A Washington briefing

October 2, 2025.

IRISH CONGRESSIONAL BRIEFING

Distributed to Congress by the Irish National Caucus

“Noted Irish historian has little hope that Unionists/Protestants will move forward and really accept Catholics as equals.”

—Fr. Sean McManus.

The rise and fall of William Craig and lessons for unionism today

CORMAC MOORE, Irish News. Belfast. Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Fifty years ago, in October 1975, the leader of the Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party, William Craig, resigned from the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC) after he failed to gain support for a power-sharing arrangement involving the SDLP as a potential solution to the political impasse in Northern Ireland.

It heralded the end of the political career of Craig, who was known beforehand for his hardline, uncompromising views.

Two decades later, another Vanguard member with a reputation for hardline views, David Trimble, also compromised in signing the Good Friday Agreement, a move that precipitated the demise of the once all-powerful Ulster Unionist Party.

Are the fates of Craig and Trimble foremost in the mind of unionist leaders today, like Gavin Robinson, who fear any sign of compromise could see them swallowed up by hardliners like Jim Allister’s TUV?

As an Ulster Unionist Party member and cabinet minister in Terence O’Neill’s government, William Craig attained a reputation for ploughing through with his modernizing agenda while ignoring concerns of stakeholders such as trade unions, people west of the Bann, and nationalists.

As home affairs minister during the civil rights period, his decision to deploy the RUC to “use the stick, use the stick” to restrict marches is considered by many as a catalyst for the beginning of the Troubles.

He contended that the charges that Stormont discriminated against Catholics were baseless, and opposed the more interventionist approach being proposed by Harold Wilson’s British government as the crisis escalated. Increasingly at odds with Terence O’Neill, he was sacked in December 1968.

Vanguard

After losing a leadership challenge to Brian Faulkner in 1971, and with the imminent threat of the British government imposing direct rule, he formed the Ulster Vanguard movement in early 1972, which garnered the support of many members of the UDA paramilitary group.

At a series of rallies, such was the extent of his incendiary language that he made Ian Paisley sound like a choir boy. Craig’s most infamous statement was delivered in March 1972, warning that “if and when the politicians fail us, it may be our job to liquidate the enemy.”

He was even less subtle later in the year, stating: “We are prepared to come out and shoot and kill. I am prepared to come out and shoot and kill. Let us put the bluff aside.”

The Times’ Robert Fisk described the Vanguard rallies as more like “Nazi rallies of the ’30s than a protest movement in a corner of seventies Britain.”

Craig played a pivotal role in opposing the Sunningdale communique which resulted in a power-sharing executive that existed briefly in the first half of 1974.

Together with anti-power-sharing Ulster Unionists and the DUP, Craig’s Vanguards formed the UUUC, which won 11 out of the 12 northern seats in the February 1974 general election to Westminster. Craig became MP for East Belfast.

Although part of the same coalition, the Vanguards outperformed the DUP, winning three of the 11 UUUC seats with 10.6% of the overall vote, whereas the DUP won just one seat (Ian Paisley in North Antrim) and 8.2% of the vote.

In the October 1974 general election, Vanguard retained its three seats with a 13.1% vote share.

The UUUC, with Craig to the forefront, supported the May 1974 Ulster Workers Council strike which brought an end to Sunningdale.

Elections to the Constitutional Convention in 1975 – the British government’s next attempt to reach a political solution – followed a similar pattern, with anti-power-sharing unionists winning 47 of the 78 seats. The Vanguards won 14 (including one by David Trimble in South Belfast) while the DUP won 12.

But to the surprise of most unionists, William Craig appeared to experience a road to Damascus moment by converting to the cause of power-sharing with the SDLP through the concept of a ‘voluntary coalition’, for a temporary period until the violence subsided.

Although Craig thought he had the backing of the other two UUUC leaders, Harry West and Ian Paisley, he did not. Outflanked by Paisley and others, and opposed by most within unionism, the political fortunes of Craig and the Vanguards took a nosedive, never to recover. The party became fragmented, with Craig rejoining the Ulster Unionists.

Trimble and Good Friday

David Trimble also joined the UUP and became leader in 1995, partly because of his hardline past and his uncompromising stance over Drumcree, symbolized by walking hand-in-hand with Paisley down the Garvaghy Road that summer.

