jmm@bonnie.UUCP (Joe Mcghee) (01/31/85)
On Sunday, January 30, 1972 Lt. Colonel Derek Wilford led his troops of the 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment in an operation which caused him to be awarded the Order of the British Empire (O.B.E.) by Queen Elizabeth. This operation was not a desparate struggle against hopeless odds, nor was it an operation which saved any lives, nor was it an operation which required any great effort or courage on the part of his troops. Colonel Wilford was given one of England's highest honors for the killing of 13 unarmed and innocent civilians at a civil rights rally in one of the main squares of the city of Derry in northern Ireland. The civilians who died that day were: Kevin McElhinney age 16 John Duddy age 17 Hugh Gilmore age 17 Michael McDaid age 17 John Young age 17 Michael Kelly age 17 Gerard Donahy age 17 William Nash age 19 Patsy Doherty age 21 Jim Wray age 23 William McKinney age 27 Gerald McKinney age 35 Bernard McGuigan age 41 A fourteenth victim later died of wounds in the hospital. The Derry city coroner, Major Hubert O'Neill, said at the inquest on the fourteen deaths on the 21st of August, 1973: "It strikes me that the army ran amok that day and they shot without thinking of what they were doing. They were shooting innocent people. These people may have been taking part in a parade that was banned, but I don't think that justifies the firing of live rounds indiscriminately. I say it without reservation. It was sheer unadulterated murder." On Monday, January 31, 1972, the day after the massacre, Fulvio Grimaldi, an Italian journalist in Derry to report the march and rally described for Irish radio what he saw: "It was the most unbelievable.... I have traveled many countries. I have seen many civil wars and revolutions and wars. I have never seen such a cold-blooded murder, organized, disciplined murder, planned murder. I was in the front line of the march as the march approached the barricade erected by the military in William Street. The Army moved up with this water cannon and sprayed the whole crowd with colored water after which gas was used massively by the army, and the crowd dispersed towards the meeting place, which was at Free Derry Corner. As the crowd was moving away, I would say about a couple of thousand people - completely peaceful because they had been drenched with gas and they could hardly breathe, and many were sick - suddenly in the area behind Free Derry Corner - Rossville flats, I think it is called, the big square in front of those flats - the army, the paratroopers, moved in on Saracens (armored cars). And other paratroopers followed on foot, and they jumped out. The people were thinking they would be given another dose of gas and scattered very hurriedly and they really fled towards Free Derry Corner. The army jumped out and they started shooting in all directions. I took pictures of this, I took recordings of this, and there is no doubt whatsoever that there wasn't the slightest provocation. There hadn't been one shot fired at them. There hadn't been one nail bomb thrown at them. They just jumped out and with unbelieveable murderous fury, shot into the fleeing crowd." When asked if the paratroopers had been fired on at any time prior to their shooting of the crowd, Mr. Grimaldi said: "I am absolutely certain, and it is proved by the tape which records the whole following of events. Absolutely no shot, no nail bomb even, nothing at all. The crowd was dispersing. Let me tell you what I saw. Now, they were only in the street and in the squares. I saw a man and his son crossing the street, trying to get to safety, with their hands on their heads. They were shot dead. The man got shot dead. The son, I think, was dying. I saw a young fellow who had been wounded, crouching against the wall. He was shouting `Don't shoot, don't shoot!' A paratrooper approached and shot him from about one yard. I saw a young boy of 15 protecting his girl friend against the wall and then proceeding to try and rescue her by going out with a handkerchief and with the other hand on his hat. A paratrooper approached, shot him from about one yard into the stomach, and shot the girl into the arm. I saw a priest approaching a fallen boy in the middle of the square, trying to help him, give him the last rites perhaps, and the army - I saw a paratrooper kneel down and take aim at him and