It’s Not Over Until The Conference Sings

It’s Not Over Until The Conference Sings

The Board of Deputies Ten Pledges is like an ultimatum designed to ensure an exodus from the Labour Party of ordinary members who’d never vote for Jess Phillips or the other right wingers in the leadership election. The hope presumably is that you march off in a huff into the political wilderness (where new UK parties always go to die) and ensure that Real labour values are subordinated to Blairism/Centrism - and Labour becomes once again Tory-lite.

So, don’t get mad, get even. Every member who leaves Labour now only brings joy to those right wingers and the Tory-influenced Board of Deputies who can only win if you leave. Your leaving is the only conceivable way to clear the field for the Blairite recapture of The Labour Party. Rather than walk into the trap they have prepared for us, we should confound any expectation and remain in the party to fight our corner. Don’t forget, without Conference approving anything, these Ten Pledges are not rules in the Labour Party. So, by staying you are not subordinating yourself to any of these Ten Pledges or to anyone who adheres to them. The party belongs to the members, not the leadership contenders.

Most establishment religious organisations are conservative with a small “c” or indeed with a capital “C”. In that, the BoD is no different to the Church of England and others. It is undeniable that this creates a natural synergy between such organisations and the Tory establishment. The leader of the BoD for example is a self-confessed “life-long Conservative supporter” and “personal friend of Boris Johnson”.

Fighting real antisemitism is something we all do as a matter of course. My understanding has always been that if you hate a person just because they are Jewish, or if you attributes motives to someone based on their Jewishness, or if you blame the Jews en masse for anything, then you are being antisemitic. Yes, we all need educated, especially if we are not Jewish, as to what can be perceived as antisemitic. Yes, we must listen to the whole Jewish community, including – but not exclusively – the Board of Deputies. But we must also state four clear facts, not to divert or deny, but rather to maintain a sense of perspective. A real leader of the Labour Party would ensure these facts are stated fearlessly and embedded in the public narrative.

1. While antisemitism exists in Labour, it is no more prevalent in Labour than it is in the UK as a whole. Indeed, studies suggest it is slightly less.

2. Charges of antisemitism have been used to smear people.  While instances of genuine antisemitism have been thankfully called out and those responsible thankfully dealt with, there have certainly been false charges of antisemitism used to smear both ordinary members and even Jewish people. Stating that some cynical types have weaponised antisemitism as a smear against political opponents is not the same thing as denying antisemitism exists. Both can be true. Indeed, both are.

3. Many of those seeing antisemitism in Labour are turning a blind eye to obvious antisemitism elsewhere. Boris Johnson’s book, his party’s congratulating anti-Semites in Europe on election victories, unveiling statue to self-confessed antisemite Lady Astor and many other examples are ignored by many purporting to root out antisemitism. Why? While nothing would excuse not addressing antisemitism in Labour, it does make you wonder why antisemitism is less offensive to those people when it is in other political parties or from people they consider allies. Surely, if you are against antisemitism you are against it everywhere, not just in one place?  

4. The Board of Deputies does not represent all Jewish people in the UK. 1000s of Jewish people in the UK support Corbyn’s Labour party and they would not think themselves less Jewish for doing so. There are other established Jewish groups who support Corbyn specifically and Labour in general. The BoD Point eight denies them the right to be heard. That is wrong. Every Jewish voice must be heard, not just the ones the BoD agrees with.

Certainly, due to the impression apparent in the media for whatever reasons, Labour has to engage with Jewish groups. But it should do so with the four points being part of the discussion. Labour should state too that of all the parties it has the most comprehensive dedicated campaign to rid antisemitism from its ranks.  

Finally, the problem with adopting the Ten Pledges is supposing they are being proposed in good faith.  They are not. It is being done to force the implosion of the Labour Party or at least rendering its most determined opponents of the UK establishment silent. It is a bad faith ultimatum designed to disqualify dissent in the UK. It will not stop at the Ten Pledges. It will just be the start. If we stay, the expulsions will start. It will be a purge on the scale of the Foo Fighters Purge of 2016. However, we survived that due to the numbers. Another reason to stay.

What the UK establishment wants is Labour Party tamed and committed to neoliberal policies. It wants a leader like Jess Phillips or Keir Starmer. It knows it cannot get this based on the current membership make up. However, if the membership leaves on masse in reaction to leadership hopefuls adopting The Ten Pledges, then the likelihood of Phillips or Starmer winning increase.

Of course, many Labour members see this for what it is, a move to reduce the number of radical members. So we will stay. We still have the numbers. Come Conference, these numbers will count in our favour. But only if we stay. And fight to keep our party.

The Four Headlines of the Apocalypse

Six years ago this month, the author, editor and publisher of the now iconic Downfall – How Rangers FC Self-Destructed, were putting together the finishing touches for the book before it went to print. Downfall – How Rangers FC Self-Destructed, is once again being reprinted this month. As with The Squad, Phil’s recent novel, we will be offering signed copies exclusively from our Frontline Noir Online Store .

Downfall is timeless in that while it describes the lead up to an event of 6 years ago, the liquidation of Rangers FC, it also describes the collusion between media and subject to deny facts, spin untruths, and generally breath life into the sense of entitlement that the Establishment Club had into its successor, the new Rangers. Once again the bulk of Scottish Sports media is missing in action, just as they were in years leading up to 2012.

I’d contacted Phil in June 2012 for the first time to discuss a different project entirely. I’d been put in touch by a News International employee who’d recommended Phil. Ironically, the same organisation would deny knowing much about Phil as they threw him under a bus when they cancelled the serialisation of Downfall, a serialisation that News International had specifically requested. I had, in fact, approached them to serialise a different book. It was then that News International suggested, off their own bat, that they serialise Downfall. We agreed, none of us anticipating the hysterical reaction ahead which would result in News International cancelling the second instalment of the Downfall serialisation.

At that time, very few people, whether journalists or punters, were denying the fact that Rangers FC had been liquidated. In fact, the front pages of the most widely-read newspapers had banner headlines to that effect.

This was an outbreak of accurate reporting, which was soon contained though, due to the inability of many to accept the truth. Such was the forceful reaction of an extreme element within the Rangers support, often referred to by detractors as ‘The Klan’, that none of the newspapers above would ever dream of printing these front pages today. Not only would they never print them again, but they’d never refer to these pages, not even in the context of saying, “Look, we were wrong, Rangers didn’t die. They are still alive. These front pages should never have been printed as they were inaccurate.” The term Social Amnesia can be used to describe a repression of memory by a group of people. This accurately describes the current repression of The Four Headlines of the Apocalypse.