Like his mentor Craig, Trimble too saw the fortunes of the party he led haemorrhage support within unionism after he signed the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

The main beneficiary of the decline of the Vanguards and the UUP, Ian Paisley, suffered a similar fate after he did the unthinkable and went into coalition with Sinn Féin in 2007, being forced out of the leadership of the party he founded a year later.

Given the fate that befell such big beasts of political unionism for compromising to reach political solutions, in many ways it is little wonder that the DUP now keeps looking over its shoulder at the TUV.

In the long term, though, the inability of political unionism to show political bravery and move beyond its base will do nothing to stem its decline.

'The bullet grazed my shoulder and went through my face and out my nose'

JOHN CASSIDY, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2025

SURVIVOR OF BLOODY SUNDAY SOLDIER F IS ACCUSED OF TRYING TO MURDER TAKES STAND

A man recalled how he was shot in the face on Bloody Sunday as he tried to run away during disturbances.

Trouble erupted in Derry on Sunday, January 30, 1972, following a civil rights march.

Michael Quinn took to the witness stand at Belfast Crown Court yesterday in the trial of 'Soldier F', a former member of the Parachute Regiment who denies two counts of murder and five of attempted murder that day.

Those killed were James Wray (22) and William McKinney (26). Mr Quinn was one of the murder bid victims.

Soldier F was present in court, but screened from the public and press by a blue curtain.

Thirteen people were shot and killed by the Paras on Bloody Sunday.

It is the prosecution's case shots fired by soldiers at unarmed civilians as they tried to run away were “unjustified”, “unlawful” and “deliberate”.

Mr Quinn was a 17-year-old schoolboy when he joined the march, and described the mood as “apprehensive”, as people knew the paratroopers were going to be there.

During his evidence, he said the original plan of the march was to go to Guildhall Square, but its route was blocked by a rubble barrier erected by the Army at William Street.

’Wasn’t an awful lot of stones thrown’

He recalled being asked by a man to carry one end of a civil rights banner for a short distance towards the Army, before returning to his friends.

“I didn't know who he was at the time, but I now know him to be Jim Wray,” said Mr Quinn.

He remembered trouble breaking out at the rubble barrier, but added “there wasn't an awful lot of stones thrown” and “march stewards were trying to restrain the young people”.

Mr Quinn said he was taking shelter at the rubble barricade when he saw two Army Saracen vehicles enter the area.

He said: “I could see soldiers jumping out of the back... one of them had the butt of a rifle and was swinging the rifle like a club. I hadn't seen that before and that was quite shocking.”

He told prosecution barrister David McNeill he crossed over the rubble barricade and “heard four shots. It really threw me, because I couldn't understand why they were shooting, because I hadn't heard anything being fired at the Army”.

Mr Quinn added: “I knew from the sound of them they were from an Army rifle — it is a hard crack sound.

“It was only when I turned around did I see the soldiers. There were four of five of them and what appeared to be a senior officer, as they were standing around him. I think there was a soldier with a radio.''

He told the court he then saw a soldier emerge from an area near Rossville Flats.

He said: “He had his rifle by his side, raised it a little. From a pouch at his side, he took out what I took to be a bullet.

“There was a setting sun behind us, it was quite bright, I could see the metal object glistening in the sun. He put it into the breech of the rifle.

“At that point I said I am getting out of here. There were some people around us.”

He added he didn't know if the soldier fired or not.

Mr Quinn made his way into Glenfada Park North “to take shelter”, as he thought the area would be safer.

He said, on Rossville Street, he could hear a “growing intensity of gunfire, a sustained period of gunfire and I couldn't understand why. I knew it was all Army shooting. It was the SLR (self-loading rifle) again.”

Mr Quinn recalled seeing a man being shot.

‘There are people dying out here’

He said: “I heard him call out, scream. He was on his own. I looked at him and saw a ring of blood emerging on his leg and he was collapsing to the ground. I didn't see who shot him, and I didn't actually hear the shot.

“I heard someone shout: 'There are people dying out here'. I was taking shelter as the gunfire was getting more intense.”

He said he saw a group of people carrying the body of a young man across Glenfada Park.

