio, negotiations on Bosnia to bring all parties under
        the same roof, if not around the same table.
    
        The two leaders are due to meet in London at the end of next week to
        discuss the best way forward.
    
        REUTER

The Electronic Telegraph  Friday 16 February 1996  The Front Page


IRA bomb brings heart of London to standstill
=============================================

By Colin Randall, Neil Tweedie, Richard Savill and John Steele
==============================================================

Phone box bombers target Theatreland

AN IRA bomb was made safe yesterday after causing hours of chaos in the
heart of London and confirming fears that the Docklands blast was not a
one-off attack.

A large part of the West End was brought to a standstill, with a square mile
of streets sealed off from Oxford Street to the Strand, after police found the
device in a telephone kiosk.

The attack coincided with publication of a thinly veiled threat that the IRA
campaign would continue "as long as necessary". 

John Bruton, the Irish Prime Minister, admitted that restarting the search
for peace was now "immeasurably complex".

Downing Street said the attack would not deflect the Government from its
peace efforts. "Mr Major will be meeting Mr Bruton very soon," a
spokesman said, "and of course we are determined that the peace proposal
wil not be derailed."

The bomb, believed to contain about 1lb of Semtex explosive and "bearing
all the hallmarks of the Provisional IRA", according to Scotland Yard, was
packed into a sports bag in a kiosk next to a parade of shops at the junction
of Charing Cross Road and Litchfield Street, near Leicester Square.

The IRA appears to have designed the attack to keep Northern Ireland in
the headlines despite publication of the Scott report.

Police said two "imprecise" coded warnings had been received and that
bomb disposal experts dealt with the device.

During a search for further bombs, West End workers were told to retreat to
"safe" areas inside their buildings.

Earlier, the weekly Sinn Fein newspaper Republican News published a
hardline message said to be based on an interview with a member of the
IRA's "general headquarters staff".

He was quoted as saying the IRA would "continue to assert Irish national
rights in the face of British denial for as long as is necessary".

Dismissing the "peace process" as a sham, he claimed there had been 18
months of "stalling, prevarication and provocation with various political
devices being put in place for putting off a negotiation scenario".

The Government had engaged in the initiative with the aim of securing the
surrender or political defeat of republicans, he said.

The article held out no hope of an early restoration of the ceasefire, which
ended when last Friday's blast killed two people and injured more than 100
in the Isle of Dogs. It demanded instead that John Major should convene
all-party talks.

Unionist politicans condemned the statement. William Ross, Ulster
Unionist MP for East Londonderry, said no one was to blame for the IRA's
return to violence other than the terrorists themselves.

"The IRA have simply decided that they are going to try and murder their
way to a united Ireland," he said.

Mr Bruton - who was condemned in the Sinn Fein newspaper interview for
his claim to have been betrayed by the IRA - acknowledged that the search
for a political settlement in Northern Ireland had been put in question by the
end of the IRA ceasefire.

In the Dail, he said the "key challenge" facing Sinn Fein was to secure the
return of the IRA's cessation of violence. He confirmed that Irish ministers
would not meet Sinn Fein in the absence of a ceasefire.

But Mr Bruton said channels of communication were being kept open. Talks
are expected at an undisclosed Dublin venue today between Irish
government officials and Sinn Fein leaders, including Mr Adams.

British and Irish officials began talks yesterday in an attempt to identify a
route to all-party talks linking Dublin's suggestion of Dayton-style
"proximity talks" with the British proposal for elections to a forum.

Michael Ancram, the Northern Ireland minister for political development,
said elections could be held without a ceasefire. But he refused to be drawn
on whether Sinn Fein could still participate.

In a speech in west Belfast, Mr Adams accused Britain of attempting to
exclude Sinn Fein from the proposed election. "Such bare-faced
disenfranchising of our electorate, of whole nationalist communities, would
be a recipe for disaster," he said.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

The Electronic Telegraph  Friday 16 February 1996  Home News
                          

Phone box bombers target Theatreland
====================================

Return to terrorism: After Docklands, it is the turn of London's West
=====================================================================
End to face the threat of the IRA bombers
=========================================

By Neil Tweedie and Michael Smith

LONDON'S Theatreland was thrown into chaos yesterday as bomb disposal
experts cordoned it off to make safe an explosive device left in a telephone
kiosk.

A red double-decker bus was commandeered by police to seal off the end of
Charing Cross Road as the bars and restaurants around Leicester Square and
Shaftesbury Avenue were evacuated.

Several major roads, including New Oxford Street, the Strand, the north
side of Trafalgar Square, Pall Mall, Haymarket, Piccadilly Circus and Oxford
Street, were closed off. Traffic trying to get into the area was stuck in long
jams for several hours after the incident.

Tube stations at Piccadilly Circus, Leicester Square, Covent Garden,
Charing Cross and Tottenham Court Road were closed and streets normally
crowded with shoppers and tourists were deserted.

In some cases, people were told to stay inside the buildings. But those closest
to the bomb were evacuated, many without paying their bills.

Hundreds of police were deployed and by mid-afternoon Horseguards
Parade had turned into an emergency control centre with lines of police
vans, ambulances and paramedic response units standing by.

As the Mall came to a standstill, a helicopter hovered over Buckingham
Palace and police and fire engines struggled through traffic with sirens
blaring.

Witnesses said the device was in a green holdall in a phone box outside a
busy pizza restaurant in Charing Cross Road.

The manager said the restaurant was just filling up with lunchtime
customers when the police began evacuating people.

"I was just serving people and a policeman ran in and asked for the manager.
He told me they had found something in the phone box which they thought
was a bomb and could I get everyone to leave out the back.

"I saw it in the phone box," the manager said. "It was in a green bag. I took
one look at it and thought I don't want to take any chances."

He moved the customers and his two staff out through the fire exit at the
back. "People left in the middle of their lunch without paying.

"Everybody walked out calmly," he said. "We took them out by the fire exit
and then I went off to contact my boss." 

John Bruton, assistant manager of the Porcupine public house, in Charing
Cross Road, said: "If that bomb had gone off at 12.30pm, there would have
been absolute devastation. We were packed and the whole area was busy with
people over lunchtime.

"People just put their drinks down and ran. We are only about 150 metres
from the phone box and we were told to hide in the cellar.

"At one o'clock, we heard a small explosion. About 15 to 20 minutes later,
we heard another explosion and then we heard there was an actual bomb in
the telephone box along the road.

"We went to the cellars and had a few beers and told some jokes. There can't
have been many places better than a pub cellar to hide in."

Keith Faulks, a 28-year-old lecturer, was in a bookshop opposite the kiosk
when police ordered everyone to the back of the building.

"We went down to the basement and spent three hours there. The police
were being very calm, ushering people out of the way. There was no sign of
panic."

The bomb did not prevent Tom Conti and Hayley Mills from taking the
stage at the Gielgud and Shaftesbury Theatres. "Both our two planned
matinees went ahead," said a spokesman for Stoll Moss Theatres.

Some tourists appeared to be treating the scare as part of their sightseeing
tour. Police dealing with an endless stream of questions were being videoed
by Japanese tourists.

Electronic Telegraph is a Registered Service Mark of The Telegraph plc 

    .91
    
>>> Britain requires decommissioning of weapons, I.R.A. refuse and kill
>>> more.
   
    Or, just for balance....
    
    Sinn Fein requires All-Party talks, HMG refuse and stall the peace
    process with precondition after precondition....
    
    take your pick!...
    
    Ray....
                            

    .101
    
    Justified preconditions.
    
    Fridays bomb proved that.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Re .95
    
    Were 1100 troops withdrawn after the ceasefire ? Are you sure about
    that? Didn't they just swap their helmets for berets and carry their
    guns over their shoulders instead of pointing them all the time ?
    
    Let's assume that your information is correct. The rest of the story
    from the Herald goes on to say that there are two more battalions
    waiting to go at 48 hours notice. That makes 1100 out and 1500 in by my
    arithmetic.
    
    Eddie.

    No they were withdrawn or re-deployed as the MoD said at the time.
    
    So yet again, your lies fail Eddie.
    
    As for the two battalions, well they're on standby. Why??  Because
    somebody planted 2 bombs in London. Don't you read the Papers??????
    
    One side ended the ceasefire. History will show that.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    re .. Extra troops
    
    ..Maybe thats where they should stay...put them on the streets of
    London..Surely that would make things safer!....
    
    ie you could have troops patrolling around with the police  
    ie road blocks...searching everybody in the main commercial/shopping
    areas..
    
    rgs,
    
    Mick

    Just for info, the current troop level in NI (including the recent
    deployment of an extra 500) are now at 1000 less than pre the IRA
    ceasefire.
    
    There are two regiments on standby - ie if they were to be sent then
    troop levels will be equal to the pre ceasefire level.
    
    I'd say we have a tit-for-tat situation here.
    
    Shaun.  

    .101
    
    re `justified preconditions'....
    
    In HMG's opinion....
    
    The Irish government doesn't think so, the Mitchell commission doesn't
    think so, no nationalist party thinks so, I don't think so either....
    
    Ray....
    

    The disarmament pre-conditions were totally justified by the fact that
    two people were killed by a bomb last Friday and seven people have been
    murdered by the I.R.A. under a flag of convenience.
    
    The British Govt. were correct in requesting this. The I.R.A.
    themselves have proved this.
    
           
    CHARLEY

    Charley, I totally disagree. If there were no preconditions there would
    have been substantive talks and the guns would have remained silent..
    
    Ray....

    But Ray, the guns *were not* silent.
    
    The British Govt. showed great faith in withdrawing troops, making
    concessions etc. etc.
    
    The I.R.A. carried on killing.
    
    This notes file contains alot of people that are happy to point the
    finger at the British Govt. saying that John Major didn't do enough.
    But what did the I.R.A./Sinn Fein do to help the peace process?
    
    It seems to me that Sinn Fein etc. are saying we want, we want, we
    want and if we don't get exactly what we want people die.
    
    N'est pas?
    
    CHARLEY

    fair point Charley, the IRA/Direct Action Against DRugs killings
    continued, but the ceasefire (w/regard to bombs and actions against the
    British military and mainland) held. You also asked what Sinn Fein and the
    IRA did to help the peace process. I think declaring a ceasefire helped
    the peace process a bit....
    
    To digress a little, can I ask you a question? Would you agree with 
    all-party talks after elections if not one bullet had been surrendered?
    If no, considering the fact that no weapons will be surrendered by
    either side, what's the way forward?...
    
    Ray....             

    >To digress a little, can I ask you a question? Would you agree with
    all-party talks after elections if not one bullet had been surrendered?
    
    
    In an ideal world Ray, certainly.  
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

CNN world news Feb 15th, 1996

  The Irish Republican army has asked:

 "The British forces must explain why, after a full 91 minutes, they had
  allowed civilians to remain in proximity to a bomb which they had not
  only been warned about, but which they had actually located," the 
  statement said.


  Why did the British forces wait 91 minutes after discovering the explosives?


                          Mark

>CNN world news Feb 15th, 1996
>
>  The Irish Republican army has asked:
>
> "The British forces must explain why, after a full 91 minutes, they had
>  allowed civilians to remain in proximity to a bomb which they had not
>  only been warned about, but which they had actually located," the 
>  statement said.
>
>
>  Why did the British forces wait 91 minutes after discovering the explosives?

Words can't express this level of hypocrisy, Mark - I'm stunned!

The IRA put a killing device into an area where people are going about their
legal business.  The killing device does what it designed to do - rob people
of their lives.  And the IRA has the gall to try to blame the Police for it!

Do you stand by this question, Mark - do you think it's reasonable?

//atp

>  The Irish Republican army has asked:

And most other people have asked, `why did you plant a bomb in a civilian 
area?'