Downfall, then, can not only apply to the downfall of Rangers FC, but also to the downfall of Scottish Sports Media as an independent, objective, fearless collective. As an entity, Scottish Sports Journalism became a circus, reducing itself to performing gravity-defying acts of intellectual contortion as it simply sought to transcribe the New Story without ever calling it the New Story as that would necessitate reference to the Old Story, which in turn would undermine the New Story. The theory, of course, was that if the New Story was repeated again and again then the punters would forget the Old Story, the one on the front pages above.  Even on sports radio shows in Scotland, no one, not the journalists or the phone-in callers, are allowed to mention Newco, Sevco, The New Rangers, The Old Rangers. The few who have done so have been pilloried and, in the main, undefended publicly by their peers. When The Mob, or The Klan (call that unscrupulous element of the Rangers support what you will), get their metaphorical boots into “errant” journalists who committed the transgression, deliberately or inadvertently, of referencing the facts that dare not speak their name, look how few of their fellows, their comrades, came out fighting and publicly challenged the lynchers. 

How many said #WeAreAllAngelaHaggerty, #WeAreAllJimSpence #WeAreAllGrahamSpiers and others? They were few and far between. Perhaps they were outraged privately and got their tuppence worth in behind closed doors.  Fair enough. But that’s hardly confronting a mob to the point it is called out and embarrassed, is it?

Of course, suggesting every Scottish sports journalist failed in his/her duty to report the truth would be an error. Of course, there were several journalists who came out this whole Orwellian period with their integrity intact, their courage all the more demanding of respect because they were the exceptions.  But the vacuum left by the absence of real journalism in the wake (in every sense) of The Rangers Story played a big part in propelling Social Media and while some in corporate media look down their noses at “citizen journalism”, often citing “grammar and spelling”, they would do well to remember, had it not been for journalism failing at a critical juncture in Scottish sporting and social history, then punters like me would have been happy to remain “mere consumers of news”. But, when you smell a rat and see that the rat-catcher is fast asleep in a succulent lamb-induced food coma - or at least pretending to be - it’s natural to stop consuming and try to find out independently what is going on. You don’t need to be a vegetarian like me to not like this brand of lamb. You just need taste.

With notable exceptions, Downfall was not reviewed in the corporate media. One journalist I spoke to, and who I knew to be a decent, sane guy, said, “Why invite a barrage of vile abuse, and get stalked by mental cases.” Several journalists refused to even read it while at the same time criticising it, another unseemly intellectual contortion, rendering their views on the book about as pertinent as the those of the Psychic Reviewers, Klanites who’d reviewed the book maliciously on Amazon before the book was even finished, never mind released. Noo, that was clever.

We shouldn’t complain. All this furore helped make Downfall a bestseller in Scotland. Book stores sold it very well despite some having to sell it under the counter due to fear of staff being harassed by less than well-wishers who’d intermittently berate staff for stocking the book. Both of these facts became added to the list of Facts Which Dare Not Speak Their Name.

The bottom line is that you have to ask why Downfall is still the only book on the demise of Old Rangers. It was one of the biggest sporting stories in Scotland’s history. And yet the silence on the event is deafening, even in 2018. We will continue to reprint Downfall, if only to enable the echo of history to break through that wilful silence.

The Squad by Phil eBook now on Kindle.

We’re delighted to announce that The Squad by @Pmacgiollabhain is now available on Kindle for the first time. We were blown away by demand for the paperback edition of this title, which was printed in June and sold out within 4 weeks. We still have signed copies though in our website store.

http://frontlinenoir.com/online-store/

As always with Phil’s books, publication of The Squad was immediately accompanied by comments from The Psychic Reviewers. Trouble was of course they were more careless than before in that the first of their malicious reviews appeared the day the books were posted out, meaning that unless their posties could time travel, they could not have possibly read the book. They even got the amount of pages in the book wrong, something someone with an actual copy couldn’t have done. Very amusing.

More importantly has been the tremendously strong positive feedback from readers. Don’t be surprised if there’s a sequel to The Squad. I’m sure The Psychic Reviewers have their reviews already written 😊

Pleased that both Waterstones and WHS (Book of the Month) have supported and done well with the paperback edition of The Squad, as you can see from their photos.

I hope you enjoy the Kindle edition of this title which can be bought here, as can Downfall eBook on kindle too.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Squad-Sometimes-terrorists-wrong-country-ebook/dp/B07FZJF5MJ/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1533647715&sr=1-1&refinements=p_27%3APhil+Mac+Giolla+Bhain

Vampire States

Perhaps Trump telling the NATO countries to ‘stump up’ is him paying back some donors and also making a pitch for Clinton/Bush donors and their bought politicians in Congress. Even psychopaths like Trump can be pragmatic and he’s learned the internal power dynamics of Congress and the lobbies. 

‘Operation Stump Up’ is about transferring hard-earned European tax Euros and pounds into the dollar accounts of arms companies and their shareholders and their political protectors. It’s ‘protection’ money in many senses. This is gangsterism. But, Trump didn’t invent this. He’s just the messenger here. 

The US, like all empires, has evolved into a Vampire State, run by corporate vampires for corporate vampires. Unable to sustain itself with its own resources it is ever more ‘taxing’ its vassal states. The US didn’t invent this. History shows this is what empires do, especially when coming to the end of their lives. 

Anyone with experience in management knows that the more control you have, the less control you need to exercise. The naked use of power is the last resort of decaying Power.

Return of The Psychic Reviewers

The phenomenon of Psychic Reviewers appears again on Amazon. These guys are clever. So clever that they have the ability to review a book that, not only have they not read, but hadn’t even been released to the public. We started posting books out on the 21st June.  It’s only in the coming week that the book will be available from Amazon, Waterstones, WHS etc, , or indeed anywhere else apart from our web site, where was exclusively available until week commencing 25th June. So, reviews dated 22nd, positive or negative, cannot be based on a solid reading of the book. Reviews dated 23rd, must include speed readers. However, based on the hysterical (in every sense), malicious reviews placed that day one doubts that basic reading, far less speed reading, was within the grasp of those posting rather silly comments. Some, sadly, see the Amazon review facility as an opportunity to promote petty personal vendettas rather than to actually read the book.

It’s all very reminiscent of reaction to Phil’s Downfall book, which was the focus of a very determined campaign to not only badly review the book but to actually threaten retailers who stocked it and a newspaper which serialised it. Happily, the result was to provoke an amazing amount of support for the book and the author. To say the campaign to discredit the book backfired is an understatement. The malicious campaign propelled the book to number 8 in Amazon’s  main book chart. And they’ve started again. Don’t they ever learn? Hopefully not:)

Reviews, good or bad, are facts of life. No one should publish if they can’t handle reviews. But you have to wonder at the motivations of those who feverishly post a review on a book that they clearly have not read.