As he tried to get out of the courtyard in Glenfada Park, the witness said he heard someone shout: 'They (Army) are coming in'.

“I ran crouching across the courtyard. I remember jumping over a raised piece of ground in the middle,” he added.

“As I was approaching the exit to Abbey Park, I felt myself being struck by a bullet.

“It grazed my shoulder, the jacket I was wearing, and then went through my face and exited through my nose. It hit me close to my ear. It broke the cheekbone, it shattered the cheekbone.

“For some reason I kind of slowed down and I could actually see the flesh and blood breaking away from my face.

“I stumbled, but I managed to stay on my feet and I could see to my right someone falling forward a few feet in front of me.

“I thought his head was hitting the kerb.

“What made me think he was shot was that he didn't try to save himself, his hands didn't go out.”

He confirmed to the prosecutor the injured man “didn't break his fall”.

A second witness, Derek McFeely, also gave evidence to the non-jury trial, which is being presided over by Judge Patrick Lynch KC.

He said he was 17 at the time and had gone to the march with his friend Daniel Dunn and they joined the rally at the top of Westland Street.

He remembered seeing soldiers inside a derelict building in a nearby street.

He told the court: “There was jeering at the soldiers, there was cat-calling, and all of a sudden a shot rang out. All I can recollect is one single shot.

‘Bodies lying on the ground’

“There was a man standing beside me, a young fella the same age as me, Mr Donaghy.

“He fell to the ground. He had been shot.

“Immediately, a group of people in that area started to run towards Abbey Street and into Columbcille Court.

“Myself and three other men lifted him and carried him to a house Columbcille Court.”

Mr McFeely said he and Mr Dunn intended to head into the Bogside and Glenfada Park North as it was “safer”.

He added that when he entered the courtyard at Glenfada Park, he recalled seeing “two bodies lying on the ground”.

The witness said he looked up and saw a group of four or five soldiers coming into Glenfada Park and they were “running and their rifles were across their bodies held against their chest”.

He added: “I decided then to make a fast exit through the entrance we had come in.

“I heard three or four shots as we exited Glenfada Park. If there was a second between each of them, that was about it. It was quick.

“After leaving Glenfada Park North, I came across a person who had an injury to his face.

“The only way I can describe it is that it looked like a busted tomato on his right cheek.”

TUV, DUP and UUP councillors officially trigger 'call-in' on Belfast's Irish Language Policy

NIAMH CAMPBELL, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2023

NEW CORPORATE LANGUAGE STRATEGY IN BELFAST WILL NOW BE PUT ON HOLD

Unionists are to table a 'call-in' over Belfast City Council's vote to adopt a new Irish language policy.

TUV said: “The required number of signatures has been obtained... the text has been agreed and the call-in should be with Belfast City Council's solicitor tonight... it is signed by councillors from TUV, DUP and UUP.”

Members voted on Wednesday evening to back the new strategy, which will lead to more widespread use of the Irish language through bilingual signage and a bilingual logo on vehicles and uniforms.

A DUP proposal for no changes to uniforms was defeated.

Party leader Gavin Robinson rejected any suggestion its opposition was motivated by “anti-Irish” sentiment.

He said the policy was “wholly disproportionate” and would lead to the “squandering” of nearly £2m of public money.

‘Not anti-Irish’

Mr Robinson added: “It's not anti-Irish to talk about services in the city, to talk about good use of ratepayers' money.

“If there was £1.9m lying around as an underspend, as has been claimed, it should have been returned to the hard-pressed ratepayers of Belfast, rather than squandered on an unnecessary change of their corporate identity.

“It's not anti-Irish... anybody that wants to engage in that language, anybody that wants to enjoy it, is free to do so in this city of ours, but they don't need to impose it on others who have no interest.”

A call-in is a mechanism that allows reconsideration of certain key decisions under defined conditions as a check or safeguard.

There are 17 unionist councillors in Belfast. A call-in must be made by 15% of councillors (nine in Belfast).

If it is valid, the decision is put on hold until it can be looked at it again.

If the call-in is about “community impact”, and a legal opinion agrees the concern is legitimate, the decision will only go through if 80% of councillors support it.

If the legal opinion says the concern isn't legitimate, the original decision stands.