Lessee now, I punch someone in the face, and I can say it's their fault for 
not getting out of the way?  No.

Chris.

> Do you stand by this question, Mark - do you think it's reasonable?

  Absolutely.  I'm not discussing responsibility for the bomb, that is
  clearly the Irish Republican Armys.  I'm asking why the British forces
  sat on it for 91 minutes before clearing the area.  Wouldn't you have
  expected them to get people out of harms way, and perhaps have saved
  those two lives by doing so.


> Lessee now, I punch someone in the face, and I can say it's their fault for 
> not getting out of the way?  No.

  Absolutely, now would you also ask why the policeman watching all
  this, decided to sit his hands for 91 minutes before attempting to arrest
  you?

  Am I missing something here, or is it a "British thing"?  There are two
  issues here, one which is the rights/wrongs of the economic attack, and
  the other is why the British forces sat on their hands for 91 minutes.

                    Mark

Oh well, Mark - since you're serious (God alone knows why).

How long do you think it takes to clear a large area of all the people 
therein?  What about the hundreds of children watching the basketball match
a couple of hundred yards away from where these nice people put their
killing machine?  How long do you think it takes to move them?

Part two: if the Police do start clearing areas every time that some drunk
with an Irish accent claims that there's a bomb somewhere, is that going to
be good for the local economy?  How 'bout if I call ZKO and say "I'm the
UNAbomber and there's a bomb in the ZK facility"  Should you be evacuated?

Part three: did the thugs who gave the warning tell the Police "there is a
bomb in van reg no Xxx"?  I'll bet they didn't.  So how were the Police to
know what area to clear?

Mark, the Police have better things to do than deal with this sort of crap.
They had to search the area looking for this killing machine.  The killers 
that you appear to support are the only people responsible for the deaths of 
the newsagent and his friend, and the laceration of numerous others.

I hope you feel proud of your friends - they generated two freshly-dug graves
and lots of plastic surgery.  Well done, bhoys.

//atp

  Alan,
   The police didn't clear the area until 91 minutes after the bomb was
  found.  I can understand that it takes some time to clear an area, but
  why wait 91 minutes before even beginning?

> How 'bout if I call ZKO and say "I'm the
>UNAbomber and there's a bomb in the ZK facility"  Should you be evacuated?

  I certainly hope so, since I work in ZKO.  If the police ever find a
  UNAbomber bomb in ZKO, I would hope that they would evacuate it immediately,
  and not wait 91 minutes before doing so. 

> Mark, the Police have better things to do than deal with this sort of crap.

  Huh? In the United States, they are supposed to protect the public. What
  pray tell is the "better things" that they have to do in England?  Eat
  crumpets and drink tea?


                       Mark

    What is the source of the alleged 91 minute wait, then? Nothing I've
    read indicated that any such period expired. In fact, the timetable of
    events I posted in this conference is in conflict with that statement.
    Why bother arguing about the rights and wrongs if the original premise
    of the so-called question (including a note title once again asserting
    that it was an "economic attack") is a big a pile of crap as we usually
    see from that source.
    
    Talking of the IRA's quest for peace; last night they really showed how
    seriously they're searching for that, didn't they?
    
    Laurie.

    WARNINGS???
    
    I had this discussion in 1973. What f**king 
    WARNINGS?
    
    If you leave bombs in built up areas people are likely to get killed.
    Full Stop.
    
    The reponsibility for the murders lies with those who leave the bombs.
    Full Stop.
    
    I wouls suggest that those on the recieving end of this terror do not
    engage in WARNINGS discussions.  The warnings are a sick and cynical
    method of increasing the effectiveness of the terror, through the use
    of bomb hoaxes. 
    
    Last week the excuse was, it was an economic target.
    
    
    As I pointed out last week, the IRA wanted blood, so that they could cause
    havoc with warnings and small devices this week. This prediction has
    become sickeningly true, and today a London bus was blown up.
    
    Where was the f**king warning this time? 
    
    Couldn't get through on the phone I suppose, wasn't that the excuse for
    the post office in Claudy?
    
    Face up to the reality of what is happening Mark. The IRA are out to
    terrorise and kill innocent people in London. You have a responsibility
    to your colleagues in London who are working in the immediate area of
    these terror attacks not to provoke them with half-baked
    excuses for it. 
    
    Kevin 
         

    Thanks for that last paragraph Kevin.
    
    I spoke to my cousin in Dublin last night. She told me that she was,
    and I quote, "ashamed for all of Ireland". She's 24 years old, and
    hasn't got a drop of English blood in her; she's 100% Irish.
    
    Laurie.

    As usual I cannot comprehend Mark's ignorance but funnily enough I'm
    used to it by now.
    
    >Eat crumpets and drink tea?
    
    Funny that, a few weeks back a particular bee in your bonnet was
    racial steriotyping. Hypocrite.
    
    I cannot, for the life of me, even begin to comprehend how you can
    try and blame the police for this. I think you're clutching at straws.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    If I was responsible for making a decision on whether to evacuate
    an area in the event of a bomb alert, I would have to decide on
    where the greater risk lay. Would a greater number of people be
    at risk because of evacuation, or would they be better advised to
    lie low?
    
    That is an awesome responsibility.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    John

    re .123                                                            
    
    Thats right, and especially in the case of Canary Wharf, where as I
    understand it the original "warning" (after several pass ons, during
    which of course it gets hairy) suggested that the bomb was at the tube
    station.
    
    Also, you have to consider what happens if you cause panic amoung the
    rescue services etc. by passing on "information" which is not correct. 
    
    I expect those who deal with these things have a procedure for dealing
    with warnings, but I expect that the safest thing to do is not to do
    anything until you are 90% sure you have independent confirmation of a
    device, otherwise you only make matters worse. 
    
    But, as I said at the start, don't talk to me about warnings, that
    excuse was totally discredited at least 20 years ago...
    
    They are simply getting "extra mileage" out of last week's murders.
    
    Kevin 

    Here, just to refresh Holohan's memory, is the timetable of events as
    printed in the Telegraph:
    
================================================================================
Note 1548.35                 IRA reverts to violence                    35 of 74
PLAYER::BROWNL "I like Chris"                        33 lines  12-FEB-1996 06:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electronic Telegraph  12 February 1996  Home News

                          
TIMETABLE
=========

o 5.41pm: Scotland Yard takes first call from RTE in Dublin which has
received warning of bomb at South Quay station. Police sent to begin
evacuation.

    Note that the police were sent *immediately*.
    
o 5.55pm: Docklands Light Railway stops trains running through South Quay.
Passengers cleared from station.

    I make this 14 minutes to first clearing members of the public from the
    (then specifically unknown) general area of the bomb.
    
o 5.59pm: Fourth of a series of calls to Scotland Yard from news organisations
contacted by the IRA. None identifies where bomb is.

    At this stage, I note that the actual whereabouts of the bomb is
    unknown, 18 minutes after the first call.
    
o 6.00pm: RTE receives statement signed by P O'Neill announcing end of IRA
ceasefire. It took 30 minutes to authenticate statement.
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Thanks to a previous history of sick hoaxes.

o 6.15pm: 20 police officers now at South Quay; security cordon in place.
People and vehicles cleared off streets, but many are in buildings inside the
cordon, including Trade Winds bar.

    It is now 34 minutes and the police, still not knowing exactly where
    the bomb is, are clearing the streets in the general area, and have
    thrown a security cordon around it.
    
o 6.30pm : Staff of Franklin Mint at South Quay plaza evacuated, but
readmitted after security guards wrongly announce all-clear.

    I don't think the police are responsible for this mistake.
    
o 6.59pm: Police officers find flat-backed lorry containing bomb and try to
clear surrounding offices.

    I note that 78 minutes after the first call, the bomb has been located.
    
o 7.01pm: Bomb explodes. Hundreds of workers still at their desks in nearby
buildings.

    Two minutes later it goes off. Where did the 91 minutes come from
    Holohan? As I've said to you before, take your sick, perverted and
    immoral IRA propaganda and shove it. Trying to make politcal capital
    and to score points on the deaths of innocent people and the anguish
    and pain of their relatives is sick and an affront to civilised people.
    You make my flesh crawl.
    
    Your IRA bastard friends didn't even say where the bloody bomb was, and
    now they have the gall to try and make out that the British police
    deliberately let people be blown up. BARF. I hope we never meet in
    person, or you're a big lad.
    
    Laurie.

> Your IRA bastard friends didn't even say where the bloody bomb was, and
> now they have the gall to try and make out that the British police
> deliberately let people be blown up. BARF. I hope we never meet in
> person, or you're a big lad.

  I'm not trying to determine responsibility for the bomb, that lays clearly
  at the doorstep of the Irish Republican Army.  I'm trying to understand
  why the police would have sat on their thumbs for 91 minutes.

  Perhaps John (Note .123) is right, and they decided not to evacuate the
  area because they deemed it was riskier to evacuate.  But still it seems
  like 91 minutes is a lot of time, from discovery of the bomb.

                          Mark

  P.S.
    No Laurie, I'm not a big lad, I'm actually a wee, little overweight
    fello, who can barely walk a flight of stairs. Stop by some time.

   

    You still haven't justified the 91 minutes you assert was taken. I have
    provided evidence it is crap; where's your proof?
    
    Laurie.

  Laurie, you said it was 78 minutes, I said 91 minutes, and actually it
  was 80 minutes.  Do you still not think that an hour and twenty minutes
  was a long time to evacuate the area?  The bomb location was called in
  at 5:41pm, the bomb went off at 7:01pm.

AP/RN Thursday Feb 15th:

  Despite the IRA warnings only four London police officers were directed
  by Assistant Commissioner Anderson Dunn to clear the station, while train
  services south, beyond Canary Wharf, were only suspended at 6.pm. 

  Over the next hour 16 more police officers were sent to the area. 

  Dockland workers and residents of the Isle of Dogs asked why so many
  people were on the Quay when the bomb, which killed two men and injured
  over 50 others, exploded although nearby office blocks were evacuated a 
  full 45 minutes before the blast. Residents were told nothing. 

  Tony Ashkins, of Albert Grove, said: ``If they knew about the bomb
  an hour before it happened, then why didn't they put a warning on
  the early evening news.'' 

  Father Christopher Owens of St Lukes, Barkentine Estate said: 

``Planting the bomb was of course wrong, but the nationalist community 
  must be very angry with John Major for wantonly throwing a spanner in
  the works of the peace process.'' 

  Neville Walker, one of those injured said that he had been evacuated 
  from his offices a few yards from the seat of the blast, only to be 
  told he could go back 10 minutes later. He was at his desk on the 
  fourth floor at Franklin Mint 30 minutes later when the explosion 
  wrecked the building. Other workers in this building had gathered outside
  the rear of the building, 50 yards from the bomb, but were allowed back
  in again several minutes later.

 Many others described how the police did not suggest any sense of urgency,
 with people ambling about near the truck containing the explosives. 

 Carolyn Vautier, another office worker had actually been trying to buy a 
 ticket at South Quay station minutes before the blast while Steve Holmes,
 owner of the nearby Tradewinds bar, said: ``No-one had said a word to us
 and people were coming and going freely.'' 

    Re: .Last
    
    To use your own phrase "you are examining the symptoms not the cause."
    and then answreing the question on symptoms
    
    The question you should be asking is "why was this unnecessary bomb
    placed and exploded"
    
    MBr

    .126
    
    .128
    
    Deperate attempts Mark, to try and shift some of the blame.
    
    Doesn't hold water mate.
    