Fortunately, all the Psychic Reviewers achieve is to help folk who already hate an author hate him/her a bit more, and those who love an author love him/her a little more. As with Phil’s Downfall book,  these chaps actually help sales. They’re a marketing man’s dream.

Trigger Happy Sheriffs and Their Posse of Commentariat

There is just now a very worrying McCarthyesque campaign to discredit democratic dissent in the UK. In a democracy people should appreciate the value of democratic debate at times of crisis as a means of determining the correct course of action after taking all points of view on board. Establishing the truth in conflict situations is extremely difficult. Hence, the value of thoroughly investigating an alleged war crime to (a) confirm it has taken place and (b) establish who committed it.  

It is one thing to defend Assad but, it is quite another to request that, before we bomb Syria, we ask questions that anyone who wants to find out what happened in Douma would ask. So, the branding people who ask such questions an “Assad apologist” raises its own questions.

What would those who wanted to bomb Syria have lost had they allowed an investigation - which was due to start on Saturday, the day after the bombs fell – to take place? The element of surprise? Bearing in mind Trump had tweeted the world that missiles were acomin’ that’s not credible. Fear of another imminent CW attack? With the rest of the world’s eyes on Douma and the actions of Assad’s army that isn’t credible either. So why the rush?

A cynic might suggest that US/UK feared any investigation might show there was either no CW attack or that Assad was not responsible for any CW attack, thus invalidating the ‘humanitarian intervention’ legal defence that US/UK intended to employ in their self-appointed role of World Policeman. Either way, perhaps the last thing the world needs is trigger happy sheriff. Hence the need for the rule of law to be respected. And if the sheriff’s suspect is convicted then punishment can be meted out. But surely not before an investigation, never mind before a trial.

So, anyone with respect for the rule of law, for justice and a determination to uncover the truth would welcome challenging questions, wouldn’t they? Apparently not. Not only is there a near-uniform across the media retort of “Assad apologist” directed to anyone asking these questions, there is now a determination among some that such questions should not be asked at all.

Take this example from Sky News yesterday involving The Henry Jackson Society’s Dr Alan Mendoza on the pro-bombing before investigation side and Prof Piers Robinson on the pro-investigation first side.

Mendoza started by reiterating the pro-bombing before investigation side’s mantra of “Assad has form” argument. Robinson countered by saying some sources (such as the Red Cross) stated there was no proof on the ground in this instance and followed up, logically, that a “proper investigation” should take place to avoid repeating “past mistakes”.

Mendoza replied that three countries (US/UK/France) have evidence, a contention he tries to back up with such expressions as these countries “clearly believe” and “It appears they have evidence”, rather than “have demonstrably proven” or “definitely have proof”.  

Given that the pro-bombing before investigation argument was pushed forward with such equivocal phraseology it answered none of Robinson’s concerns. So, Robinson, without ever expressing any comment on Assad, far less anything sympathetic, merely suggests that “it's reasonable to keep an open mind” and we should “allow a proper investigation to find out who is responsible” and that “history gives pause for thought.”

Mendoza, in an apparently agitated state, says. “So, was it your mother who did this -seriously - this chemical weapons attack?” Robinson ignores the provocation and steadfastly reiterates pleas for “reason, “thought”, “investigation”, “objectivity.”

Obviously, such notions are not reasonable to some in The Henry Jackson Society, seeing them as obstacles to the march of their special brand of imperialism. Opponents are not there to be argued with. They are there to be crushed.  Mendoza finally – and memorably – runs out of patience, ranting that its “absolutely appalling” that “national television” allowed someone with Robinson’s views to “defend a dictator”. Of course, run through the tape and you’ll find not even a slight defence of Assad. Mendoza either misunderstood the conversation or made that up. It was a crude attempt to delegitimise “reason, “thought”, “investigation”, “objectivity”.

The Sky anchor then reasonably suggests – more to defend Sky than Robinson, but commendably nonetheless - that it’s fair to ask questions like, “what might happen after Assad” without being called “an apologist for Assad”. But Mendoza is having none of that. His mission appears to have been to appear on our screens solely to spread this smear as far and as wide as he can in the time allowed. “No, I think you are very much being an apologist for what Assad has done”.

Exchanges like this tell us that legitimate dissent and argument is under attack.  Mendoza’s momentary lapse of reason illustrated the desire among his ilk to intimidate the likes of Sky News out of (a) ever inviting dissenting voices into our screens and (b) ever daring to ask challenging questions themselves.

This isn’t idle conjecture. The organisation he is a member of, the super-connected Henry Jackson Society, is a Neocon outfit who see it as their mission to influence discourse and therefore opinion and indeed task some members with campaigning against dissenters from the Neocon narrative, such as Chomsky and others. See here this copy of the minutes of its Post London Launch Meeting, attended by, among others, one Dr Alan Mendoza, cited therein as its Executive Director.

Dr Mendoza and his sort are perfectly entitled to campaign for their views. But I’m not sure they believe we all are.

Death To The Calm Heads

Teresa May stated in the House of Commons that it is “highly likely” the military-grade weather returning to the UK this weekend is coming from Russia

Ministers on the national security council were told that the chemical agent used was from a family of substances known as “Snow”. “Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down, we surmise that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so".

Opposition leader, the traitor Jeremy Corbyn, was sentenced to death by many in his own party when he claimed that Snow may not be manufactured exclusively in Russia.

In Syria We Have No Morals - Only Interests

I strongly support a ceasefire in Ghouta. But then, people like me strongly support ceasefires unconditionally anywhere, in all circumstances. Sadly, that’s where we differ from many Western leaders and media, with admirable exceptions.

Calls for ceasefires from Lebanon 2006 to Gaza 2014 and from Yemen to Raqqa and Mosul, have fallen on deaf Western ears, regardless of the human suffering. In fact, in Raqqa, the US went as far as to reject such calls as it would “give ISIS time to regroup”, the slaughter of women and children evidently “being a price worth paying”.

Ironically, civilians are always in the frontline of wars “for civilisation”. Bombing them anywhere is criminal according to international law. But, no matter how the lofty intent, war always, always, comes down to obliterating families in their homes, killing their children, and then either “regretting” it happened, or claiming to have done everything possible to avoid it, or ignoring it altogether.

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Western leaders and, for the most part, Western media, consider civilians – men, women and children - just as expendable in pursuit of war aims as the supposedly more brutal Russians and Syrians. When analysed objectively, there is not the slightest difference in modus operandi. No official or journalistic sophistry can disguise that. It’s appalling that us news consumers who depend on journalistic objectivity for truth are subjected to reporting and analysis unable - or unwilling - to disentangle itself from its national perspective.