Dual language signs widespread

Various local councils have adopted Irish language policies and additional procedures specifically related to dual-language street signage.

Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon; Ards and North Down; Causeway Coast and Glens, and Lisburn and Castlereagh City, all have a dual-language street signage policy allowing for Irish language and Ulster-Scots signs, but only where a super majority of residents (usually 66%) support them.

An initial petition of around a third is required to begin this process.

In all of the above council policies, if a resident does not respond to the survey, they are recorded as being against the application for dual language street signage.

Should an application for dual language street signage be unsuccessful in all of the above councils, a ban is placed on reapplication for a period of between one and five years.

Derry City and Strabane District Council has a specific policy that promotes and facilitates the use of Irish language in its services, including signage and documentation.

It recently ratified a new street signage policy based on the 15% minority threshold in place in Belfast, as recommended by the United Nations experts on minority issues.

Fermanagh and Omagh District Council also has an Irish language policy complemented by a five-year Irish Language Strategy (2021-2026) and an associated implementation plan.

Newry, Mourne and Down District Council said: “Our bilingualism policy... sets out the council's commitment to facilitate and encourage the promotion and use of both the Irish language and the English language in the council area.

“The council's corporate brand is bilingual, signage on council property is bilingual, and the council icon is used on work wear.”

It added: “These approaches are set out within the council's brand identity guidelines.”

Mid Ulster's official Irish language policy promotes the use, learning, and cultural recognition of and facilitation of services through Irish across the district.

It also has a separate policy for dual language street signage, based on the model in Newry, Mourne and Down.

Mid and East Antrim Borough Council currently has no specific policy for the Irish language, nor does it have a policy for dual-language street signage, making it the only local authority not to have implemented such a policy

Councils' language policies are guided by the European Charter for Regional Minority Languages, ratified by the UK Government for Irish under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.

Guidance from the Department for Communities for local councils published in 2016 sets out the guiding principles of the charter that should be considered by councillors when developing Irish language policies.

DUP leader accuses council of ‘squandering’ £1.9m on Irish language policy

ALLAN PRESTON, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

DUP leader Gavin Robinson has added to unionist criticism of an Irish language policy for Belfast City Council.

Councillors voted in favour of the plans on Wednesday, with DUP representatives claiming it ignored the wishes of many ratepayers and could put council workers at risk in certain areas of the city.

Yesterday, Mr Robinson denied it was “anti-Irish” to question the use of £1.9m in unspent council money to fund the policy, which would be “squandered” in order to change the council’s corporate identity.

“It’s not anti-Irish, anyone that wants to engage in that language and wants to enjoy it is free to do so in this city of ours, but they don’t need to impose it on those who have no interest,” he told Cool FM.

The policy sets out plans on how Irish would be used across its services including signage at facilities, on the council website and for its logo.

Speaking to The Irish News at Belfast City Hall, Sinn Féin MLA Philip McGuigan said most people in Belfast would recognise it as a step towards equality.

“I think it’s a really good decision for Belfast… I don’t think anybody’s going to be surprised that the DUP are going to be opposed to any move towards equality… particularly in Irish language,” he said.

Earlier, SDLP councillor Séamas de Faoite shared an older picture of City Hall featuring a large banner with the words ‘Ulster Says No’, which was erected to protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

“Whenever political unionism says that councillors shouldn’t force politics on council staff, I’m sadly reminded of what they used to use Belfast City Hall for in the 1980s. We won’t be doing that. In 2025 we’re building a Belfast for all.”

He also shared the Irish saying ‘Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine,’ which translates as “people live in each other’s shadows”.

Democratic decision on Irish should not be viewed as threat

Pro Fide Et Patria, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

IT is genuinely sad to witness the concerted attempts to present almost every initiative promoting parity of esteem between the two main traditions in our divided society as a contentious and unacceptable move.

The Irish language was for many decades practically invisible in public life across the north, and had to struggle to survive in the face of open hostility and discrimination at official level in a range of areas.

Times are changing rapidly, and the new draft policy which has been adopted by Belfast City Council should be regarded as a perfectly straightforward development which reflects the structures in place at other district authorities. Instead, there have been angry shouts of protest, claims of sectarianism and even suggestions that legal manoeuvres could be made to overturn a democratic, civic decision taken on a decisive 42-17 vote.

