"We got nothing" by Thomas 'Dixie' Elliott

[picador]

Dear little dishonest Picador, you did say:

Mention of the message and the fact that prisoners had discussed it was omitted from Ten Men Dead to prevent contemporary and future enemies of the emerging Adams-McGuinness leadership from making precisely the sort of accusations and insinuations that are being thrown around now

Your ridiculous posturing ever since, the above list being a prime example, cannot change what you wrote or indeed what happened. There is no point trying to return to the cover up when you have already blabbed. Open stable doors and bolted horses spring to mind.

I have told you many times I'm not connected in any way to Sinn Féin and furthermore I question aspects of their official version of events. I've also told you that the above statement which you now so love to cite, in the belief that you somehow got one over me, was mere conjecture on my part. Amateurism if you like. Ironically you are actually insulting me for agreeing with you in part.

Last week you wouldn't even accept I come from Belfast. But now - about turn - not only do I come from Belfast but I have inside knowledge of the Sinn Féin leadership and their continuing attempts to hide the truth about the hunger strike.

You should be on stage. In a hospital.

[Katayusha Mk2]

I have told you many times I'm not connected in any way to Sinn Féin.

But you're a proven liar with a very obvious interest in the maintanence of the PSF narrative. You've yet to clarify what motivates you in this regard, in particular your participation in the moronic campaign of the dark angel.

[the dark angel]

[SIZE="3"]But you're a proven liar[/SIZE] with a very obvious interest in the maintanence of the PSF narrative. You've yet to clarify what motivates you in this regard, in particular your participation in the moronic campaign of the dark angel.

Sorry I was wrong! Jim Careys film Liar Liar isn't near as funny as the tout KatayuseleesMI5tout.

[picador]

But you're a proven liar with a very obvious interest in the maintanence of the PSF narrative. You've yet to clarify what motivates you in this regard, in particular your participation in the moronic campaign of the dark angel.

I just told you again that I question parts of that narrative. And I'm not involved in any 'campaign'.

Nothing of any significance has come out about the hunger strike since it was last discussed, at some length, on this site. Until it does I suggest you stop cutting and pasting swathes of mawkishly-written propaganda. It only shows that you have nothing intelligent to say.

[L'Chaim]

What I can't understand about the OP is that the writer seems to think that the hunger strikes were the end, rather than a part of the great scheme of things. To say "we got nothing" is a bit much. Did he really think that the hunger strikes were going to be the last piece (or the only piece) that was going to miraculously make everything turn out the way he wanted and everything to be polly-wolly-doodle-all-the-day in his narrow view of the world?

[picador]

What I can't understand about the OP is that the writer seems to think that the hunger strikes were the end, rather than a part of the great scheme of things. To say "we got nothing" is a bit much. Did he really think that the hunger strikes were going to be the last piece (or the only piece) that was going to miraculously make everything turn out the way he wanted and everything to be polly-wolly-doodle-all-the-day in his narrow view of the world?

Elliot was quoting Bobby Sands on the outcome of the first hunger strike which was called off because its leader didn't want anyone to die. Which might lead one to ask: what's the point of going on hunger strike if you're not prepared to die?

[Katayusha Mk2]

I just told you again that I question parts of that narrative. And I'm not involved in any 'campaign'.

You are dishonest and transparent. You have referred to 'fanciful conspiracies' that challenge the narrative and participated in childish attempts to discredit me for challenging the narrative. You would have to be pretty stupid to think that people cannot see that you are a willing participant in the campaign.

Nothing of any significance has come out about the hunger strike since it was last discussed, at some length, on this site. Until it does I suggest you stop cutting and pasting swathes of mawkishly-written propaganda. It only shows that you have nothing intelligent to say.

This rather trite and obnoxious piece of deception is a further example of your campaigning.

[picador]

In what way was it trite and obnoxious?

[Catalpa]

"We got nothing" by Thomas 'Dixie' Elliott

I often look back to the time I spent on the blanket protest and feel privileged that I had the honour of spending some of those dark and more often than not, cold and brutal days sharing a cell in the company of Tom McElwee and Bobby Sands. These patriots, like the other brave hunger strikers, dreamt that they would live to bear witness to the unity of the Irish people within the political framework of a thirty-two county socialist republic, and it was for that reason alone that they had been imprisoned. Having spoken to Tom and Bobby and other hunger strikers, I know that they also looked forward to getting out of Long Kesh after completing their sentences and returning to their families. Tragically, it was not to be.