Everything that is happening in Ghouta already happened in Raqqa when the US and allies bombed the hell out of it. The same in Mosul. While Western media reported this, it generally did so with comparative coldness, suggesting civilian casualties were a sad inevitability in the war against ISIS. We did not get a bomb by bomb account of civilian causalities like we did in Aleppo and do in Ghouta. No “last doctors in town”, no Banas.

So, it is reasonable to ask are The West’s calls for a ceasefire in Ghouta genuinely humanitarian or are they merely to hold up the Syrian Arab Army’s mopping up of rebel areas? The West has shown beyond doubt that it wants to fight ISIS everywhere - except where ISIS is fighting the Syrian Army. In fact, Western intelligence and its allies have provided ISIS with weapons, finance, medical treatment, refuge. Everything in fact ISIS needed to fight the Syrian Army. People calling for ceasefires here but not ceasefires there don’t have cessations as their primary purpose. A child’s life in Gaza, Lebanon or Yemen should be just as important as a child’s life Raqqa, Mosul, Ghouta, Aleppo.

Why then such selective humanitarian concern? Why, to its disgrace, did the West reject demands for ceasefire in Mosul or Raqqa when the civilian population was being bombed, often with white phosphorus. Why are some children expendable and others sacred? Why are some bombings good, and some bad? Why are some weapons (such as cancer-causing White Phosphorous) used without much judgement from the ‘moral’ Western media and others (barrel bombs) cried out to be the embodiment of evil? Is White Phosphorous really any more discriminating than Barrel Bombs? Any more child-friendly? A civilian family having White Phosphorous dropped on it is no more likely to survive than one with barrel bombs falling on it. Yet, Western media seems to love the soundbite quality of “barrel bombs”, a phrase spat out by “moralistic” media types, as opposed to even mentioning White Phosphorous.

Go on. Do a count in major Western articles on the words “Barrel Bombs” and then on “White Phosphorous”. While you’re at it, count how many times Western media and officials called for a ceasefire in Raqqa and Mosul and then compare it to the amount of times they called for ceasefires in Aleppo and Ghouta.

The explanation for the disparity you will find of course is Geopolitics. See, if civilians, women and children, thousands of little Banas, are dying in the pursuit of strategic aims desirable to the West, then they are done for, abandoned to their fate, a fate barely reported. Whereas if civilians are dying while states resist Western Geopolitical aims, then these are sainted, sacred beings, whose every second of suffering is unbearable to our leaders and their broadly supportive media. Sadly for Syrians, the frontline of Geopolitical struggle, the battle for access to essential resources necessary to project power between the two strongest powers in the world, Russian and The US, currently cuts through their neighbourhoods.

You’ll not find much reference to “Geopolitics” in Western media reporting of Syria. You see, Geopolitics can explain a lot. And truthful explanation is not in the interests of the powerful nations of the world. Geopolitics provides a colder, more rational objective analysis of events in context of how states throughout history have behaved and why and, therefore, are likely still to do so. Usually they are vying for position, seeking advantageous access to resources.

If you have faith that nations intervene for humanitarian reasons you’d be better saving your faith for the Tooth Fairy. They are never doing anything for moral reasons. As former imperial British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston famously said, using an expression repeated through the ages from De Gaulle to Henry Kissinger, “We have no friends – only interests”. He could have as easily said, “We have no morals – only interests”. Indeed, our current leaders would be more truthful if they said the same thing now. Dressing up the slaughter of innocent women and children as a crime we’d never commit - and that we seek to stop for moral purposes - is shameless cynicism, an insult to our intelligence and, an immoral crime. But, thanks to a largely complicit media, our leaders get to do this again and again and again. A truly objective, fearless and effective media might just say one day, “hey, haven’t we been here before? Do we really want to go there again, and again, and again?”

I have no time for the way the Syrians and Russians are so cheaply discarding human life in Ghouta. But any notion that we in the West are any different is naivety beyond reason. We kill just like they kill. If you are genuinely humanitarian  then you'll have no problem condemning Western or Russian bombing of civilians. If you chose to condemn one side's bombing while excusing the other's bombing, then you are not a humanitarian objector. You are a participant.  

Ecky Thump - That Interview for the Scotland Manager's job in full

Ecky Thump - That Interview for the Scotland Manager's job in full

SFA – So, Mr McLeish, how do you hope to transform the fortunes of Scotland?

AM – Well, the first thing is to make sure that the current Rangers squad is fit for purpose.

SFA – You mean current Scotland Squad?

AM – Oh, Aye, Aye. BTW I have my eyes on a few players that we should include in the next squad. (PASSES LIST TO SFA INTERVIEW PANEL. THEY LOOK AT IT, EXCHANGING AWKWARD GLANCES)

SFA – But, Eck, none of these players are Scottish.

AM -  Aye, but, (WINKS). A few EBTs will soon sort that.

SFA – Eck. This is the national team, mind.

AM – What? England? Fantastic! Noo, quick! Too the helicopter.  

Concomitant-Gate

It would be reasonable to think that Jabba was not solely responsible for the Rangers* Statement, the one saying, “See that girl I stalked for weeks and then asked out? I only realised she was ugly after she said ‘no’.”

When you think about it, had Jabba fired the Statement off in a fit of pique without consulting senior Rangers* board members he might have risked being fired.  In fact, one wonders if Jabba actually helped tone it down, being a man who knows the (admittedly expansive) limits of credibility and shamelessness within his own swamp. 

In fact, that the Statement was met with almost universal incredulity in the normally Sevco-reliable Scottish sports media may suggest Jabba telling his boys not to give it much traction, perhaps intending this as a lesson to whoever it was at Rangers* who stepped on his toes by effectively doing his job for him. No one likes their bosses doing their job for them. Best it goes wrong and they learn the hard way to leave it to the experts in incredulity and shamelessness.   

Whether he did or didn’t tone it down, it is doubtful he could have created and released the statement under the Rangers* logo, and officially, without it being cleared at the very top. And yet, murmurings are that most senior Rangers* people are embarrassed by it. Now, who does that leave?

Certainly, the statement was glib and shameless. 

Reaction Show Racism The Red Card Received

Regarding the reaction Show Racism The Red Card received to Phil Mac Giolla Bhain being photographed with SRTRC.

As publisher of the book, Minority Reporter, by Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, which inspired Show Racism The Red Card to invite him to associate himself with them, I'm compelled to respond to their statement today. 