    
    CHARLEY

RE:                     <<< Note 1549.128 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>
>>         -< Tragedy of the bomb aside, why the slow police response? >-
>> 
>> 
>>   Laurie, you said it was 78 minutes, I said 91 minutes, and actually it
>>   was 80 minutes.  Do you still not think that an hour and twenty minutes
>>   was a long time to evacuate the area?  The bomb location was called in
>>   at 5:41pm, the bomb went off at 7:01pm.

    Are you really as thick as you appear? From the time the bomb was
    located to the time it went off, elapsed time was *two* minutes. Your
    murderous bastard chums didn't, at any stage, tell the British where
    the bomb actually was. The bomb location was *not* called in at 5:41pm.
    
    If it was really 80 minutes, why did you say 91 minutes? Why are you
    and your cowardly scum mates trying to make political and propaganda
    capital out of other people's grief?
    
    Laurie.

    .125 makes it clear that the exact location of the bomb was established 2
    minutes before it exploded. 
    
    What we are witnessing here is an apologia for the Canary Wharf
    murders by Mr Holohan. We are being asked to believe that this was an
    economic attack, and that due notice was given. I would like to put on
    record my sympathy with those who find this offensive, and state that
    while this apologia may be within the limits of free speech as
    practiced at Hyde Park Corner or in the Sun newspaper, it is a provocation
    for Digital employees suffering this terrorism, who are entitled to
    enjoy their day at work, including participation in all normal
    activities, without such provocation, which is of a nature likely to
    prejudice the good relations between Digital employees, and which
    constitutes, IMHO, harassment. 
    
    For myself, working in Galway, I'm not going to put in a complaint to
    the moderator, although I would support anyone who feels the need to.
    
    And if the UVF puts a bomb in Eyre Sqare next week and
    someone starts rationalising it here, I will do.  
    
    May I add that the moderator George Darcy has defined honourable and
    ethical procedures for dealing with this.
    
    Kevin             

  MBr,
   I think everyone already agrees that the bombing was tragic and should
  not have happened.  Now the question is, how do we stop this?  I would
  suggest immediate peace talks.  The logical answer is to hold immediate
  talks and force the Irish Republican Army back into having to hold a
  cease-fire.

>The question you should be asking is "why was this unnecessary bomb
> placed and exploded"

  When you have the answer, let me know.  As an American, I can only guess
  that it was related to 17 months of refusal by the British to sit
  down and talk with their adversaries.  It might have had something to
  do with the release of convicted British Army murderer Lee Clegg.  Maybe
  it had something to do with one new pre-condition after another by the
  British government, or maybe it had something to do with the British
  government throwing the Mitchell report in the rubbish.  Who knows.

   In the event that the British government still refuses to hold peace
  talks, what do we do next?  Since there will inevitably be a continuation
  of the Irish Republican Army campaign, perhaps Londoners should ask the
  next question, how do we evacuate the area quickly, so no one dies.
  How do we avoid business trips, or visits to family in the London area
  so that we minimize our risks in this war.

                              Mark

re .133,

Mark, I feel that you are in serious danger of crossing the boundary of 
acceptability.  This note was, at best, cynical and in poor taste.

Chris.

                     <<< Note 1549.133 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>


>  How do we avoid business trips, or visits to family in the London area
>  so that we minimize our risks in this war.
                         
   Mark,

   Maybe a good start would be to stop funds getting to the terrorists.

   Stuart

    re .133
    
    
    >In the event that the British government still refuses to hold peace
    >talks, what do we do next?  Since there will inevitably be a continuation
    >of the Irish Republican Army campaign, perhaps Londoners should ask the
    >next question, how do we evacuate the area quickly, so no one dies.
    >How do we avoid business trips, or visits to family in the London
    >area so that we minimize our risks in this war.
    
    I rest my case. 
    
    The above is propaganda, designed to support the aims of the terror,
    and achieve political aims through the terror.
    
    Kevin
         

 Stuart,

> Maybe a good start would be to stop funds getting to the terrorists.

  Another good idea.  Do you know how we can do that?  Would we freeze
  all British assets, or just those held by British forces, in
  U.S. or international banks.  I'd suggest that we don't just freeze the
  funds of British forces, but also those of Irish Republican Army forces
  as well.  We shouldn't be one sided in this, don't you agree.

  This would be similiar to the Arms embargo on Bosnia.  Speaking of which,
  why not also impose an Arms embargo.  I don't where the Irish Republican
  Army get's there weapons, but I do know that the U.S. supplies Britain
  with certain weapons.  Perhaps if the U.S. froze shipments of these
  until a peaceful solution was reached.

                        Mark  

Mark, it would appear that you're being deliberately contentious.  This is 
unhelpful, unless your intent is to aggravate and annoy those `on the 
receiving end'.  I would ask that you stop trying to provoke a negative 
reaction.

Chris.

    >I don't know where the I.R.A. get their weapons....
    
    South Africa and Libia, to name a couple of countries.
    
    >Another good idea.  Do you know how we can do that?
    
    Take your hand out of your pocket.
    
    
    CHARLEY

 Chris,
   Come on, you mean to say that freezing the assets of both sides in
  this conflict is contentious?  We need to stop the killing, all the
  killing.


  Charely,

> South Africa and Libia, to name a couple of countries.

  Do tell.  We should have a chat with Nelson Mandela right away.
  I'll leave you to talk with Khadafi.

> Take your hand out of your pocket.
    
  Now, now Charley, that's not nice is it.  What are you implying?
  I feel like I'm being harassed, by my fellow Digital Equipment Employees.
  I'm think I might have a good cry for moderation.

                      Mark

>   Come on, you mean to say that freezing the assets of both sides in
>  this conflict is contentious?  We need to stop the killing, all the
>  killing.

I think that making such statements, when a civilian populus is being 
targetted at random by the IRA, is less than helpful.  The British Army is not 
at all synonymous with the IRA.  If the British Army took militaristic action 
against the terrorists, many of whom are known to the security services, and 
even if this action was comparitively moderate and focussed, we'd be swamped 
by a huge amount of posts from yourself about human rights abuses.

The usual stream of notes about the latest human rights abuses that you would 
normally submit here, in this case those perpetrated by the IRA against 
innocent civilians, are notable by their absence.  Why would that be?

>  I'm think I might have a good cry for moderation.

Now that would be unusual.  Not.

Chris.

    
    I think the following lines from a play I say would summarise my
    feelint to the IRA vilelence. 
    
    	A cause does not stay noble very long once you start hacking off
         limbs in its name".
    
   I cannot remember where it came from but it definitely sums my attitude
    to the resumption of vilence

Mark,

Yes, the killing has to stop.

How many people have the British forces killed since the cease-fire started?

How many people have the IRA killed.

//alan

>We need to stop the killing, all the killing.

Mark, those words sound rather hollow and false coming from the very same 
person who signed off a topic by saying `semtexly thinking of you'.  I guess 
you're proud of this humorous snippet of yours.

Chris.

    .140
    
    >Do tell etc. etc.
    
    I don't need to talk to Nelson Mandela, I just talk to my girlfriend 
    whom, strangely enough, is South African. 
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Do you know what, Holohan? I feel very, very, very sorry for you.
    
    Laurie.

Radio 4 this morning carried a few short street interviews from Dublin.
All of those interviewed blamed the resumption of violence on John Major.
Not a word of condemnation of the IRA. This I found depressing. Of course
the reporter may have deliberatively picked an unrepresentative sample,
but I wonder how typical this view is.

Dave

    .147
    
    Dave,
    I'd like to know what the questions were and who he asked, but I can
    say that people in the south are as appalled by the violence as
    anyone else. I'd be surprised if anyone blamed Mr. Major for the
    resumption of violence, they probably blamed him for stalling the peace
    process which is a different matter....
    
    Ray....

Ray,

I've got a radio alarm, and my state of consciousness when it went off was
not enough to remember the exact words! Especially on a freezing cold day
when it's blowing a gale and there's snow everywhere. 

Dave

>    Do you know what, Holohan? I feel very, very, very sorry for you.
    
>    Laurie.
    
    I think by now we all know how you and a few others feel about Mark
    Holohan. While neither agreeing or disagreeing with his views, I don't
    believe that these constant personal attacks are achieving anything.
    
    If he is doing something contrary to Digital P&P's then report it. If
    not then drop the personal attacks and discuss the topics at hand.
    
    Gerry  

    Gerry, can you direct that note to Mark as well.
    
    
    CHARLEY 

>    Gerry, can you direct that note to Mark as well.
    
    
>    CHARLEY 
    
     Yes CHARLEY, I should have directed it at all noters who are
    personally attacking fellow noters.
    
    You know, I find this conference to be very educational and
    informative. It is one of the only ways that I have of staying current
    on the affairs in Ireland and the UK. But silly personal insults from
    any source tend to spoil the mood and are generally unhelpful
    especially when they are spouted ad-nauseum.
    
    Gerry 

Many of the personal comments follow notes which contain something along the 
lines of `ha ha ha, another bomb has gone off where you live, well serves you 
right' sort of thing.  Hardly surprising that tempers may flare, in my opinion.

Chris.

    same as that.

                                 [Sinn Fein]

                              20 February 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Media Have a Responsibility

Sinn F�in Councillor, Joe Reilly, commenting on the media coverage of the
latest bombing in London has said:

``The anti-Irish hysteria created by the media in the aftermath of Sunday
nights IRA bombing in London was all too reminiscent of pre-cessation
journalism, especially amongst British journalists.

``The fact that a young Dublin man innocently caught up in events and
seriously injured as a result was the target of such hysteria, serves to
remind us all of the responsibility the media have in reporting these
incidents.

``Brendan Woolhead is an innocent man whom the media, colluding with both
the Irish and British police, have invariably described as a bomber and
killer. They have also made his family home in Ireland the target of their
attention. It was exactly this kind of journalism which in the past aided in
the wrongful convictions of many Irish people, most notably the Birmingham
Six and the Guildford Four. But more importantly it has been this kind of
journalism and the innuendo attached to it which has in the past led to
individuals being `identified' as targets by loyalist death squads.

``While we have come to expect this standard of journalism from the British
media when reporting on issues concerning Ireland it is abhorrent to witness
the Irish media, from the state broadcasting service to the tabloids,
reacting in a similar if not even more disgraceful manner.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn F�in Press Office, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1
Tel: +353-1-8726100 and +353-1-8726839   �   Fax +353-1-8733074   �
e-mail: [email protected]

Released in the US by:

Friends of Sinn F�in, 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel: +1-202-331-7886   �   Fax: +1-202-331-8117   �   e-mail:
[email protected]

Released on the Web at:

http://www.serve.com/rm/sinnfein/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sinn F�in Home Page   �   Sinn F�in Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web publication by [email protected]
Web archival by [email protected]

    Gerard O'Hara(Meara?) of Sinn Fein was on the CBC evening news here in
    Ottawa last night being interviewed on Sinn Fein's position around the
    recent break in the cease fire.
    
    He was doing reasonably well until he was asked if he condemned the
    recent bombings in London, to which he gave the usual waffling and
    beating about the bush type answers, but never actually condemned these
    terrible incidents. I believe he said that he regretted that they had
    to happen etc. but would not condemn them or the people who were
    responsible for them.
    
    If they only had the b..ls to stand up and condemn such depraved acts,
    they would have a much better chance of getting the ear of the British
    and Irish Governments. This is not to say that John Major shouldn't
    shoulder some of the blame for the recent break in the cease fire. 
    
    But now we must look at ways of putting it back together and Sinn fein are
    not winning any points by not condemning these murders.
    
    Gerry
         

So, Sinn Fein can't bring themselves to condemn the bombings, but they will 
quite vociferously condemn the media.  I think we can all draw our own 
conclusions from this.

Chris.

>But now we must look at ways of putting it back together and Sinn fein are
>not winning any points by not condemning these murders.