The darkest of those days were the periods of the two hunger strikes and I clearly remember the night of 18 December 1980, when the first hunger strike ended, after Brendan ‘The Dark’ Hughes called it off in order to save Seán McKenna’s life. I was in the leadership wing with Bobby, Bik McFarlane and Richard O’Rawe at that time. Bobby had been to the prison hospital and I looked out the window of my cell and saw him alight from the prison van with shoulders hunched and I knew immediately that something wasn’t right. This was confirmed when he walked down the wing and told us: ‘Ní fhuaireomar faic,’ [we got nothing]. In fact the only thing coming from the British, and it was handed to Gerry Adams by Father Meagher in Belfast, was a document that wasn’t worth the paper it was written on and which would never had ended the hunger strike even had The Dark chosen to let Seán die and continue with the fast.

In regards to clothing and work, the most important of our five demands, the document stated: ’As soon as possible all prisoners will be issued with civilian-type clothing for wear during the working day’. We Blanketmen realised instantly that civilian-type clothing was nothing more than a modernised prison uniform and that Bobby had been spot-on when he told us ‘Ní fhuaireomar faic,’ out of the 1980 hunger strike. That being the case, why do Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, and others persist with the claim that the Brits reneged on a deal during the first hunger strike when that is demonstrably untrue? Even more perplexing was the fact that former hunger striker, Bernard Fox, recently supported this claim in an interview with the Irish News.

While I have the greatest respect for Bernard as a former comrade and republican, he nonetheless said something in his interview with profound implications:


I wasn’t in the hospital at that time [when Danny Morrison met the hunger strikers on 5 July 1981] and I don’t know what the men were told or not told but I do know there was no deal.

He is right, of course; there was no deal between the prisoners and the Brits in early July; had there been a deal, Bernard would not have had to go on hunger strike. But what is astonishing is that he had been on hunger strike for thirty-two days, yet Bernard says that no one had informed him about the Mountain Climber offer which Danny Morrison allegedly relayed to the hunger strikers on 5 July 1981. It goes without saying then that Bernard never set eyes on the Secretary of State, Humphrey Atkins’s statement that incorporated the offer, and which was to be released upon the hunger strike ending. That begs the question: how can Bernard reconcile being deliberately kept in ignorance about the potentially life-saving Mountain Climber offer, and still lend his unqualified support for those who took a decision to keep that knowledge from him?

Bernard said he was deeply distressed by allegations that a deal which could have ended the hunger strike was vetoed in order to maximise electoral support for Sinn Féin. I too am deeply distressed, but the more I looked into these claims the more I see that there was a lot more being discussed at the time than a resolution to the hunger strike. In a comm to Gerry Adams, dated 26.7.’81, reproduced on page 334 of Ten Men Dead, Bik talks about ‘examining the possibility of contesting elections and actually making full use of seats gained i.e. participating in the Dáil’. He continues: ‘Such an idea presents problems within the Movement. How great would the opposition be and what would be the consequences of pursuing a course which did not enjoy a sizeable degree of support?'

Then on August 20th the same day that Micky Devine died, Owen Carron retained Bobby’s Fermanagh/South Tyrone seat. Just three days later on August 23rd, Sinn Féin announced that in future it would contest all Northern Ireland elections. The Hunger Strikes ended on October the 3rd and on October 6th Prior implemented exactly what was on offer from July 5th.

On October 31st at the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis Danny Morrison gave his famous ballot box/armalite speech in which he addressed the issue of the party taking part in future elections.

This time-line can be viewed at CAIN: Issues: Abstentionism: Sinn Fein Ard Fheis 1-2 November 1986 - Chronology of Main Events

It shockingly appears that while men were dying and even when the Hunger Strike was still on-going that they were discussing and even pushing through electoralism.

It all comes down to whether the people conducting the negotiations as they stood on 5 July 1981 on behalf of the Hunger Strikers took the British Government at their word.