“ It is genuinely sad to witness the concerted attempts to present almost every initiative promoting parity of esteem between the two main traditions in our divided society as a contentious and unacceptable move

It is very difficult to see how a plan involving the provision of English-Irish signage at council facilities, as well as introducing a new bilingual logo for vehicles and uniforms, can be viewed as a threat to any section of the community. However, after the sustained uproar generated by largely the same voices within unionism over a similar policy at Grand Central Station, none of this should come as a surprise.

As has been regularly pointed out, those who travel across Britain will be well aware that the same type of joint signage has always been in place across Scotland and Wales at transport hubs and elsewhere without the slightest fuss. Demonstrating the significance of the Irish, Welsh and Scots Gaelic languages in this way reflects their strong heritage and should be well beyond politics.

It is particularly unfortunate that, instead of rational discussions about the available options, the City Hall debate was dominated by confrontational language in which ludicrous terms like subjugation were thrown about.

The new approach needs to be handled sensitively over the coming years, and it is positive that the council has confirmed further engagements with trade unions will follow as part of its industrial relations framework.

Anyone who has studied the history of Belfast already knows that place names in both unionist and nationalist districts, including the likes of Shankill, Ballysillan, Tullycarnet and Lisnasharragh, are derived from Irish.

This deserves to be cherished and celebrated, as people of all religions and none are increasingly doing during the expansion of interest in the language across the city and beyond.

It should be regarded as part of a process based on mutual respect which has been democratically endorsed and is capable of enriching all our lives.

TUV reluctant to line up behind 'unionism's best friend in Britain'

SUZANNE BREEN POLITICAL EDITOR, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2025

ANALYSIS

Ben Habib is seen by his admirers as unionism's best friend in Britain.

Keir Starmer may have forgotten to namecheck Northern Ireland in his address to the Labour conference in Liverpool but, at the Advance UK party launch in Newcastle upon Tyne, it was very different.

“Here's to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in all its parts and for all its people,” Habib said in his speech at the glitzy reception as he raised a glass to the Union.

The millionaire businessman and Advance UK leader is no stranger to Northern Ireland. He joined Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, Jim Allister, and Jamie Bryson on numerous platforms at anti-protocol rallies here.

The former MEP has also put his money where his mouth is. In 2022, he donated £30,000 each to the DUP and the TUV for their Assembly election campaigns.

However, he parted ways with the DUP over its deal to restore devolution last year. He accused it of misrepresenting the facts for denying the Irish Sea Border continued to exist and called on it to “rediscover its moral compass”.

Habib was deputy leader of Reform UK when he spoke those words. He was integral to its formal partnership with the TUV for last July's Westminster election.

Addressing the TUV's annual conference in Kells last year, he said the DUP had “completely lost my support” and that he was now “firmly hitched at the hip” with Jim Allister.

Again, Habib proved remarkably generous. He gave the TUV £50,000 last May — the largest contribution to a political party ever recorded in Northern Ireland by an individual still alive at the time.

Habib’s ‘godsend’ to TUV

The funding was a godsend for the party in fighting the general election which saw Allister elected North Antrim MP.

Habib said: “Had the DUP stayed the course against the Protocol, I would have spread my support between the TUV and DUP in a smaller measure for each. The £50,000 was what was required to allow the TUV to fight the general election and deliver Jim into the Commons.”

He had proved a true friend to the hardline unionist party in more ways than giving money. When Nigel Farage returned as Reform UK leader a month before the Westminster poll, he threw the TUV under the bus.

He endorsed the DUP's Sammy Wilson and Ian Paisley — whom Allister would oust — in their election campaigns.

Habib remained wholly loyal to the TUV, conducting radio interviews and tweeting a video to stress his support.

“Reform UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the TUV and supports all its candidates in Northern Ireland. ALL of them!” he tweeted. “Jim Allister is a man of utter principle and I would never let him down.”

Habib quit Reform UK 10 months ago, denouncing the party's alleged lack of democratisation and claiming he'd been “silenced”. Farage branded him “bitter and twisted” and described his departure as a “huge relief”.

There remains no love lost between the two men and Habib's new party will seek to compete fiercely with Farage's.