Although an atheist I was brought up in a Protestant, Rangers-supporting, British Forces family background. The notion that I could ever be, or could ever support anyone who is, anti-Protestant is ridiculous. I am as offended by anti-Protestantism and anti-Britishness as I am by anti-Irishness and anti-Catholism. It is worth noting that the heroic protagonists in Phil’s two recent stage plays were both brought up Rangers supporters. I’ve known Phil for over five years and there isn’t a sectarian bone in his body. Had there been there would have been no association with me.

The vile reaction SRTRC received to its public association with Phil is familiar. It is the same as the reaction The Sun received when they announced serialisation of Phil’s book. Police were obliged to visit the journalist who wrote the puff piece to advise him on the safety of him and his family. Phil regularly gets such threats. The editor of Phil’s book, Angela Haggerty, received the same abuse, to the point that an internet radio show host was jailed for inciting anti-Irish and sectarian hatred against her. This same grouping demanded Angela get sacked from The Sunday Herald when they employed her as a columnist. They succeeded, albeit temporarily.

Many of those providing this reaction appear to be organised, primed to swing into action every time Phil or Angela make traction. Their crime? Being Irish or being of Irish descent and not only refusing to sit at the back of the bus but, in fact, demanding vocally that they should be at the front of the bus. You might be familiar with the term “an uppity n*****r”? That is the objection of most those complaining.

My advice to SRTRC is ask all those objecting to Phil being associated with SRTRC what they have done for SRTRC lately. Have they shown the same determined reaction to people singing about being up to their knees in Fenian blood in The Billy Boy Song, or those singing that the Irish should go home? Because, if the objectors have not been as vocal in their objection to those examples of racism as they have been to perceived offence in Phil’s writing, then you have to ask, if objectivity is truly the priority here, why not? Have these “concerned members of the public” publicly and without fear or favour condemned fans of their club for singing these songs or any other form of racist and sectarian abuse? If not, then SRTRC has to ask them directly why not?  

Every week thousands of people sing these appalling racist and sectarian songs. Where are the “concerned members of the public”  then? More often than not, standing beside someone doing the singing perhaps? Or worse, singing themselves? Can you imagine the reaction in England if thousands sang about being up to their knees in Black people’s blood what society’s reaction would be? Or what the media reaction would be? Would it be ignored the way it is ignored in Scotland? Well, it might be, if Anti-Racist organisations caved in to people who objected to those opposing racism.

If Anti-Racist organisations instantly change their course due to the adverse reaction of “concerned members of the public”, who have a questionable track record of opposing racism or of selectively opposing what they see as racism, then those genuinely affected by racism may well cease to view such Anti-Racism organisations as effective - or even worthwhile.  

Secondly, the manner of SRTRC change of course here (via its statement) was not glorious. SRTRC released a shocking statement heavily referencing Phil but without previously making him aware of the content of this statement, far less seeking to invite any kind of input or right of reply pre-publication. SRTRC hung Phil out to dry. His crime? To positively reply to SRTRC request for an interview. This suggests that SRTRC had no interest in protecting the reputation or the safety of an anti-racist campaigner whom, at their own instigation and initiative, they invited to their project. Having instigated this episode SRTRC had a duty of care to its subject.

Of course not all the objectors were racists, but the racists among them are now empowered. All they had to do was turn up with their torches. The empowerment resulting from SRTRC publicly and hastily disassociating itself from Phil was not factored in by SRTRC, which disappoints because one would think an Anti-Racist organisation would sensitively consider all the implications of its actions.

SRTRC stated they wanted to be objective and avoid “label” usage. An admirable aim. But at what stage then do we call racists racist? Is the word banned? SRTRC would have to change its name were that the case. Having worked substantially in Northern Ireland many months of the year for 20 years I understand perfectly the counter productiveness of inappropriate label usage. I understand how peeling off peripheral support for the hard core of racists is inhibited by insulting that periphery. Rather than peeling them off it instead binds them closer together.  I get that. And the hard core of racists, whom some call the klan, work very, very hard to conflate that peripheral and casual, passive support with themselves. So that, when someone identifies (“labels”) the hard core as racist, they twist that to say “look! they are calling us all racist”, which is untrue. But, by insidiously co-opting the support into the racist core lump, they protect themselves, disguise themselves as “concerned members of the public”, and manage to hide their own racist views from immediate view.  

As a publisher we'll continue to support organisations such as SRTRC, but not uncritically. Now many genuinely concerned members of the public, i.e., those who actually oppose all racism every day as opposed to some who’s very inconsistency on the issue should have instructed SRTRC, will see this change of course by SRTRC as climbing down, or worse, as caving in. That is potentially more damaging than offending those who are at best inconsistent in condemning racism.

Five Years Of Downfall Denial

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00D507BK4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Its five years today since Downfall - How Rangers FC Self-Destructed was published. Written by Phil McGiolla Bhain, a freelance journalist who’d led the press pack on the Rangers story, the book was subjected to a campaign of abuse. Of course, this had the effect of increasing sales, one of these beautiful karmic responses that the universe delights in handing out.

The campaign against the book included phoning head offices of major book shop chains to complain about the book being stocked – and then denying it. One head office buyer, after having placed pre-publication orders, called me to ask if it was going to be worth the hassle as they’d had complaints. Thankfully the buyer agreed that it was worth it.

Another retail manager told of visitors to his chain’s stores berating staff for having the cheek to stock the book. Some visitors went as far as to move the book from its Number One spot in stores, hiding it near cookery. Others, presumably in a fit of pique, scrunched books up to make them unsellable.

Of course, these instances were all denied as having happened. It’s one thing to do these things, but at least have the courage of your convictions. Don’t then deny it happened.

The Sun newspaper, who I’d approached on serialisation on another book (Ciaran McAirt’s The McGurk’s Bar Bombing) rebuffed that effort and instead stated that they wanted to serialise another book we’d published the same month, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain’s Downfall book. The deal was done and a very fair and decent piece on Phil and his book appeared. However, it’s appearance produced an astonishing reaction. I was new to Twitter and was following reaction on various feeds. The first I learned that The Sun was scrapping the serialisation half way through its agreed run was on Twitter when a Sun employee stated that this was the case.

Another Sun employee told me privately that the switchboard “melted” when the reaction from some Rangers fans came in. Weirdly, months later when I discussed this with a Sun employee, I was told “there was no big reaction”. No reaction? Really? What about that switchboard “melting?” It was “exaggerated”. Why the change of facts here? Again, have the courage of your convictions. Don’t deny it happened.

Some gifted People took the trouble to review the book – before it was even finished being written. Now, that was conscientious. You have to wonder why such prescience on their part precluded them from foreseeing the demise of their club.