shoot at him, and the priest just got away by laying flat on his belly. I saw a French colleague of mine who, shouting `Press, Press!' and raising high his arms went into the middle to give help to a fallen person and I saw again paratroopers kneeling down and aiming at him, and it's only by a fantastic acrobatic jump that he did that he got away. I myself got shot at five times. I was at a certain stage shielding behind a window. I approached the window to take some pictures. Five bullets went immediately through the window and I don't know how they missed. It was panic. It was sheer despair. It was frustration. I saw people crying, old men crying, young boys of 13, 14 and 15 years who had lost their friends, crying and not understanding. There was astonishment. There was bewilderment. There was rage and frustration." Undoubtedly this was an experience which caused many people in Ireland to turn to the gun. If we look at a graph of the number of attacks against the British, there is an immediate dramatic upturn after this date which has lasted through the intervening 13 years. And Colonel Wilford has his medal for killing the largest number of unarmed, innocent non-combatants in the present conflict in northern Ireland - a record which still stands after 13 years. "Murder is murder is murder." - Margaret Thatcher "These people know nothing of democracy." - Margaret Thatcher bonnie!jmm J. M. McGhee
jcgowl@ihlpg.UUCP (r. gowland) (02/01/85)
> > On Sunday, January 30, 1972 Lt. Colonel Derek Wilford led his troops > of the 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment in an operation which This is not an attempt at humour, but a statement of feeling by an expatriate Brit concerned about people. Why did Col Wilford do this twelve years early and in the wrong place. He should have been set onto Arthur Scargill and his rent-a-mob pickets. This is probably not a view which my employers would have, so I had better disassociate this personal view from any connection with anyone who might be regarded as my employer.
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/04/85)
In article <123@ihlpg.UUCP> jcgowl@ihlpg.UUCP (r. gowland) writes: >> >> On Sunday, January 30, 1972 Lt. Colonel Derek Wilford led his troops >> of the 1st Battalion of the British Parachute Regiment in an operation which > >This is not an attempt at humour, but a statement of feeling by >an expatriate Brit concerned about people. Why did Col Wilford do >this twelve years early and in the wrong place. He should have >been set onto Arthur Scargill and his rent-a-mob pickets. >This is probably not a view which my employers would have, so I >had better disassociate this personal view from any connection >with anyone who might be regarded as my employer. Just watch the U.K. for the next couple of years, and you may see it happen. Whatever other criticism you may/may not level at Margaret Thatcher's government, who can deny that it has been divisive? With the sole exception of the tiny Kent coalfield, the Miner's strike has been a conflict between the South and the rest of Britain( ie the wealthy, employed South vs the others). It never used to be like that. There already exist Irish, Welsh, and Scottish Nationalist Armies. I wonder whether we will see Northumbrian or Cumbrian ones. I am speaking as a WASP, English Southerner, who voted for her in the last election. Nigel Gale
dbrown@watarts.UUCP (Dave Brown) (02/19/85)
> > Just watch the U.K. for the next couple of years, and you may > see it happen. > > Whatever other criticism you may/may not level at Margaret Thatcher's > government, who can deny that it has been divisive? > With the sole exception of the tiny Kent coalfield, the Miner's > strike has been a conflict between the South and the rest of > Britain( ie the wealthy, employed South vs the others). > It never used to be like that. > > There already exist Irish, Welsh, and Scottish Nationalist Armies. > I wonder whether we will see Northumbrian or Cumbrian ones. > > I am speaking as a WASP, English Southerner, who voted for her > in the last election. > > > > Nigel Gale As a Canadian born from Northern English parents, I hasten to tell the Southernor that people in the North have long resented the South. It's just that now the politics have increased the resentment to boiling point. Sincerely yours, Dave Brown P.S. I didn't think there were any coalfields in Cumbria?