  Maybe it shouldn't be about "winning points", but about winning the peace.
  Immediate peace talks are the only way forward.

                         Mark
     

    >Immediate peace talks are the only way forward.
    
    So is a complete cessation of violence by the IRA

    .155
    
    Reading this, I think Sinn Fein and their supporters are getting
    desperate.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    RE last.
    
    and paranoid for that matter.
    
    
    
    CHARLEY

	The fact that it was in Sinn F�in's power to identify the victim of 
the London bus bomb as a brave "volunteer" and to exonerate the innocent 
injured man devalues their indignation re press coverage.

	Does Mark and his like-minded Republicans realise that the vast 
majority of Irish people believed Sinn F�in's assertion that the ceasefire was 
permanent (we recall their condemnation of the British Government for doubting 
that it was) and that they now feel duped?

O.K. we were fooled - so what? It is now important to STOP THE KILLING. Will 
we have to make a blind leap of faith that if a date for all-party, 
no-precondition talks is announced that the ceasefire will be renewed? 

Alternatively can Mark confirm that what we are no faced with is having to 
accomodate negotiations and violence simultaneously. If so, can he explain to 
a simpleton (that's me) how this will win the trust and allegience of all the 
people of the island of Ireland. The PLO, ANC analogies are flawed. In both 
cases it was clear that they had a mandate from a majoity within their 
communities. The Provos do NOT represent a majority of a) nationalists in the 
North or b) the Irish people.

Pat

    Sinn Fein cannot remain neutral in this and expect to retain any
    credibility. They must either start acting like a responsible political
    party with a democratic mandate and an agenda to follow, or they're
    part of the terrorist movement. Which is it?
    
    Laurie.

 Pat,

>  Does Mark and his like-minded Republicans realise that the vast 
> majority of Irish people believed Sinn F�in's assertion that the ceasefire
was 
> permanent (we recall their condemnation of the British Government for
doubting 
> that it was) and that they now feel duped?

  Do you forget that the British promised talks within 3 months.  Do you
  forget that after 17 months there were no talks, only new precondition,
  after new precondition.  The people who were duped were those who
  believed the British government was interested in peace.

>It is now important to STOP THE KILLING. Will 
> we have to make a blind leap of faith that if a date for all-party, 
>no-precondition talks is announced that the ceasefire will be renewed? 

  I agree, it is important to STOP THE KILLING.  The British government is
  the organization that is stopping this from happening.  Only immediate
  peace talks with their adversaries can bring about a peaceful solution.
  You can't have peace, without peace talks.

>Alternatively can Mark confirm that what we are no faced with is having to 
>accomodate negotiations and violence simultaneously. If so, can he explain to 
>a simpleton (that's me) how this will win the trust and allegience of all the 
>people of the island of Ireland. 

 Only peace talks can end the violence.  No one can guarantee that the talks
 will succeed.  But I can guarantee that the absence of peace talks only
 leaves war in it's place.

                        Mark

> Sinn Fein cannot remain neutral in this and expect to retain any
> credibility. They must either start acting like a responsible political
> party with a democratic mandate and an agenda to follow, or they're
> part of the terrorist movement. Which is it?

  Sinn Fein is a democratic party with a democratic mandate.  End of story.
  Do you forget that the British government has a long record of 
  state-sponsered terrorism in north east Ireland, and yet people are
  willing to talk with it.

                       Mark

Mark,

> Only peace talks can end the violence.  No one can guarantee that the talks
> will succeed.  But I can guarantee that the absence of peace talks only
> leaves war in it's place.

  I agree fully. However, from where we sit (that is on the island of 
Ireland!) it appears that the definition of success is elusive. Are we saying 
that if the Provos consider that the talks have been a failure the violence 
will continue? Is this the basis for talks? 

  Is it your understanding that the Provos and/or Sinn F�in accept the 6 
principles of the Mitchell report. If they do and are willing to be 
unequivical in their statements in this regard, there may be room for 
movement. Please don't launch into a tirade against the British Government's 
dumping of Mitchell - many of us feel this requires no more emphasis. We are 
now trying to move to talks which will ensure that violence is no longer used 
by ANY group to further its political ends. The Mitchell Principles are a good 
start. To date, Martin McGuinness and Mitchell McLoughlan have been less than 
clear on this. Then again, who can blame them, they're not in charge, are 
they? Who is, Mark?

  Do the wishes of the VAST majority of the people of the island of Ireland to 
renounce the use of violence for political ends count for nothing, Mark?

  Pat 

   Mark,

>  Sinn Fein is a democratic party with a democratic mandate.  End of story.
>  Do you forget that the British government has a long record of 
>  state-sponsered terrorism in north east Ireland, and yet people are
>  willing to talk with it.

   I agree that SF (there's a fada on the e, by the way) have an electoral 
mandate. It is a very small mandate. It does not entitle them to wage war on 
the rest of us.

  Pat

 Pat,
   Sinn Fein is not waging war.  The Irish Republican Army is waging war.
                   Mark

>  I agree fully. However, from where we sit (that is on the island of 
>Ireland!) it appears that the definition of success is elusive. Are we saying 
>that if the Provos consider that the talks have been a failure the violence 
>will continue? Is this the basis for talks? 

 I define success as one small positive step at a time.  The basis for talks,
 is the hope of peace.  No one can guarantee the outcomes of peace talks,
 or guarantee an end to all violence.  But there isn't a chance of peace,
 without peace talks.

>  Is it your understanding that the Provos and/or Sinn F�in accept the 6 
>principles of the Mitchell report. If they do and are willing to be 
>unequivical in their statements in this regard, there may be room for 
>movement.

 How a party stands regarding the Mitchell report, is something that they
 can tell you at the peace talks.  That's what peace talks are for.


> Do the wishes of the VAST majority of the people of the island of Ireland to 
>renounce the use of violence for political ends count for nothing, Mark?
 
 They count for a lot.  So do the wishes of the people who have suffered
 under British rule, since they are the ones who have had the toughest
 deal in all of this.

                           Mark
 

    More apologia for terrorism, and more failing to grasp the basic point,
    Holohan. One of the Mitchell principles was that all terrorist groups
    permanently renounce violence. The IRA have not done that, and clearly
    believe that they are justified in not doing so. You assert that the
    British Government has "dumped" the Mitchell report. That's not quite
    true, but I agree that their handling of all this has been more than a
    little inept. However, can you say that the IRA have embraced Mitchell?
    Not unless you're a hypocrite you can't. The IRA, once again seem to be
    suiting themselves.
    
    You assert that the British Government are to blame for the current
    resumption of violence. Crap. As has been said before, the IRA were not
    forced to bomb again, they hadn't tried all avenues. They *want* to
    bomb again.
    
    Laurie.

Mark,
    
>    Sinn Fein is not waging war.  The Irish Republican Army is waging war.
   
    So we keep hearing. Let's accept that for a moment. If it is the Provos
    and not SF (still having difficulty with the fada?) who are waging war
    why negotiate with SF to bring about an end to violence - negotiate
    directly with the Provos. Either we are being asked to collude in a
    convenient fiction or someone (no names, no pack-drill) is reserving
    the right to negotiate with the threat of "total and bloody war" should
    the negotiations not produce the result they desire. (You as a student
    of Irish history will, of course recognise that Lloyd George used this
    tactic in 1920/21). I'm still not clear how we square this circle. It
    is at the kernel of the problem of trust since the 'hard men' pulled
    the rug from under your hero GA (and killed 2 and injured a large
    number of 'economic targets').
    
    Pat
    
     
    

    Mark,


>  They count for a lot.  So do the wishes of the people who have suffered
>  under British rule, since they are the ones who have had the toughest
>  deal in all of this.

    Agreed. And do the Provos have a mandate to kill from these people? If we
accept that there is no connection between Sinn F�in and the Provos (as they
and you keep telling us) how can we judge? If on the other hand we assume that
every vote for SF is an endorsement of the 'armed struggle' (an assumption
that I, for one, would be slow to make), 10% of the Northern Ireland
electorate at most have provided the mandate to the Provos. 

    What do you think of John Hume's idea for an all-Ireland plebiscite on the
use of violence? I will state unequivically, now, that I will accept the will
of the people. Will you Mark?

Pat
    

    Mark, please stop saying that the British Government caused the
    ressumption of violence. If you were in the know then you would know
    that the decision to resume bombing was taken just beore christmas...
    thats before the findings of the Mitchell Report had been released, and
    that also before the British Government had had a chance to muck up!
    
    Obviously your sources are just basic news letters.
    
    Shaun.

    .164
    
    >The people who were duped were those who believed the British government 
    was interested in peace.
    
    I don't seem to recall any of the pro-British factions shooting seven
    people. I don't recall them kneecapping anyone. They certainly haven't
    blown anybody up. All sides what peace full stop. The I.R.A. want peace
    along with *their* pre-conditions. You have no argument here Mark.
    
    >only new precondition, after new precondition.
    
    The pre-conditions have been shown to be justified. Again you have no
    argument.
    
    >I agree, it is important to STOP THE KILLING.  The British government
    is the organization that is stopping this from happening.
    
    Really??? So it was a British finger on the triggers that murdered the
    seven civilians. The Canary Wharf bomb was detonated by a Royal
    Engineer?? John Major was carrying the bomb on the 171??? Yet again no
    argument.
    
    >But I can guarantee that the absence of peace talks only leaves war in 
     it's place.  / \
                   |
    Is this a thinly veiled threat Mark??? Only one side is not being
    peaceful, and we all know who that is. *NO* argument.
    
    
    CHARLEY
    
    

    So, to sum up:
    
    1) SF has no tie-in with the IRA as evidenced by GA's apparent surprise
       at the resumption of violence
    2) GA therefore does not represent the IRA, nor does he have any
       influence over them.
    3) The IRA has decided that the only way to get the peace moving is to
       blow things up in London.
    4) The IRA and SF say that this is the fault of the British Government.
    5) SF, who have around 10% of the vote in NI demand all-party talks
       now.
    
    Any arguments there Holohan? No, I didn't think so.
    
    So, some questions:
    
    1) Who should be invited to the talks to represent the IRA and why?
    2) How do the other parties know that the individual attending truly
       represents the IRA (all of it), and is empowered to make decisions?
    3) Explain how the British Government is supposed to make talks happen
       given the above unknowns.
    4) What guarantees are there that the IRA won't throw their toys out of
       the pram, and dash off blowing things up again if things don't go the
       way they want them to?
    5) Explain how the British Government is supposed to make talks happen
       under the current campaign of bombing London.
    
    Answers Holohan? No, I didn't think so.
    
    Laurie.

 
 Pat,

> If it is the Provos
> and not SF (still having difficulty with the fada?) who are waging war

  Yes, I don't have a compose key on my keyboard, and am not sure of how
  to begin entering 8 bit characters without it. 

> why negotiate with SF to bring about an end to violence - negotiate
> directly with the Provos.

  You negotiate with Sinn Fein because they have a substantial amount
  of the nationalist vote, and as a democratic party are entitled to
  a seat at the peace table. Sinn Fein is not the Irish Republican Army,
  but they do share similiar goals. They only differ in their means
  of achieving them.  Gerry Kelly sat in on the negotiations to keep
  on eye on Sinn Fein.

>Either we are being asked to collude in a
>convenient fiction or someone (no names, no pack-drill) is reserving
>the right to negotiate with the threat of "total and bloody war" should
>the negotiations not produce the result they desire. 

  That's a real possibility.  The British might decide that they don't
  like the direction of the negotiations, and decide on a total and bloody
  war, the loyalist might likewise decide, and finally even the Irish
  Republican Army could decide on that course.  That is the nature of
  peace talks, and conflict resolution.  But, you won't have peace unless
  you have peace talks.