One chap who did foresee that demise, and who indeed warned all and sundry publicly in his contemporaneous blog, wasn’t much thanked - or even believed. Thankfully he (Phil) was believed by many when he wrote Downfall – How Rangers FC Self-Destructed.  So much so that the book reached Number 8 in Amazon UK’s overall book chart, despite concern for me among some Rangers fans who claimed I had thousands, piled high, unsold in my garage. Not only did I not have any in my garage, I didn’t even have a garage.

I then received calls from a seemingly nice chap in Belfast who claimed he was working as a buyer for Bargain Books in that neat little town. I played along, as the caller was obviously unaware that I had worked very closely with Bargain Books in Belfast since 1996, publishing several books with them under their Lagan Books imprint and supplying their stores with literally thousands of books, both full price books and bargain books, for years. I knew the owners very well. Indeed, they were personal friends of the finest and most loyal kind. I knew who the key store managers were. This gentleman caller, friendly as he was, had clearly nothing to do with Bargain Books Belfast. He seemed to think I’d want to sell the book at a dirt cheap price. What was this charming chap’s game? He seemed determined to even have me say the words “I’ll supply Bargain Books with Downfall” for some reason. It all made sense later when it was apparent he was taping the calls. The project, such as it was, was to discredit the book by suggesting it was such a terrible, unwanted item that weeks after publication I was eager to offload it at a loss. Impersonation, taping calls, quite a lot of trouble to go…

Despite being a Scottish Bestseller in many key Scottish book outlets from Waterstones to WHS and others the Scottish media took their lead from The Sun and collectively shat their pants. Only one SMSM chap reviewed the book. The rest either decided that the only book on the greatest sporting scandal in Scottish sports history wasn’t worthy of a second glance or they didn’t think it was
 “worth the hassle”. In case you think “shat its pants” is hyperbole, ask yourself how you’d describe a media which one day had uniform headlines across the board along the lines of “Rangers, 1872-2012, RIP”, and then airbrushes all reference to those headlines from their current narrative. No attempt at any expansion, any “we were wrong” - just a desperate wish for all their readers to lobotomise themselves to the point they don’t remember such headlines or where they wonder if they dreamed them.

That hassle was documented in Alex Thompson’s piece for Channel 4 where several Scottish commentators related the grief they got for commenting in any negative way on the club that was Rangers. The editor of the book, Sunday Herald columnist, Angela Haggerty, received disgraceful sectarian abuse. You know the kind? That’s right, the kind we have to keep reminding certain commentators that is NOT “banter”, and is NOT “funny”. Replace the work “Taig” with the word “black” just in case you had any doubt about just how offensive, not to say illegal, such “banter” is. So illegal in fact that one perpetrator, who hosted an internet radio show spewing out threatening bigotry, was tried and convicted in a Scottish court of sectarian hatred and was sentenced to 6 months in jail.

Sadly, it was not just many in SMSM who were keen to dismiss the sectarianism that some involved in the book were subjected to. Despite the complaint being made about the radio show, and it’s shocking vitriolic bigotry jeopardising the safety of our book’s editor, it wasn’t until Alex Thompson‘s Channel 4 piece on what Angela endured that the police seemed to take the complaint seriously. The world outside Glasgow was on now the case, apparently. Glasgow had to wake up to the fact that what many thought was “banter” that had been “asked for” was actually a crime.

Since publication of Downfall five years ago, the very Downfall itself has been erased from the history, as related by SMSM at least. Reference to Rangers now being bereft of life is censored on both main Radio football shows. No debate even allowed. It’s like Soviet-style collective hysteria, as if the mention of a fact will bring civilisation crashing down. Sure, they obliquely refer to the “relegation” of “Rangers” to the fourth division. But the Downfall, the Self-Destruction, is denied with more fervour year on year. Doubtless some scribe will claim to have covered The Downfall, but unless they mean Downfall in the Python-esque it has ceased to be sense as opposed to the pining for the fjords sense, then they have missed the point. That’s a set-back, not a Downfall. Thankfully, at least one book exists on the subject to keep us right.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00D507BK4/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Urgent Letter To Her Majesty from Club 2012

We wish to bring to the attention of Her Majesty the issue of Neil Lennon abusing Rangers fans at Ibrox on Saturday. We consider his reaction to good-natured sectarian abuse and friendly death threats to be extreme. After all, are we really to believe that our own wee part of Her Majesty’s kingdom is longer safe for bigots?

There was a time not so long ago, last week in fact, when Fenians were there to be verbally abused and indeed on occasions assaulted, without any comeback on the fine upstanding bigots dishing it out. But, now, in a land where the SNP’s brand of political correctness runs amok, it is no longer safe for harmless bigots to force their sectarian bile down the throats of Fenians because, as we saw at Ibrox on Saturday, some Fenians are taking the law into their own hands and causing our own loyal fans immense suffering by, and I kid you not, cupping their hands around their ears in an obscene gesture of pure hatred, with no concern that there were children in the stadium. 

Before we know it, we’ll have copycat crimes, with other Fenians feeling they can cup their hands at our supporters who are, after all, only exercising their birth right to remind Fenians that their right to life is not a right at all, but rather, a gift from their betters.

Fair play to our management for trying to bring this matter to the attention of Police Scotland at the ground but, as you must have guessed, every policeman, every referee, every journalist, every lollipop lady, are all now Fenians.

Now a terrifying precedent has been set. Lennon’s example, with its implication that the insults and abuse, painstakingly refined by generations of our forefathers, are no longer reducing Fenians to quivering wrecks. In fact, Lennon’s gesture indicated that he really didn’t care how vile our insults were, regardless of the care and preparation that had gone into them. It’s like we’ve woken up in the hell of a post-sectarian apocalypse.

This renders screaming sheer hatred at Fenians for 90 minutes pretty worthless as an exercise. And that, Your Majesty, is an outcome we cannot countenance. It’s not like we have lives worth a shit unless we can make Fenians feel inferior. Soon, and again I do not say this in jest, they’ll be expecting to be treated as equals. And our poor comrades who even now are selflessly preparing death threats - and bullets and bombs through the mail - are bereft. What if this campaign of intimidation simply no longer works? And, Your Majesty, if it does indeed come to this, and you ever wonder why our whole empire of beliefs crumbled into dust, you’ll remember that terrifying day when a Fenian was allowed to cup his ears at our insults.

Signed

Your Loyal Subjects 

Club 2012

The Rat and Gutter Bar

1690 Boyne Road

The Past

Criticism Is Not Abuse

Did you follow the Emma Barnett controversy yesterday? At 10.52am she tweeted, after her interview with Corbyn on Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio, “So the abuse from Jeremy Corbyn supporters begins.”

My first thought was how stupid can anyone purporting to be a Corbyn supporter, a group more under scrutiny than any other, be to abuse anyone, especially a journo doing her job, which is to take public figures to task. And, as long as all are taken to task to the same degree, all is good.