Yet surprisingly there was no show of public support from the TUV for Advance UK last weekend. The TUV had a presence at the party's launch on Saturday, but it wasn't an official one.

Carrickfergus councillor David Clarke travelled to Newcastle upon Tyne for the event. He was fulsome in his praise of Advance UK and its leader. Clarke, who joined the TUV last year after quitting the DUP, posted a photo on social media of himself and Habib from the conference.

Choosing a side in someone else’s war

The pair were holding an Ulster flag and a Union flag. The TUV councillor was there as a guest of Advance UK. It is clear he has chosen a side in the battle between Habib and Farage.

Clarke has expressed hope that Farage never becomes Prime Minister, claiming it would be detrimental for the Union as he would betray unionists. It is understood that Habib is much more popular and trusted than Farage with grassroots TUV members.

Clarke tweeted that Habib was “amazing in so many ways in his support for Northern Ireland and the UK”. He added: “I know many, many people here who rightly think so highly of him. Whereas Farage says an all-Ireland is inevitable and backed Ian Paisley. I know who I trust and whose side I'm on.”

Clarke's enthusiasm stood in stark contrast to his party's corporate silence last weekend on the Advance UK's launch. The TUV councillor has been contacted for comment.

A party spokesman said: “Councillor Clarke attended the launch of Advance UK in a personal capacity. There is no formal relationship between TUV and Advance UK.”

He added: “TUV welcome the strong and consistent stand Ben Habib has taken for Northern Ireland's place as a full and equal part of the UK, a principle which we also hold dear.”

Despite its warm words for the Advance UK leader, the TUV is not hitching itself to the hip of Habib or his party in the way he supported it last year. The logic behind that decision is surely that it doesn't want to annoy or alienate Farage.

Just last month, MLA Timothy Gaston told the Assembly: “I look forward with the hope that, in a number of years' time, we will have a Reform government that will give many Labour MPs their P45 — much to the displeasure of the UUP which seems to prefer a Labour government.”

While Farage's party is riding high in the polls, it is challenging to see Advance UK as remaining anything other than a small player in British politics despite the backing it has received from Elon Musk. The TUV leadership will be well aware of that reality.

Far right activist Tommy Robinson's support for Advance UK has caused controversy. The party's launch was a no expense spared affair in the Aveika Japanese restaurant. It had been forced to switch venues at the last minute after a council-owned hotel cancelled its booking. Anti-racist and pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside the venue.

Habib has previously said his party will have a presence in Northern Ireland, either through forging an Alliance with TUV “our natural allies” or standing separately.

Victim’s campaigner

Advance UK has Northern Ireland representation in its upper ranks. Victims' campaigner Aileen Quinton, whose mother Alberta was killed in the IRA's 1987 Enniskillen bombing, is a member of the party's 'college' which advises the leadership.

In a social media video, she said: “What has attracted me to Advance UK is it is absolutely for the United Kingdom in all its parts and for all its people, and that actually really does include Northern Ireland.

“It's about more than just getting rid of the Irish Sea Border and challenging pathetic, treacherous suggestions that it doesn't matter if Northern Ireland is left behind in the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) and Great Britain leaves. It's about Northern Ireland thriving, financially, socially, every which way.”

Habib (60) was born in Pakistan to a Punjabi father and English mother. He moved with his parents to Britain in 1979. He studied natural sciences at Cambridge. He was one of the speakers at a huge far right 'Unite the Kingdom' rally in London last month.

From the stage, he joined the crowd in chanting “Keir Starmer is a w****r!”

Habib was more restrained in his language when addressing anti-protocol rallies here.

Such sweary speech would not have been well received by Allister.

PSNI chief calls for 'pay awards like health' as force's 'butchered' numbers hit record low

JONATHAN MCCAMBRIDGE, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2023

BOUTCHER RAISES FINANCIAL CRISIS AT POLICING BOARD

 Northern Ireland's “butchered” police numbers have sunk to a record low of 6,233, PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher has said.

Mr Boutcher said letters and lobbying are “just not cutting it”, adding that it is “not acceptable” that he is having to make pleas for pay awards for officers.

The Chief Constable again highlighted the financial crisis facing the force as he addressed the Policing Board yesterday.