> What do you think of John Hume's idea for an all-Ireland plebiscite on the
>use of violence?

  I think it is a waste of time.  Nobody wants to have to use violence. 

>I will state unequivically, now, that I will accept the will
>of the people. Will you Mark?

  That depends. If that will is for a "majority" to continue abuse the
  human rights of a "minority", no.


                                Mark





 

Mark,

>  of achieving them.  Gerry Kelly sat in on the negotiations to keep
>  on eye on Sinn Fein.

 Can we infer from this that Mr. Kelly is not a member of SF but of a 
controlling organisation - which one?

>  That depends. If that will is for a "majority" to continue abuse the
>  human rights of a "minority", no.
 
 Let's get this straight. Are you saying that if a majority (with or without 
quotes) of the people of the island of Ireland say that they do not want their 
political or civil rights achieved through the use of violence that the Provos 
will still have the right to carry on their campaign? At the same time, SF are 
a party exclusively devoted to democratic politics? These statements are 
compatible?

Pat

    Re: .176
    
    Sinn Fein command approximately 9 - 10% of the vote. That is not 
    a substantial amount. 
    
    Assume that, as precedent has it, the voting statistics across
    _my_ divided community fall roughly into line with the 60/40
    Protestant/Catholic (Unionist/Nationalist.. or SDLP) split, then
    Sinn Fein have about 25% of the Nationalist vote. Again, that is 
    not a substantial amount in relation to the enfranchised wishes
    of the remaining 75% of Nationalists who do not vote for Sinn Fein.
    
    Any vote for a subsequently elected Sinn Fein candidate does not guarantee 
    representation of the voter's intentions. Sinn Fein has often refused
    to sit, although before anyone points it out, that stance has often been 
    presesnted as part of its manifesto -- a collection basket for the 
    protest vote. Nevertheless, I put it that a vote cast thus in protest does
    not necessarily express a mandate for Sinn Fein's "policies" which
    among its few, include at the very least, a tacit support for a return to 
    murder.
    
    That is undemocratic: it is unjust.
    
    Does it have any other policies, I wonder. On education? On employment?
    On the economy? On policing? On welfare? On civil rights and equal
    opportunities? 
    
    The Six Counties were set up so that Unionists would have complete 
    hegemony for the then forseeable future. Indeed, with the expressed
    approval of Westminster, they were encouraged to limit resources for
    development, employment and education for the Nationalist underlcass.
    Northern Ireland was granted leave to run its own Apartheid.
    Understandable in a way: the Unionist viewpoint was that the 26
    counties had unfinished business to complete, an objective enshrined
    in their constitution. Northern Ireland was then a very valuable 
    economic unit for the British effort in WW1. The favoured class was
    prepared to work masses of overtime to build ships for the war, for 
    example. Wages were low, but the Protestant working man could get
    ahead, as long as the Catholic man was excluded from participation
    -- under-educated and under-employed. Division and Rule.
    
    That situation has changed. Unemployment is a major problem throughout
    the whole population, and Northern Ireland is no longer the economic
    jewel that it once was. The province's average is 19.3%. On projected
    growth of the voting population across the sectarian divide, there will
    be a Nationalist majority by the early part of the second decade in
    the next century.   
    
    As a lapsed Catholic, and part of one of the North's (and South's) 
    two biggest export commodities -- brains and beef (arf!) --
    I remain passionately interested in what's going on back home. I have
    many friends a relatives there. I visit the place several times a 
    year, and I don't see much in the way of healthy debate on issues that 
    affect the everyday life of decent people who try to live in some kind 
    of normality.
    
    What I do see is the inexorable entrenchment of a cancer that grew
    in Sicily, was nurtured unwittingly by the US during prohibition
    and has deep-seated power in respectable industries -- Mob rule.
    Brigandry, extortion, corruption, intimidation, and drug running,
    fostered in a climate of deprivation and inequitable distribution of 
    opportunity and resources, and institutionalised in the name of jingoistic 
    extremes. The IRA and the UDA have carved it up between them. 
    
    So, how do you fix that?
    
    John 
    

    *APPLAUSE*

    Good note John.
    
    Shan.

    Thanks John. Good note.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    I read an interview in `Scotland on Sunday' yesterday with the Pat
    Doherty, one of the leaders of Sinn Fein. He sounded very pessimistic.
    He said that he could foresee little or no progress before the next
    General Election. The SF mindset is that Mr Major cannot move while he
    needs the Unionist votes and that they could see nothing new arising from 
    a Labour government. They would prefer to see a John Major-led
    Conservative government with a healthy majority! There are meetings
    today between SF and the government but I expect little to come from
    this meeting or from the Inter-governmental meeting coming up. 
    
    The `Scotland on Sunday' also had a story about the UN offering to
    intervene in this dispute. The UN started to offer their services
    within a few weeks of the ceasefire and, SoS says, they gave up in
    frustration two months ago. The government had continually declined their 
    offer. I don't intend this note as a Brit-bashing exercise but what was
    there to lose from involving the UN?...I think they proposed setting up
    an international conference in Geneva to discuss/debate the issues. HMG
    said that it was an internal matter. 
    
    Ray.... 
        

 Pat,

> Let's get this straight. Are you saying that if a majority (with or without 
>quotes) of the people of the island of Ireland say that they do not want their 
>political or civil rights achieved through the use of violence that the Provos 
>will still have the right to carry on their campaign?


  What majority? What else are they allowed to vote on? Are the rights of
  the minority going to be guaranteed by a Bill of Rights?  Is this majority
  also allowed to vote on removal of foreign troops? or to force the British
  government to sit down at the peace table with their enemies? 

  How does the saying go, "It's rather fruitless for the sheep to make 
  resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, when the wolves are of a different
  opinion."

  How's about a vote for mom, and applie pie.  Everyone likes these ideals
  Does this mean I get a new mum, and a slice of apple pie?

                                     Mark

  

 John,
   You got a nice round of applause from the uninformed.

>   Does it have any other policies, I wonder. On education? On employment?
>   On the economy? On policing? On welfare? On civil rights and equal
>   opportunities? 

  I'll point you to the Sinn Fein home page, they have policies on all
  these important issues.

   http://www.serve.com/rm/sinnfein/index.html

                           Mark

>   You got a nice round of applause from the uninformed.

give it a rest, Mark.

Chris.

RE:                     <<< Note 1549.184 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>

>> John,
>>   You got a nice round of applause from the uninformed.
    
    So inform me, Holohan, answer my questions in .175.
    
    Laurie.

    Well, after all the toing and froing of the last 18-19 months a date
    has finally been set for all-party talks. The only pre-condition is a
    commitment to peace and democracy. It seems that all parties have given
    it a guarded welcome. The set date, I think, is in early June....
    
    Ray....

    .184
    
    >You got a nice round of applause from the uninformed.
    
    A phrase involving the words pot and kettle springs to mind.
    
    You still didn't answer Pat's question.
    
    
    CHARLEY

  Mark,  

>  What majority? 

   A majority of those who vote in a plebiscite to be agreed by parties who 
take part in talks to start on Monday. SF can take a full part in those talks 
and influence the questions to be asked if the IRA reinstate the ceasefire. If 
the ceasefire is not called, SF will still be consulted but indirectly. If you 
were present on Sunday last in Dublin you would have heard what ordinary 
people think about the IRA's campaign.

  The purpose of such a plebiscite is to test the IRA assertion that the 
legitimacy of their campaign is based on the last all Ireland vote - general 
election of 1918 and local elections of 1920.

>               What else are they allowed to vote on? Are the rights of
>  the minority going to be guaranteed by a Bill of Rights?  Is this majority
>  also allowed to vote on removal of foreign troops? or to force the British
>  government to sit down at the peace table with their enemies? 

  The troops were being removed (albeit too slowly) during the 17 month 
'ceasefire' (during which the IRA carried out so-called punishment beatings 
and shootings).

  Most democratic parties in these islands now recognise that part of any 
eventual settlement will include a Bill of Rights. 

  How about my question regarding the role that you ascribed to Mr. Kelly?

  By the way, I would appreciate hearing what YOU think of the likelihood of 
SF asking the IRA to resume the ceasefire on the basis of yesterday's 
communique - or should we merely consult the SF home page?

    
  10 June has been set for inclusive talks.
  
   

>  How does the saying go, "It's rather fruitless for the sheep to make 
>  resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, when the wolves are of a different
>  opinion."

   Mark, speak not in riddles; please identify for me the sheep, the wolves 
and the veggie heads. You, as a democrat surely are not suggesting that the 
majority of those who live on the island of Ireland are sheep. Brings to mind 
the British generals' views of their troops in the first world war - the 
donkeys!  

>  How's about a vote for mom, and applie pie.  Everyone likes these ideals
>  Does this mean I get a new mum, and a slice of apple pie?

  If that's what you desire Mark, who knows?

  Pat

> How about my question regarding the role that you ascribed to Mr. Kelly?

  I'd guess he was an observer, whose job was to report back on the
  progress of negotiations (or lack thereof as it turned out).

> By the way, I would appreciate hearing what YOU think of the likelihood of 
>SF asking the IRA to resume the ceasefire on the basis of yesterday's 
>communique - or should we merely consult the SF home page?

  You should consult the SF home page for SF's point of view.  I personally
  think it would be a mistake for the IRA to immediately resume the cease-fire.
  We're talking about another British promise for all-party talks.  The last
  promise was to have delivered all party talks after 3 months of cease-fire.
  And yet, believe it or not, the British broke their word.  Now we have a
  new British promise of all-party talks, to happen in another 3 months (almost
  two years after the initial cease-fire).  What's to stop the British
  government from lieing again?

>10 June has been set for inclusive talks.

  In response, I think that the Irish Republican Army should agree to commence
  a cease fire starting 10 June.  Then everyone can sit down at the table.
  That is of course, if the British government don't introduce a new pre-
  condition.

> If that's what you desire Mark, who knows? 

  My point was that everyone wants a peaceful solution, and a non-violent
  one.  Only immediate peace talks can bring this possibility to fruition.

                            Mark
  

    .190
    
    God this *is* depressing.
    
    >I personally think it would be a mistake for the IRA to immediately 
     resume the  cease-fire.
    
    So you think it's O.K. to carry on bombing the innocent civilians in
    London do you? Sums you up really.
    
    > The last promise was to have delivered all party talks after 3 months of
      cease-fire. And yet, believe it or not, the British broke their word. 
    
    Don't you listen to anything anybody says?? There *was* no I.R.A. cease
    fire, they carried on killing/shooting people that disagreed with their
    drug running/protection rackets.
    
    >In response, I think that the Irish Republican Army should agree to
    commence a cease fire starting 10 June.
    
    So anybody killed in bomb attacks in between now and then are justified
    deaths in your opinion?? Sick.
    
    >My point was that everyone wants a peaceful solution, and a
     non-violent one.
    
    Everybody has been peaceful for the past 17/18 months. All except one
    group. They have stalled and are stalling the peace talks. If the
    I.R.A./S.F. really wanted peace they would not have killed. It is as
    simple as that.
    
    
    CHARLEY
    
    

	Mark,

>  I'd guess he was an observer, whose job was to report back on the
>  progress of negotiations (or lack thereof as it turned out).

	For whom was he observing? Do these people have the ultimate veto? Do 
SF control them or vice versa?


>  You should consult the SF home page for SF's point of view.

   I stand chastised!

>  I personally think it would be a mistake for the IRA to immediately resume 
> the cease-fire.  We're talking about another British promise for all-party > 
> talks.  The last promise was to have delivered all party talks after 3 
> months of cease-fire.  And yet, believe it or not, the British broke their 
> word.  Now we have a new British promise of all-party talks, to happen in 
> another 3 months (almost two years after the initial cease-fire).  What's to 
> stop the British government from lieing again?