I scrolled down Emma’s timeline to see what abuse was there, half expecting to see some pathetic, misogynistic rudeness and abuse. But there was none. There was some criticism, sure, and some of that criticism was very partial in favour of Corbyn. Not incredibly helpful. But not in a million years “abuse”. Sure, some of the criticism was robust, even severe, as was some of Emma’s questioning of Corbyn. But surely that is all par for the course, unless some are suggesting its okay to dish it out but not to take it?

I went through the timeline again to make sure I hadn’t missed something that may have even been misunderstood as “abuse”. But, again, I couldn’t find anything. In fact, the only abuse I found was from one of Emma’s supporters telling Corbyn supporters to “fuck off”. The timeline is still there and if someone shows me I’ve missed something outright abusive then I’ll apologise unreservedly because I think abuse of journos is obscene. But, I believe holding the media to account in a democracy is essential, especially media we pay for, i.e., the BBC.

So, why did Emma claim to have been a victim of abuse when all that was visible on her timeline was criticism? Oversensitivity? Human error? Or something else?

As if on cue, at 12.10pm, nearly 80 minutes after Emma had claimed to have received abusive texts (though none were on her timeline) @Labour_Insider tweeted to be the effect that Emma was alleged to be a Zionist. Whether she is or isn’t is irrelevant. It was undoubtedly a misjudged tweet. By asking Emma if “the allegation is true” @Labour_Insider framed the question pejoratively. Being a Zionist is not an offence. So the question was loaded by using the word “allegation”.  There’s no point in discussing the sheer political carelessness of the tweet because that is not the issue. The issue is about online abuse. Sadly we know that journalists do receive abuse and for many complex reasons female journalists often receive especially gender-orientated abuse. As this happened to a female editor we worked with (who is also a journalist) some years ago it’s a subject I take extremely seriously regardless of political opinions. But criticism of journalists, some well paid for opinions, others well paid to be impartial, must be expected, indeed, in a democracy, essential.

The @Labour_Insider tweet was, in the context of legitimate concerns regarding anti-Semitism, insensitive and careless as it could encourage real anti-Semitic abuse and could put Emma in the frontline of that abuse. Not being Jewish myself I’d defer to people of that proud faith who are better qualified than I to judge if asking someone if they are Zionist is anti-Semitic. But even if we assume for the moment that it is, then it still does not explain why Emma claimed, at 10.52am, to have received abusive tweets despite none being on her timeline. I did ask Emma twice if she could show us the tweets because regardless of political differences it would be useful for Labour people to see the abusive tweets and call out the perpetrators. But no reply as yet, which is understandable as a busy working journalist has better things to do perhaps than answer every one of the hundreds of tweets they receive in a day during an election campaign.

Someone more indulgent of conspiracy theories than I suggested to me, I hope humorously, that perhaps Emma claimed to be the victim of abusive tweets from Corbyn supporters in the hope of inspiring some so as to help buttress the “Abusive Corbyn Supporters” narrative and to make that the headline in order to keep the Corbyn Surge off the front pages. Certainly, The Times led with “Corbyn in Anti-Semitic row” type headline. Although to be fair the poll showing May might lose her majority was above it on the page. Nevertheless, the issue made the front page. And we do live in an age when most senior journos are, coincidentally I'm sure, self professed Tories. Hence, we should be more alive to the possibility of even inconsciously unfair reporting.

My own view is that was not part of any Emma cunning plan. It has more to do with the disconnect that’s evolved between the public and - not politicians – but the London-based journalistic class. Most senior London-based journalists have about as much idea of the public’s growing frustration with cuts, never-ending wars, lack of homes etc as politicians do, which isn’t saying much. So, when some of the public express disdain, frustration and criticism of how they do their job, some senior London-based journalists cry “abuse”. They are wrong, just as Emma appears to have been wrong. Those of us with a keen interest in media and adherence to impartiality and fair reporting  surely have the right to criticise just as robustly as Emma and others criticise Corbyn, 

That Interview for The The Rangers Manager’s Job In Full.

The CANDIDATE is welcomed into the room by RANGERS DIRECTORS - and a Computer screen.

RANGERS DIRECTOR ONE – Thanks for turning up at short notice. Sit down, pal.

CANDIDATE – Who are you guys?

DIRECTOR ONE – Us? We are the people. Our management team have just resigned.

CANDIDATE – Wow, what did they say?

(THE DIRECTORS exchange glances)

DIRECTOR ONE – Well, nothing.

(THE DIRECTORS laugh among themselves)

DIRECTOR ONE – See, they don’t know they’ve resigned yet.

(Laughter is heard from the computer screen)

CANDIDATE – But don’t you have a letter of resignation.

DIRECTOR ONE – Aye.

CANDIDATE – What did it say?

DIRECTOR ONE – Dunno. We’re still writing it.

DISEMBODIED VOICE – Never mind about them. They’ll be history, I mean are history. So, are you up for the job?

CANDIDATE – Of course.

DIEMBODIED VOICE FROM THE COMPUTER – What’s your qualifications?

CANDIDATE – For the avoidance of doubt I don’t do walking away from the Dunkirk spirit, being a real Rangers man and I want to manage the stadium that John Brown played for and I think The Billy Boys is a great song and I’m up to my knees in EBTs. (CANDIDATE nudges and winks). And when you meet me in person I can shake your hand. (CANDIDATE nudges and winks some more).

DISEMBODIED VOICE - That might not happen anytime soon. Much as I am loyal to Her Majesty, it may be some time before I can enter her jurisdiction again. So I might be a bit ethereal for the time being, a bit like our club. (DISEMBODIED VOICE laughs).

CANDIDATE – I’m just glad to have the opportunity because I thought you might have asked Ally McCoist to come back.

DIRECTOR ONE –Not until he can show us that he’s put his gardening leave to proper loyal use.

CANDIDATE – How do you mean?

DIRECTOR ONE – Until he can get grass to grow blue instead of green he’s no welcome.

DISEMBODIED VOICE -  But, seeing as we can’t afford to water our pitch, our grass will soon be turning dustbowl orange, which is some compensation, I suppose.

(DIRECTORS nod in agreement)

CANDIDATE – I’m not greedy, but what’s the dough?

THE DIRECTORS, IN UNISON  - NOT WARBUTTONS!

(THE DIRECTORS LAUGH)

DIRECTOR ONE – Did you not see the ad we put out? Here it is: 

DO you want to serve in the Sevco Management team, as a conduit for fans frustration with the board, on match days?

If you’re excommunicated and/or have a staunch commitment to Dunkirk we want to hear from you.