Mr Boutcher said the PSNI is facing a £23.1m shortfall in the current financial year, telling the board: “I was pleased to read of the Finance Minister's remarks this week that health workers in Northern Ireland will get their pay rise.

“Looking at the fairness of such awards, I am sure he will be equally determined to support police pay awards, and I will be writing to the Justice Minister and the Finance Minister in that regard.”

He said ministers had a “wickedly difficult job” in addressing gaps in public service budgets.

But Mr Boutcher added: “It is worth recording that the Northern Ireland Executive has increased the health budget from circa £3.3bn in 2010 to around £8bn today, leading to a significant increase in workforce.

“The PSNI budget has remained almost at the same level since 2010 and our numbers have been butchered.

“Both education and health have received considerable uplifts in their budgets, while policing, which holds the fabric of our society together, has not been financially supported in anywhere near the same way.”

PSNI approaching ‘dangerously low’ numbers

Mr Boutcher said the PSNI is planning to address “dangerously low numbers” through a recovery business case.

He added: “At least, can we please, [can] those few officers we do have get their recommended pay awards in the same way as health?

“Our workforce are constantly picking up the pieces of society breaking down.

“Policing is now the front line of mental health services in Northern Ireland, something we are neither resourced for nor trained for.

“Chief constable colleagues of mine in England and Wales do not need to make specific pleas for the pay awards for their officers.

“This is just not acceptable.”

Mr Boutcher added: “At the start of last month our headcount stood at a new record low of 6,233.

“Letters and lobbying are just not cutting it.

“This is simply not good enough. It is not fair and it leaves the Police Service of Northern Ireland to do a job they simply cannot do as they would like to, because they do not have the numbers.

“We cannot keep people safe with these numbers.”

The Patten Review recommended police numbers of 7,500 for NI.

Mr Boutcher said Stormont politicians have to “recognise policing as a priority public service”.

He said: “A further failure by the Executive to do so will result in us failing to protect people.

“We cannot do this job unless you give us the tools to do it.”

Feeney-Kane Dialogue on Border Poll

‘Unionism is sleepwalking into a border poll that it will already have lost, Alex’

BRIAN FEENEY, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

LISTENING to you on Talkback on Monday, Alex, you and Andrée Murphy were the only contributors who addressed the future and the questions that it poses for the two communities here.

The topic was whether this presidential election campaign would mark a turning point or be a game-changer on the matter of Irish reunification.

Two of the candidates, Heather Humphries and Jim Gavin, favour the scenic route, while the third, Catherine Connolly, advocates preparation now for a referendum.

Naturally, Andrée, being a united Irelander, favours preparation and the questions on health, education, finance etc which need to be addressed.

‘The Robinson view’

You, Alex, unsurprisingly take a unionist view of the matter, but an unusual one which might best be described as the Robinson view.

You do agree with Catherine Connolly and Andrée Murphy that a referendum taking place is “a foregone conclusion” and therefore preparations need to begin. Your preparations, however, are not the same as those united Irelanders advocate.

Rather, you adopt the approach Peter Robinson advocated about 14 years ago. He said he didn’t expect reunification to take place, but just as he didn’t expect his house to burn down, he took out insurance.

He wanted unionists to plan for how to present a positive opposition to proposals for reunification.

His remarks were rubbished by unionists and he fell silent. Like him, Alex, you’re pretty much out on your own, even though your remarks are less ambitious.

What you’re proposing is that, given a referendum is inevitable, unionists should prepare what they’re going to say to the non-committed, the ‘persuadables’, to make the union an attractive proposition.

As you’ve often written, Alex, there’s no point trailing around Orange halls and community centres extolling the wonders of unionism to unionists. They’re going to vote against reunification regardless.

It’s the people identified in recent polling, like the Life & Times poll showing a remarkable swing against the union, who need to be convinced. As you say, Alex, unionists aren’t doing that.

‘Clap Trap’

You were also forthright, Alex, on the claptrap Gavin and Humphries trot out about “uniting people” first. As you said on Talkback, that isn’t going “to happen at all”.