   O.K so you don't trust the British government, the Irish government, the 
U.S. government - maybe we should ask the Michigan Militia or the NRA to act 
as guarantors of good faith. So by continuing to kill, the necessary trust 
will be built up among the people of the island of Ireland to resolve the 
conflict? As it has over the last 25 years, without a shadow of a doubt. 


> In response, I think that the Irish Republican Army should agree to commence
> a cease fire starting 10 June.  Then everyone can sit down at the table.
> That is of course, if the British government don't introduce a new pre-
> condition.

	The victims of bombings and shootings will die happy in the knowledge 
that you approve of their sacrifice on our behalf.

>  My point was that everyone wants a peaceful solution, and a non-violent
>  one.  Only immediate peace talks can bring this possibility to fruition.

	It is sometimes difficult to decipher the wish for peace in your 
rhetoric. Maybe it is the way that I read it. It surely can't be anything to 
do with your choice of language, can it, Mark?

	Pat 

>  I personally
>  think it would be a mistake for the IRA to immediately resume the cease-fire.

unbelievable.  I knew you could be callous, but this really takes the biscuit.

Chris.

                 <<< Note 1549.192 by SIOG::62842::poconnell >>>

>>  My point was that everyone wants a peaceful solution, and a non-violent
>>  one.  Only immediate peace talks can bring this possibility to fruition.

>	It is sometimes difficult to decipher the wish for peace in your 
>rhetoric. Maybe it is the way that I read it. It surely can't be anything to 
>do with your choice of language, can it, Mark?

	Pat,

        I sometimes wonder if some people would hate to have peace in
        Ireland and the UK. It would leave a terrible void in some peoples'
        lives, and huge holes in the pockets of others. 


	Stuart

    Re: .184
    
    Thank you for sharing that with me.
    
    I do not concur with your view on my colleagues' level of information 
    on the subject.  
    
    When news reports from the US about the terrorist attack on the UN 
    building, and then graphic reports on the Oklahoma slaughter hit the 
    screens here in the UK, it was obvious that Americans were deeply
    shocked and outraged. And quite justifiably so. If memory serves me
    correctly, the UN attack was the first real terrorist attack on US
    soil. America had been violated. Something nasty came home to roost.
    Not just news pictures on TV screens. Not just like the movies where
    bad guys carry guns, good guys always win and only the pauses get
    pregnant.
    
    Nope.. this was the real thing. A smell of cordite, perhaps; a smell
    of roast flesh; the screams of ordinary people in terror and pain; perhaps
    the uncontrolled sobs of the living for the loss of the dead. Oh yeah..
    and blood everywhere, entrails hanging from telegraph wires and broken
    windows, charred limbs and dismembered bodies lying on the streets, and
    the walking wounded, dazed and deafened, staggering aimlessly in all the 
    confusion.
    
    One in ten families in Northern Ireland has lost a relative through
    the troubles. One in three people in Northern Ireland know someone
    who was killed. There have been over 30,000 terrorist incidents since
    the troubles began in 1968/9. 
    
    For myself, I heard my first bomb when I was two -- 300 yards from my
    home on Easter Sunday 1956. I was nearly blown to pieces one night on 
    the way home from a school dance. I was nearly shot by the army when I 
    was training/jogging along a country road near my parents' house. I had
    to surround myself with as many walls as possible when the IRA and the 
    Paratroopers "engaged" across my parents' house. (A standard army issue 
    .765 SLR bullet will go through a brick wall.) All this before I got
    to metriculate for university here in England.
    
    There have been many demonstrations for peace in Northern Ireland, and
    in the South. Thousands and thousands of families from all walks of
    life holding up their white cardboard doves.
    
    If that wish for peace does not mean anything to you, you are either 
    lacking in information, lacking in human decency, or both. The first,
    you can do something about.
    
    So if the "boys" in your neighbourhood come round looking for cash
    donations (silent collections only) just for once try to imagine where
    your dollar bills go: materiels, consumables, collateral damage and
    dope. 
    
    Politics? Justice? Freedom?
    
    My arse.
    
    I hope that's clear.
    
    Regards,
    
    John
    
    
    
        
     
    
    

    RE: 1549.195 
    
    *** APPLAUSE *** One of the finest notes I've ever read.
    
    Oh, and Kevin, WRT (justifiably) censoring Holohan under PP&P.
    
    I cite 1549.190 as a prime example of why Holohan should never be
    censored in this conference. I want his beliefs and values apparent to
    all, especially those US citizens fed a diet of IRA propaganda and
    bullshit, and who never hear any other than one side. Personal attacks
    on Holohan have been criticised in this conference recently, mostly by
    US-resident "Irishmen". Well, I make no apologies for attacking a man
    who publicly supports and encourages terrorism, the murder of innocent
    men, women and children, in pursuit of their aims. I make no apologies
    for attacking a man who has made a personal crusade of promoting their
    cause, and attempting to convert others to said cause through the
    cynical use of propaganda, half-truths, twisted logic and downright
    lies.
    
    Laurie.

    >I cite 1549.190 as a prime example of why Holohan should never be
    >censored in this conference. I want his beliefs and values apparent to
    >all, especially those US citizens fed a diet of IRA propaganda and
    >bullshit, and who never hear any other than one side.
    
    This is a question of degree. That is to say when should we and when
    shouldn't we censor. To some extent this debate is superfluous, as the
    PP&P seem quite clear to me. That means that those who think that
    this kind of crap should be censored have nothing to gripe about, as
    the company policy is clear. We just have to wait for the
    implementation.
    
    However there are I believe good reasons for saying that in this case
    there should be censorship. 
    
    Mr Holohan mocks the suffering of IRA victims. Out of respect for these
    and their relatives, his filth should be wiped clean.
    
    Secondly, he stirs up hatred. If we allow him to do it, how will we
    deal with the next one ?
    
    Thirdly, by allowing it to stand, we make it to some extent acceptable
    to express such views. It is not.
    
    There was a good reason for 'tolerating' it while the ceasefire was on,
    but as long as outrages are on the agenda, it is important to make
    absolutely clear to everyone, also "misinformed US readers", that is is
    completely out. BTW I am not so sure that there is a large body of
    misinformed freaks in the USA. The great majority reject terror, I
    believe. 
    What may be the case is that IRA supporters are largely ignored and not
    exposed to the pressures they would have here. I think if Mr Holohan
    worked in many offices over here there would be uproar and refusals to
    work. 
    
    Kevin
     

    I was one of the people who complained about personal attacks becoming
    somewhat tedious a while back. BTW I am not a US "Irishman" as Laurie
    puts it, but a 100% Irishman who happens to live in Ottawa, Canada.
    
    Based on note .190 I retract my previous complaint and have finally
    albeit a little  late, seen Holohan for what he really is... a
    hatemonger and coward who hides behind the veil of Sinn Fein while
    really supporting the terrorism of the IRA. 
    
    On the censorship issue, I'm not quite sure. If he is blatantly
    violating the P&P's then I guess something should be done about it.
    
    Gerry

    "BTW - I am not so sure that there is a large body of misinformed
    freaks in the USA..."
    
    You can rest assured. There are not many at all.
    
    I'm a read only noter in this file.  You can tell from my name that I'm
    of Irish descent.  I am an American, and very proud of it.  Which is one
    of the reasons why Mark's unthinking and unfeeling rhetoric is so
    offensive to me. I personally believe that Mark provides a caricature of
    Irish-Americans which is both convenient and untrue.  The problem is that
    people extrapolate that caricature to include all Americans of Irish
    descent who retain an interest in Irish affairs and want to see the
    right thing done in Ulster.
    
    It's convenient because it allows people to minimize genuine interest
    by Americans relative to genuine issues in Ireland by saying that they
    have heard "rumours" of glee on the streets of Boston at the recent London
    bombings (an appalling untruth).  It also allows people who are
    disinclined to change to point to romantic, external influences as the
    root cause of trouble in Northern Ireland instead of looking the
    problem straight on and acknowledging ownership.
    
    It is a characteristic of debate when very contentious issues are
    involved that the extremists carry the day.  I can tell you that this
    is the case in Irish-American debate on Ulster.  People like Mark get
    the most ink, but they do not represent the rank and file.
    
    Since I know I'll probably be asked this by the opinion takers from
    both sides of the aisle in this conference, I:
    	~ Unequivocably condemn the London bombings.
    	~ Unreservedly disagree with Mark. I'm embarassed by him.
    	~ Do not contribute to the IRA or to SF.
    	~ Do favor new form of government for Ulster (One that ensures
    	  justice for all groups, it's really none of my business what
    	  form this takes.) 
    	~ Do think that the ceasefire was mishandled about as badly as
    	  possible by John Major. (Did he really think because Hume and Mallon
    	  are reasonable men that he was dealing with reasonable people in
   	  the IRA ?)
	~ Have a strongly held belief that Britain has not fairly dealt
    	  with nationalist aspirations and avoids risk taking where the
    	  Loyalists are concerned.
	~ Pray that the ceasefire will be reinstated without delay.

    Re: .199
    
    Amen.
    
    Thank you,
    
    John

    Re: .199
    Good note.
    
    George

    I can't tell you how good it is to read .198 and .199
    
    I must also apologise if I have caused any offence by the inadvertant
    impression that I believe all Irish-Americans to be rabid supporters of
    terrorism: I don't.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    I'm with .198 and .199 as well.
    
    
    CHARLEY

  Excuse me, but why should there be any new preconditions on peace talks?
  Why can't peace talks happen immediately?

> So you think it's O.K. to carry on bombing the innocent civilians in
> London do you? Sums you up really.

  I never said that.  I said that "I personally think it would be a mistake
  for the IRA to immediately resume the  cease-fire." The IRA has been lied
  to already by the British government, when they first promised peace
  talks immediately if a cease fire was announced.  Then the British government
  introduced one new condition after another, and now an election. This
  election is opposed by both John Hume and Gerry Adams as a new and
  unacceptable precondition.  Why should the IRA announce a new cease-fire?
  If I was them (and no, I'm not), I wouldn't announce a cease-fire until
  everyone was allowed to sit down at the peace table, period.

> So anybody killed in bomb attacks in between now and then are justified
> deaths in your opinion?? Sick.

  Nope, just the reality of what's going to happen without immediate peace
  talks.

> One in ten families in Northern Ireland has lost a relative through
> the troubles. One in three people in Northern Ireland know someone
> who was killed.

  Loathe as I am to reveal personal facts in this notes conference:
  Let me enlighten you and all others Mr. Bennett.  I take no pleasure in
  this fact, and I know more deeply than any of you what it means to have
  a family member murdered, as I have lived through the experience.  You 
  can go on and on about your "real thing" stories, but unless you've gone
  through it, you don't have a clue.  I also know what it feels like
  to then watch the "justice system" perverted in such a way as to
  yield no justice. 

> I personally believe that Mark provides a caricature of
> Irish-Americans which is both convenient and untrue. 

  I am not an Irish-American, I am an American.  How many times am I going
  to have to repeat this, before it sinks in?  As someone who believes
  deeply in freedom and justice, I can understand fully why the Irish
  Republican Army are at war with the British.  This doesn't mean I like
  it, just that I understand it.   Why after 17 months are there no peace
  talks?  Why can't the British government start the peace talks today?
  And why, pray tell is the wish for immediate peace talks equated to
  Irish Republican Army propoganda?

                              Mark


   

  "The scheme is simple.  You knock a man down and then have him
  arrested for assault.  You kill a man and then hang the corpse."