We are looking for a Volunteer (ideally on ceasefire) to assist the club around the dressing room and act as a match day conduit for supporters anger and frustration, pro-actively assuming blame for any issues that our fans may face.

Successful candidate will be a Sevco supporter and so will be able to drink like those that they’ll be helping. Volunteer will have a Halloween personality and be genuinely able to help supporters remain blind from what the board is really up to. He’ll be passionately excommunicated – and love to talk shite.

The target is 55.

If your IQ is over 18 and think you’ve got whatever it takes email onthemake@sevco.co.uk explaining why you would make the perfect foil for the club.

CANDIDATE – I thought that that ad was just for Stewards?  Surely there’s at least some pay?'

THE DIRECTORS – Thank you, Mr Souness. Better luck next time.

The Miami Showband Massacre - A Survivor's search For Truth 2017

Published by Frontline Noir.    Buy the book here

The Miami Showband Massacre was a 1975 atrocity during The Troubles in Ireland. Five musicians in band made up of both Catholic and Protestants were shot to death in cold blood when a bomb that British soldiers were planting in their van (at a British Army checkpoint – not a bogus checkpoint as some have reported) prematurely exploded, killing two of the bombers in the process.

What has become apparent is that official British policy of Collusion with Loyalist terrorists not only allowed this terrorist act to be carried out but actually instigated it too.

A few years ago, that statement would have been considered by many in UK like an Irish Republican press release. However, thanks to the tireless efforts of serious campaigners for truth in both Britain and Ireland, the fact that British official policy on Ireland during The Troubles had Collusion as one of its pillars is now universally accepted.

The group responsible for carrying out the Miami Showband Massacre, the Glenanne Gang, a grouping of UVF paramilitaries, serving policemen and soldiers, were not only known to British Intelligence but in fact utilised by them to carry out atrocities considered too atrocious to be carried out by the British Army proper. Other terrorist operations carried out by this gang include The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings which resulted in the single most deadly day in the most recent Troubles (1968 – 2005) when 33 men women and children were slaughtered by that state-sponsored gang. There were other operations too and one of the leaders of the Glenanne Gang was UVF leader Robin Jackson, known as The Jackal, and who was responsible for over 100 murders.

There are different degrees of Collusion. One is the “Rotten Apples” theory. This contends that the state is fundamentally moral and good but a few hotheads, sometimes understandably (according to the theory) take the law into their own hands. For years this was as far as the state would admit culpability in crimes committed by its agents whether they be policemen or soldiers. This nonsense was the State’s “get out” clause.  How could a law-abiding state such as Britain contain these bad apples? And most people, not directly affected by the terror unleashed by the State, bought it.

The lack of will among many in the media and the State to investigate (although there were many notable exceptions) helped sustain the lie of the “Rotten Apple” theory for decades. This increased the pain of victims’ surviving relatives by adding the salt of alienation to their wounds. Losing a relative to murder is terrible enough but to have the state deliberately inhibit your quest for justice means moving on is not an option. Then to have the state make you feel like you are some insane conspiracy theorist because you dare to seek the truth over your loved one’s murder puts pain on pain. The state of course knows this full well and would be happy if you simply conceded that it is too great a battle and gave up.

However, the state did not factor in the indefatigability of the relatives and survivors of many of the atrocities its agents carried out. The McGurk’s Bar Bombing Relatives legendary quest for justice is matched by those of Bloody Sunday, The Springhill Massacre, The Dublin and Monaghan Bombings, Reavey and O'Dowd killings, Loughinisland and many more. With so many major terrorist events taking place patterns formed in the eyes of any objective investigator. The lack of will by the State to investigate the crime properly, in many cases actually destroying and tampering with evidence, was just one of the common features. It took a long time but thanks to efforts of those above and others, the Rotten Apple theory has ceased to be credible and anyone citing it in defence of the state is simply discounted as lacking any credibility.

Another degree of Collusion is illustrated by instances of British Army personnel actively supporting the acts of terrorism by covering the investigative trail in order to protect agents in organisations.  Not every terrorist act committed by Loyalists was directed by British Intelligence. Often the British would not need to suggest any direction. Bearing in mind the state and the Loyalists had the same objective (defeating the IRA, ensuring the division of Ireland was maintained, and ensuring southern Ireland ceased to be - in their view - a safe haven for Republicans) all the State had to do often was ensure no impediments existed when Loyalist paramilitaries went about their business – and to clear up after them.

But the worst degree of Collusion is where the terrorist acts were actually conceived by intelligence agencies and then effectively sub-contracted to the relevant Counter Gang (British Brigadier Frank Kitson’s memorable description and part of the title of the book he wrote on the subject). In “Ulster”, the relevant Counter Gangs were the UDA (amazingly, legal until 1992) and the UVF (and later the LVF). These attacks were designed to have such an impact so as to further British policy in Ireland.

While some involved in these Loyalist organisations would contend they were directed by anyone, the body of evidence pointing towards their activities being at least guided by British Intelligence reached a critical mass some time ago with evidence uncovered by relatives groups and provided by whistle-blowers too.

However, The Miami Showband Massacre has all the hallmarks of the highest degree of Collusion. The perpetrators were known to operate from Glenanne Farm, owned by one of its members, James Mitchell (a reserve policeman). The land had been known by British Military Intelligence as a hub of Loyalist arms dumping and bomb making at least since 1972 when it appeared in internal documents identified as such.

The terrorists plan was to place the bomb and time it to explode as the van travelling through the south of Ireland, thus implicating the Showband members as republican terrorists. This, in turn, was supposed to ensure the Irish government felt under pressure to increase border security. For those who suppose this is too far-fetched, it was not the first time British Intelligence had used the gang to further its political aims. Bombs had gone off in Dublin in 1972 just as a debate in the Irish Parliament (The Dáil) regarding security legislation was taking place. On hearing the bombs explode, The Dáil passed the legalisation.

Some of the operatives involved in these terrorist activities were convicted, many were not. The State hoped that sending a few expendables to prison would satisfy the need for justice.  But, as the campaign that one of the survivors of the Miami Showband Massacre is involved in believes, it is not just the immediate perpetrators who need to be held to account; those who instigated, facilitated and covered up those crimes must be held to account.

That is why the UK Ministry Of Defence, the ministry ultimately responsible for implementing the policy of Collusion, must join these killers in the dock. To that end, the campaign for truth and justice for the Miami Showband continues this month in the UK courts. 

Further Reading

http://www.themiamishowband.com/tag/the-miami-showband-massacre/

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/miami-showband-massacre-survivor-on-coming-facetoface-with-the-uvf-killers-31416116.html

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-the-miami-showband-massacre-was-one-of-the-most-depraved-atrocities-of-the-troubles-26802906.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-33727399