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (02/21/85)
[Note that net.flame has been edited from the posting.] >> >> Just watch the U.K. for the next couple of years, and you may >> see it happen. >> >> Whatever other criticism you may/may not level at Margaret Thatcher's >> government, who can deny that it has been divisive? >> With the sole exception of the tiny Kent coalfield, the Miner's >> strike has been a conflict between the South and the rest of >> Britain( ie the wealthy, employed South vs the others). >> It never used to be like that. >> >> There already exist Irish, Welsh, and Scottish Nationalist Armies. >> I wonder whether we will see Northumbrian or Cumbrian ones. There exists a Cornish Separatist Movement! >> I am speaking as a WASP, English Southerner, who voted for her >> in the last election. >> >> >> >> Nigel Gale > >As a Canadian born from Northern English parents, I hasten to tell >the Southernor that people in the North have long resented the >South. It's just that now the politics have increased the resentment >to boiling point. > > Sincerely yours, > > Dave Brown > P.S. I didn't think there were any coalfields in Cumbria? Yes, there are. There are something like 150 pits in all of Britain. Many are just small pits. The biggest reasons for Maggie's re-election are 1. Alot of money has been given to the Conservative Party and 2. Her opposition is divided. 1. The Conservative Party has started doing what American politicians have been doing since 1960. They have had alot of money to flood the people with advertising (Saatchi & Saatchi are her marketers) to tell their side of the story and gloss over or ignore any problems. Labour did not have that kind of funding in 1983. (I believe the Tories raised 3-4 times as much as Labour did!) The campaign became one of "what are the flaws in the opposition" as opposed to a legitimate examination of what the Tories did in their 4 years. Coming out near the election were full details of the sinking of General Belgrano. Unemployment was around 3,000,000. Student grants were being cut and places in higher education were being cut, primarily in the sciences and technical fields (Does Salford still have a University?) In short, her policies were not working for the majority of Britons. Yet all this was ignored in the campaign. 2. The formation of the SDP removed a moderating influence from the Labour Party. This helped cause one of the most radical programs to be presented to the British people. People afraid of that, yet disliking Maggie, then voted for the Alliance candidate in their constituency (The Alliance was an alliance between the Liberal Party and the Social Democrat Party). The Conservative Party's share of the votes in 1983 was actually lower than in 1979. The opposition was almost evenly split between Labour and Alliance, so the Tories were reelected with a much larger majority. (The actual votes were something like C 42% L 28% Lib/SDP 25% Others 5%) A note to American readers: Mrs. Thatcher is not elected Prime Minister in a nation wide election. She is elected only by her constituency as the member of parliament. Parliament then (officially) elects her to be the Prime Minister, in fact that is decided in party conferences. MP's almost always follow their party line when voting in parliament, although from what I've read, there have been Tory MP's voting against Maggie on several key issues. Not only has she divided Britain, but she has divided her party! From a person who worked for Labour in Scotland in 1983: -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. { ihnp4 || allegra || mcnc || cbosgb } !abnji!jca "You said you came from Fulham." "Griffiths, when I look at you, I wonder why your ancestors bothered to climb out of the primordial slime."
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (02/25/85)
In article <352@abnji.UUCP> nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) writes: >The Conservative Party's share of the votes in 1983 was actually lower than >in 1979. The opposition was almost evenly split between Labour and Alliance, >so the Tories were reelected with a much larger majority. (The actual >votes were something like C 42% L 28% Lib/SDP 25% Others 5%) Why does the Labour party continue to oppose proportional representation? What justification is there for a Conservative majority in Parliament when L, Lib/SDP and "others" got 58% of the vote? Britain cannot be called a democracy. This applies to all other countries with similar crazy electorial systems USA, Australia, New Zealand ... in fact all countries to which Britain exported the *%#@! system. The only way to get Maggie and her crowd of blood suckers out is to have a L+Lib+SDP alliance and then change the rotten system. If this is not done *soon* we will find that people in Wales, Scotland, Northern England etc begin to realise that their votes are not worth the paper they are cast on and finding alternative ways in expressing their views. --Mike Williams (PS I also have worked for the Labour Party in many elections in Wales)