Given their past actions in this Country I would say they had a right to be sceptical and to proceed with caution.

Anyone who thinks Mrs Thatcher wasn't out to wrong foot the Republican Movement and exact maximum advantage to the United Kingdom and maximum damage on Sinn Fein and the Anti H Block Movement would be most naive.

Divide et Impera [Divide and Rule] is after all a tactic favoured by Empires on the way up as well as on the way down. Putting a tantalising offer to a group of desperate and hungry men that was up in the air and open to interpretation was fraught with difficulty for those charged with the conveyance of offers.

Maybe the Irish negotiators did call it wrong, maybe with hindsight that would have been the best thing to do – but if that is so then they would have to have been more than human to foretell the way the sands would shift in that fateful Summer of 1981.

My recollection of that time was that there were ‘wheels within wheels within wheels’ doing the rounds and all was in a state of confusion and chaos. With hindsight of course we can piece it all together (more or less!) and divide into segments but at the time it sure didn’t seem that way.

A 'Deal' after all is something both sides agree to not just one side. In effect the British Government were asking Irish Republicans doing the negotiations and to take them at their word and then go to the Hunger Strikers and ‘sell’ the British offer to them.

Going the men on Hunger Strike and then selling them a dummy is not a position any person charged with such great responsibility would have liked to be in.

What would you have done?

[Katayusha Mk2]

Elliot was quoting Bobby Sands on the outcome of the first hunger strike which was called off because its leader didn't want anyone to die. Which might lead one to ask: what's the point of going on hunger strike if you're not prepared to die?

You would have no problem then with overseeing death by starvation, 'they signed up so they're fair game' sort of attitude? You must be a true believer in the mold of Brendan McFarland, who in a comm to Gerry Adams stated:

"Now, to maintain position and forge ahead, it looks like a costly venture indeed. However, after careful consideration of the overall situation I believe it would be wrong to capitulate. We took a decision and committed ourselves to hunger strike action. Our losses have been heavy – that I realize only too well. Yet I feel the part we have played in forwarding the liberation struggle has been great. Terrific gains have been made and the Brits are losing by the day. The sacrifice called for is the ultimate and men have made it heroically. Many others are, I believe, committed to hunger strike action to achieve a final settlement. I realize the stakes are very high – the Brits also know what capitulation means for them. Hence their entrenched position. Anyway, the way I see it is that we are fighting a war and by choice we have placed ourselves in the front line.
I still feel we should maintain this position and fight on in current fashion. It is we who are on top of the situation and we who are the stronger. Therefore we maintain. In the immediate this means that Doc and Kevin will forfeit their lives and as you say the others on hunger strike could well follow. I feel we must continue until we achieve a settlement, or until circumstances force us into a position where no choice would be left but to capitulate.
I don’t believe the latter would arise. I do feel we can break the Brits. But again, as you say, what is the price to be? Well, Cara, I think it’s a matter of setting our sights firmly on target and shooting straight ahead. It’s rough, brutal, ruthless and a lot of other things as well, but we are fighting a war and we must accept that front-line troops are more susceptible to casualities than anyone. We will just have to steel ourselves to bear the worst. I hope and pray we are right.”

But they were wrong and they knew it. This is why, as you said, key details of the negotiations (the 'Mountain Climber iniative) and offer were withheld from 10 Men Dead. But they were also with held from the wider Republican movement and even the hunger strikers themselves at the time.

If they had at least had the decency to admit to even a tactical error at the time O Rawe's book came out there would have been little said. But the dishonesty and manipulation, a conceal the truth at all costs attitude, is despicable in the extreem and what makes it more damning is the pattern that the Adams leadership has in regards to choosing cover-ups over truth.

This is why many people hold little hope for any sort of truth commission happening and are insulted by PSF's stance on truth inquires. It's rotten from the top down - a man who cannot admit he was in the IRA, whose leadership brazenly employs the murderers of Paul Quinn, Robert McCartney and Joe O Connor, the crassness is endless....the hunger strikers are the most symbolic of a litany of crimes committed against the Republican and Nationalist community by a cabal of despicable liars whose only interest is self preservation.