             W.E.B. Du Bois, African-American perspective on
             Ireland conflict in The Seventh Son, "Bleeding Ireland"

    Questions for all:
    
    1	What is the record number of replies to a note?
    
    2	This note has gone on for 25 days. Would it solve anything if it
    	went on for a further 25 years?
    
    3	Is there anything stated here in the course of 205 replies that has 
    	not been said repeatedly already during the last 25 years?
    
    4	How would you describe the Ireland you would ideally like to see in
    	place in 25 years time?
    	
    
    	Use a slogan, for example:
    
    	-	A protestant country for a protestant people.
    	-	One holy, Catholic and apostolic country.
    	-	An island of saints and scholars.
    	-	A country built on business for business.
     	-	Liberte, fraternate, equalite.
    
    Let's begin to envisage the future here and be pro-active. We might
    influence it! We've got all the brains, electronic tools and ethnic
    diversity needed. 
    
    Let's stop reacting to events and generally abusing
    eachother. We employ politicians to do that!
    
    Stepping off my soap-box for a good weekend,
    
    Sean
    

>    1	What is the record number of replies to a note?

don't know, but I've seen several way over 500 and a couple over 1100 ......
          <<< RGNET::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;2 >>>
                            -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
  ================================================================================
  Note 6.1163             Prayer Requests (prayers in 7.*)            1163 of 1163

                     <<< Note 1549.204 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>
                     -< Peace talks now, not in 3 months. >-
>  I am not an Irish-American, I am an American.  How many times am I going
>  to have to repeat this, before it sinks in?  As someone who believes
>  deeply in freedom and justice



  So presumably a lot of your time and effort is spent fighting for
  justice for the indigenous North American population?? 

  Stuart

>  I am not an Irish-American, I am an American.  How many times am I going

You are not American.  You were born in London, a fact pointed out by 
yourself.

>  to have to repeat this, before it sinks in?  As someone who believes
>  deeply in freedom and justice

So what about the freedom of the people of Britain and Ireland to live their 
lives without fear of attack from the IRA, who you reckon would be foolish to 
stop their latest campaign of violence?  What about justice for the innocent 
people killed and injured in the bombings that you refuse to condemn?

You really are a sick, offensive hypocrite, and I don't care if you do moan 
about that being a personal attack, as it pales into insignificance compared 
to being a target of a murderous campaign that you evidently support.

Chris.

    Holohan, here's a question, and I should like an answer:
    
    Why do you believe it would be a mistake for the IRA to declare an
    immediate cease-fire?
    
    Laurie.

    Mark,
    
    I am deeply sorry to learn that you have been bereaved through
    murder.
    
    I am sorry that while we have both expressed strong points of 
    view and related experiences in a fairly graphic manner, we
    have not managed a meeting of minds in rational debate. Your
    own experience may have increased the passion with which you
    express a strident entrenchment in your point of view, and 
    perhaps limited your willingness to extrapolate personal tragedy
    of that magnitude repeated and repeated across the whole of
    Northern Ireland in the last quarter of a century or so. 
    
    Several boys in my school got sucked in to so called active service
    in the IRA, and are now dead as a result: blown up by their own
    bombs or shot.
    
    I'm not going to try to "enlighten" you on the moral rights and 
    wrongs, for example, of that section of the American  Constitution 
    which entitles American citizens to carry a gun.
    
    There is no debate between us.
    
    Goodbye.
    
    John.         

    .204
    
    >I never said that.  I said that "I personally think it would be a
    mistake  for the IRA to immediately resume the  cease-fire." 
    
    Oh you really are clueless Mark. What is the upshot of the I.R.A. not
    resuming the ceasefire?? Innocent deaths that's what.
    
    Why should they be allowed at the peace table when they are killing
    people?
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Holohan,
    
    I see you've posted a note since I posted my .210
    
    Are you going to ignore that question too? I think we deserve an
    answer.
    
    Laurie.

    He's too scared to Lozzer. He knows he's wrong.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    
    In 1549.206.4, McGettricks asked if noters would begin to elaborate
    on their vision for Ulster's government after the eventual resolution
    to these talks. What political form would the solution take?
                        
    It's a pretty sad commentary on the level of debate in this notesfile
    that everybody chose to ignore Sean and carry on calling people names.
    
    Now, we can all wait for Mark to go to the SF homepage on the net (if
    he already hasn't) and give us the canned SF answer, or we can propose
    what we think and why we think it might work. 
    
    This is a real challenge to those British noters in here who seem to
    find new ways to use terms like "coward, scum, etc." but who only
    really react to Mark's nonsense. 
    
    What's your answer...?
    
    

    What do you mean it's a real challenge to the British noters (why only
    British?) Are you saying I'm/we're thick?
    
    >but who only really react to Mark's nonsense.
    
    So you blame us then?
    
    
    CHARLEY

in .215 Barry wrote:-

>    This is a real challenge to those British noters in here who seem to
>    find new ways to use terms like "coward, scum, etc." but who only
>    really react to Mark's nonsense. 
    

and in .216 CHARLEY responds to the challenge of an educated political 
debate with...

>    What do you mean it's a real challenge to the British noters (why only
>    British?) Are you saying I'm/we're thick?
    
>    >but who only really react to Mark's nonsense.
    
>    So you blame us then?

This wouldn't be half as funny if he understood the irony ;-)

Before you ask, CHARLEY, "irony" is not the process of removing creases from 
your shirt ;-)

Ed.
    

Ed, you are not helping to persue reasoned debate by goading people.

Chris.

    Irony?? That's near Belgium isn't it??
    
    
    CHARLEY
      XXX

    No, it's like silvery and goldy, except made of iron.
    
    Helpfully, Laurie.

    re .215 The only real answer to the question "What political form would
    the solution take?" is "One acceptable to the majority of the
    inhabitants of Ulster", otherwise it won't be a solution. It's very
    difficult for any of us, whether we're looking from 100 miles away or
    3000 miles away, to say what would be acceptable to people of both
    communities born and brought up in Ulster. I guess that we can only
    hope that progress is made in the talks. From the outside a "wish list"
    could be as follows:
    
    1)Acceptable to the majority
    
    2)A devolved parliament elected by PR
    
    3)A written Constitution or Bill of Rights to protect minorities
     against discrimination
    
    4)Representatives elected by the parliament to take part in an All
     Ireland Council.
    
    5)Said All Ireland Council to be initially a discussion forum with no
     executive or legislative powers. Any Change in this to be agreed
     unanimously by concil members. 

    re .215 
    
    >It's a pretty sad commentary on the level of debate in this notesfile
    >that everybody chose to ignore Sean and carry on calling people
    >names.
    
    This is not true. There have been numerous attempts to have a
    constructive debates here, but they invariably get hijacked by Mr.
    Holohans's criminal propaganda and hate mail. I had a discussion with
    Sean about this which he chose not to continue, which is fair enough.
    
    For my part I don't really enjoy having discussions which try and
    pretend something is not there.  The fact is that Mr Holohan regards
    some of the British/English contributers here as part of the enemy,
    London is a legitimate economic target, and if Digital business is
    damaged in London that is a cause of sarcastic glee. He would also like
    us to stop work and run out the door every time some IRA stooge rings
    us up. 
    
    Mr Holohan has no interest in a consensus emerging here because it
    would not fit his racial/nationalist interpretation of the conflict, or
    his support for terror against civilians until human rights are granted
    (!).
    
    It is a sad commentary alright, but the sad thing is that Digital
    employees put up with this festering sore instead of providing the
    conditions for a civilised discussion of the issues.
    
    Kevin  
         

    Nice note Kev.
    
    
    CHARLEY

re: .209.4 (CHEFS::MCGETTRICKS)

This is my favourite solution, not that I ever expect it will become
a reality (but then that wasn't a precondition of .209.4)!

The formation of a new Country called the 'Republic of the British Isles'.
This would comprise the following states:

Northern England
Southern England
Scotland 
Wales
Ireland

Each state would have its own assembly, structured according to the local needs
and requirements of each geography. It would have tax raising and law making
competence.

The states would be represented in a bicameral assembly, one chamber
elected by proportional representation the other representing the states.
The traditional protestant political model of limited government under
a constitution would apply.

This model would satisfy Irish Replublican aspirations as it would
remove the political division of Ireland. This would satisfy Unionist 
aspirations as they are still in the Union. A common currency would end the
nonsense of Eire trying to go it alone (preferably the Euro). By dividing
England into it's ethnic regions and having equal representation of the
states in one house would remove England's ability to dominate the new
Country.

So, would that work?

M

Sounds great to me.  If only...

Chris.

As a Scot, I truly loathe the idea of a Scottish parliament.  
The urban parts of Scotland vote Labour with no thought or
regard to that party's policies, I really don't want to have
to suffer financially for the lack of capacity for independent
thought shown by most of my fellow countrymen.

regards,
//alan

    Re .224
    
    That sounds great to me too. When can we start :-)
    
    Re .226
    
    Unlike yourself, Alan, I would rather "suffer financially for the lack
    of capacity for independent thought shown by most of my fellow
    countrymen" than suffer financially for the greed and self
    gratification (and possibly a lack of independent thought as well)
    shown by most of the English voters whose votes decide what government
    shall be imposed on Scotland.
    

    Unlike yourself, Alan, I would rather "suffer financially for the lack
    of capacity for independent thought shown by most of my fellow
    countrymen" than suffer financially for the greed and self
    gratification (and possibly a lack of independent thought as well)
    shown by most of the English voters whose votes decide what government
    shall be imposed on Scotland.
    
It's the same old argument, Eddie.  I don't believe that people suddenly start
becoming different at Carter Bar; you apparently do.

//atp

    Re .228
    
    The argument may be old but that doesn't diminish its truth.
    
    I don't believe people become radically different across the border but
    I'm sure even you would agree that the people of Lanarkshire are quite
    different from the people of Hampshire.
    

>    I don't believe people become radically different across the border but
>    I'm sure even you would agree that the people of Lanarkshire are quite
>    different from the people of Hampshire.

in what way?

Chris.

    I don't believe people become radically different across the border but
    I'm sure even you would agree that the people of Lanarkshire are quite
    different from the people of Hampshire.
    
I believe that the similarities outweigh the differences.  For that matter I
believe that the similarities of people the world over outweigh the 
differences.  

When people concentrate on what unites them, on shared interests, on mutual
communication, on the similarities, then people develop together and grow
together.

When people concentrate on the differences, and reinforce them - as politicians
are wont to do - that leads to confrontation.

Musicians don't make war; politicians do...

//alan



>   Why do you believe it would be a mistake for the IRA to declare an
>   immediate cease-fire?

  I suppose that from the IRA's point of view, since callinga cease-fire
  didn't lead to peace talks after 17 months, what would be accomplished
  by calling one now?  The British government have made some progress, 
  but still haven't removed all the preconditions that they have set
  on peace talks.  Preconditions, which the people they are fighting, find
  unacceptable.  Why not remove all preconditions, and have peace talks
  immediately?
                 
                           Mark

    There was no cease fire on the part of the I.R.A. Mark.
    
    Learn.
    
    CHARLEY

>     1)Acceptable to the majority

  Agreed.  In truth though I think that acceptable to the Majority will
  need to take into account not only the people in the occupied counties,
  but also the rest of Irish and British people who both lay claim to
  the occupied counties.  If Irish and British claims are not taken into
  account then you probably won't have a "majority" acceptable solution.

  The wishes of the majority of British people to "jettison" north east
  Ireland must be taken into account.

>3)A written Constitution or Bill of Rights to protect minorities
     against discrimination

  Absolutely.  A guarantee of basic human rights is essential, both for
  the nationalist and loyalist communities.


  Now, hopefully this can all be a given, and a lot sooner than 25 years.
  Why not now?  Perhaps immediate peace talks between the "warring" parties
  could reach a consensus?  We'll never know though, until the British
  government agrees to sit down with it's adversaries, at the peace table.

                        Mark

  P.S.
   It's also important that we don't let any Marxist or Communist dogma
   slip into the solution.  All those methods bring, is despair for the
   whole community.

 
    

>There was no cease fire on the part of the I.R.A. Mark.
    
>    Learn.
    
>    CHARLEY

 Huh? Gee Charley, even the British government acknowledged the cease-fire.
 You, Kevin, and Laurie, really are confused, or at least not as in step
 with HMG as you'd like.

 Do you also subscribe to the theory that the moon landing was faked, and
 really filmed in a holywood studio?  Is this another "Capitalist" conspiracy
 against the proletariat :-)
  
                     Mark

>  The wishes of the majority of British people to "jettison" north east
>  Ireland must be taken into account.

Can you back up this assertion, or is it just wishful thinking on your part?

Dave

    .234
    
    >  The wishes of the majority of British people to "jettison" north east
       Ireland must be taken into account.
    
    
    From where do you get this "majority".
    
    >It's also important that we don't let any Marxist or Communist dogma
     slip into the solution.  All those methods bring, is despair for the
     whole community.
    
     So are you saying that a Marxist or communist party should have no
     part in negotiation talks?
    
    CHARLEY

    >Huh? Gee Charley, even the British government acknowledged the
    cease-fire. You, Kevin, and Laurie, really are confused, or at least not as
    in step with HMG as you'd like.
    
    Yes the British Govt. acknowledged and practiced the cease fire. As 
    recently as Tuesday the same Govt. stated that the I.R.A. didn't. 7 murders
    Mark, a score or so of kneecappings, has this conveniently slipped from your
    memory?
    
    
    CHARLEY

RE:                     <<< Note 1549.232 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>

>> >   Why do you believe it would be a mistake for the IRA to declare an
>> >   immediate cease-fire?
>> 
>>   I suppose that from the IRA's point of view, since callinga cease-fire
>>   didn't lead to peace talks after 17 months, what would be accomplished
>>   by calling one now?  The British government have made some progress, 
>>   but still haven't removed all the preconditions that they have set
>>   on peace talks.  Preconditions, which the people they are fighting, find
>>   unacceptable.  Why not remove all preconditions, and have peace talks
>>   immediately?
                 
    You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask for speculation as to why
    the IRA might not want a ceasefire, I asked why *you* believed that "it
    would be a mistake for the IRA to declare an immediate cease-fire".
    You made the statement, and we deserve to know why *you* believe that to
    be the case.
    
    Laurie.

    
>  The wishes of the majority of British people to "jettison" north east
>  Ireland must be taken into account.

   Don't know where you got this from Mark but I'd challenge it. I've never
seen a proper opinion poll taken on this question but the major opinion 
formers, i.e. the print and electronic media certainly don't push this line.
   As an experiment I decided to conduct my own very informal survey over the 
weekend, the question was "Should Britain disengage unilaterally from NI." 
Results: 16 NO's, 3 YES's and one don't know" . Sample covered age range
from 17-60, but as it consisted solely of my family, friends and aquiantances,
can't be considered fully representative I guess :-). 
   It would be interesting to get a view from poeple using this notes file, 
possibly using the question as formulated above and indicating where they are 
based, i.e. Uk or non-UK, not precise location. Again it would be helpful if 
normally read only noters could reply.
   For the record my vote would be NO.

                                 Dennis

Mark,

	I note that you have lost interest in my questions regarding the 
relationship between SF and the organisation for whom Mr. Kelly would appear 
to observe. Was this because:

1. you don't have the answers?

2. you have the answers but they are embarrassing?

3. you believe they are unimportant?

	I'm still interested. If we are to enter into inclusive talks it would 
be nice to know who will decide on whether the outcome of these talks are 
sufficient to call a total and irrevocable halt to the use of violence for 
political ends.

	Pat

  Sorry Pat,
   It's hard keeping up with all the questions in here.  I haven't been
  reading all replies.

  You asked about the relationship between SF and Mr. Kelly.  I don't 
  have an answer. Perhaps someone who is better informed can help you
  out on this one.

                         Mark

    Mark,
    
    O.K. let's leave the Armani suited Mr. Kelly out of the question and
    substitute the IRA instead. Now, what do you think about the question. 
    
    Who decides on what is acceptable the IRA or SF? If so, who controls
    whom?
    
    I'm genuine in my questioning; I'm not playing mind games. I'm trying
    to figure out in my own mind a way out of this morass.
    
    Pat

  Pat,

     I don't think it's up to either alone to decide what is acceptable.
  And I don't believe there is direct control between either.  SF is a
  democratic party that believes in using politics to advance the aims
  of the Nationalist community.  The Irish Republican Army are a military
  force that believes in using military means to advance Nationalist goals.
  Sinn Fein can define the political realities of the situation, but the
  Irish Republican Army defines the military realities.  A lack of political
  progress (ie. read no progress in 17 months) leads to a military action
  by a separate organization, the Irish Republican Army.  Political progress
  in the form of immediate peace talks, with no preconditions, could lead
  to a temporary halt in military action.  I can't see an end to military 
  action though, until all human rights issues have been addressed on the
  political front.  Peace talks are only part of the solution. You'll also
  need to address 25 years of injustice to the Nationalist community.  
  Addressing the human rights issues, is the only thing that will lead to
  the end of the military campaign.  

                              Mark

Yeah, yeah, but what about the human rights of the innocent civilians who have 
or will fall victim to the IRA's `military' campaign?  In your eyes, I guess 
that they (we) are expendable.

Chris.

    Still no answer, Holohan... How typical.
    
    Laurie.

>Yeah, yeah, but what about the human rights of the innocent civilians who have 
>or will fall victim to the IRA's `military' campaign?  In your eyes, I guess 
>that they (we) are expendable.

 They count just as much as the innocent civilians who have fallen victim
 to the British 'military' campaign.  This is why a peaceful solution must
 be reached immediately.  This is why Britain should no longer refuse to
 sit down at the peace table with it's enemy, immediately, and without
 preconditions.


                           Mark

    .247
    
    Stop living in the past Mark.
    
    
    CHARLEY

> They count just as much as the innocent civilians who have fallen victim
> to the British 'military' campaign.  This is why a peaceful solution must
> be reached immediately.  This is why Britain should no longer refuse to
> sit down at the peace table with it's enemy, immediately, and without
> preconditions.

You can't resist trying to take the focus off the IRA, or to attempt to blame 
the British for everything, can you?  This note is yet another example of how 
little you understand, or want to understand, about the situation.

Chris.

 Chris,

>You can't resist trying to take the focus off the IRA, or to attempt to blame 
>the British for everything, can you? 

 On the contrary, my call for immediate peace talks without preconditions,
 would put the focus on both the Irish Republican Army, and the British
 forces equally.

>This note is yet another example of how 
>little you understand, or want to understand, about the situation.

 Have another mint Mr. Creosote. :-)

                   Mark

> Still no answer, Holohan... How typical.
    
>  Laurie.

  Laurie,
    Quite frankly I've given up trying to have an intelligent discussion with
  you and the rest of the pro-British trinity (Charley and Kevin).  Your
  obvious support for British sponsered violence and murder is offensive
  and has no place in a Digital Notes conference.  Your personal attacks
  and threats also have no place in a Digital Notes conference.  Until you've
  apologized and removed your offensive notes, don't waste my time please.

                               Mark

                                 [SinnFein]

                                5 March 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   Scepticism reinforced by recent events

Sinn Fein Chairperson Mitchel McLaughlin speaking in London today said:

``If the peace process is to be successful the two governments need to take
leadership roles in driving the political process forward and re-building an
inclusive peace process. This requires a good faith engagement, imagination,
generosity and a willingness to take risks for peace.

``It is therefore disappointing that Sinn Fein has still not received an
invitation from the two governments to attend the consultative process.

``Last week Sinn Fein welcomed the setting of a date for all party talks and
the recognition by the two governments of the need for parties, and by
implication the public, to be reassured that the process produced by the two
governments would lead to an inclusive negotiating process. Should
republicans and nationalists feel reassured by the exclusion of Sinn Fein
from the consultative process or the imposition of an elective process which
we do not want?

``It is important to note that today Patrick Mayhew will meet the Alliance
Party, as well as a number of other parties, all of whom have smaller
electoral mandates than Sinn Fein.

``A peace process if it is to be successful must be built on inclusion. The
old agenda of barring sections of our people from the political process is a
recipe for disaster.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sinn F�in Press Office, 44 Parnell Square, Dublin 1
Tel: +353-1-8726100 and +353-1-8726839   �   Fax +353-1-8733074   �
e-mail: [email protected]

Released in the US by:

Friends of Sinn F�in, 1350 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington DC 20036
Tel: +1-202-331-7886   �   Fax: +1-202-331-8117   �   e-mail:
[email protected]

Released on the Web at:

http://www.serve.com/rm/sinnfein/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Sinn F�in Home Page   �   Sinn F�in Documents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web publication by [email protected]
Web archival by [email protected]

    
    >Quite frankly I've given up trying to have an intelligent discussion
    with you.
    
    Too much for you is it?
    
    >Your obvious support for British sponsered violence...
    
    Show proof of this. Go on. Because I'm am quite sure that this "trinity" of
    yours abhors any type of violence. Stop and think Mark, you're wrong
    and I personally -  and I'm sure the others do - take great offence that 
    you think that way.
    
    At one time or another we have all renounced the discraceful actions by
    some members of the British army. But you have never denounced any
    action of the I.R.A. Why is this?
    
    >offensive and has no place in a Digital Notes conference..
    
    Seeing as many notes you've submitted have been offensive to all of us
    at some time or another, I don't think this is a flag you can wave.
    
    >Your personal attacks and threats
    
    Didn't you once threaten me with a piece of two by four?
    
    >Until you've apologized and remove your offensive notes..
    
    On balance, I don't think Lauries notes are any more offensive than most 
    of yours.
    
    Show some good faith Mark, delete some of your offensive notes first.
    
    
        
    CHARLEY
    

RE:                     <<< Note 1549.251 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>


>> > Still no answer, Holohan... How typical.
>>     
>> >  Laurie.
>> 
>>   Laurie,
>>     Quite frankly I've given up trying to have an intelligent discussion with
>>   you and the rest of the pro-British trinity (Charley and Kevin).  Your
>>   obvious support for British sponsered violence and murder is offensive
>>   and has no place in a Digital Notes conference.  Your personal attacks
>>   and threats also have no place in a Digital Notes conference.  Until you've
>>   apologized and removed your offensive notes, don't waste my time please.
    
    I have condemned, and spelt out my condemnation of all violence, by the
    British, or otherwise, many times in this conference. You have
    consistently refused to do so. I do not, and never have supported
    murder by anyone. Your assertion that I show "obvious support for
    British sponsered[sic] violence and murder" is false and demonstrably
    so.
    
    Pray tell me which notes you deem offensive, and why, and I'll consider
    removing them. I've told you which notes of yours I find offensive,
    yet you refuse to remove those. This is a little hypocritical, is it
    not?
    
    Lastly, offence is the best defence isn't it?. You still haven't
    explained one of your most offensive notes, as yet unremoved, in which
    you state that you believe that the IRA would be mistaken in calling a
    ceasefire. My statement that your refusal to answer a direct question
    is typical stands up to any inspection. Your attack in this note is
    just a ruse to deflect attention from your statement which is an
    admission of support for an illegal terrorist organisation and their
    methods.
    
    You, Sir, are guilty of all those things you falsely accuse me of, and
    you *still* refuse to justify your statement that the IRA are justified
    in continuing to kill innocent people. Sorry Holohan, you're on shaky
    ground with your accusations.
    
    Laurie.