You’re absolutely right, Alex. It’s rubbish, a ploy to avoid the issue pioneered by Micheál Martin, who’s now in effect campaigning against a reunification referendum, falsely claiming in contradiction of the Good Friday Agreement that reconciliation is required and refusing to allow the phrase “united Ireland” to pass his lips.

So-called ‘unity of people’ or ‘reconciliation’, which Seamus Heaney wrote in 1994 has become “a policy word” and therefore meaningless, has never happened anywhere in the world in a divided society.

People retain their culture – their ‘weltanschauung’, a great German word for their world view, their cognitive orientation.

Angola

Working in Angola in the mid-1990s, it was astonishing to see late on Sunday mornings, in downtown Luanda, smartly-dressed Portuguese carrying little boxes of pastry and cake from Portuguese pastel shops.

Why astonishing, Alex? Well, Portuguese-ruled Angola collapsed in 1975. About 750,000 Portuguese Angolans fled and civil war broke out, lasting until 1993.

Yet Portuguese culture and society survive. Portuguese is still the official language. No-one claims the people are ‘united’, whatever that means. They’ve found a modus vivendi where black Angolans rule.

Here’s another thing, Alex, which you implied in your comments on Monday. To quote Heaney again, in his translation of a Horace ode, “Anything can happen, the tallest things / be overturned, those in high places daunted”. As you challenged unionists: “Point out any time since 1968 when unionism emerged better after a British government decision.”

Anything can happen. The Portuguese left Angola after almost 500 years after an unexpected coup in Lisbon, not because anti-colonialist guerillas defeated them. In the end the colonial power always leaves.

‘Unionists haven’t copped on’

So far, Alex, unionists haven’t taken any of your arguments on board. Furthermore, unionists haven’t copped on yet that when a referendum is called, they will already have lost. As you know, it won’t be called until “it appears likely” that a majority will vote for reunification.

No British prime minister is going to take the risk of deciding in effect to end the UK – a really big deal – and then losing a referendum.

On the other hand, Alex, do you not think the English have mentally already left? No sentimental attachment; certainly no political attachment. No votes to lose or seats to defend. What’s in it for Westminster?

Did you not wonder Alex, why no-one at the Labour conference saw any irony in waving union flags while the conference slogan behind the platform and on front of the lectern read ‘Renew Britain’?

Surely something missing? They couldn’t care less.

Former DUP leader Peter Robinson argued that unionists should prepare for the possibility of a reunified Ireland, however unlikely, saying: “I don’t expect my own house to burn down but I still insure it because it could happen”

 No, Brian, if unionism can get its act together, it still has everything to play for

ALEX KANE, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

IT’S good to know, Brian, that you were paying attention on Monday.

You’ll know, from extensive experience on phone-in shows, that people tend to hear what they want to hear and then phone in to complain about what they think you have said – and proceed to tell you what you should have said.

It’s the most peculiar form of human engagement there is.

Happily, you and I are not known for nuance or for suffering fools gladly.

Anyway Brian, back to the plot. My view on a border poll – one which I have expressed since the ink was drying on the Good Friday Agreement – is that, at some point, a poll is more likely than not.

The GFA doesn’t hint at a possible time: it doesn’t even set out the terms and conditions which a future Secretary of State would need to reference in order to decide that success for the united Ireland side was a possible runner.

Like you, Brian, I don’t like ambiguity when it comes to political/ constitutional agreements.

That said, to get the Good Friday Agreement across the line it was necessary to have something on a border poll which both the unionist and nationalist negotiators could live with and which, in turn, wouldn’t frighten too many horses in their respective electoral bases.

Hence the ambiguity – wrapped up in that one word, ‘likely’.

When faced with a situation in which a border poll cannot be dismissed out of hand – and when we have no idea what ballast is required to determine the possibility and timing of one – it seemed, to me at least, that unionism should ensure that it was not wrong-footed by the sudden calling of one.

‘Some sort of insurance policy’

Peter Robinson, as you noted Brian, recommended some sort of insurance policy in the event of the poll, even though he was of the view that it was off the agenda for a long, long time and that if it were called, the pro-union side would probably win.

He made that point in 2014. I had made the same point in a number of columns before then.

It was never quite clear what form Peter’s insurance would take and, as you also noted in your piece, Brian, his suggestion was treated with mostly derision – even within the DUP.

Unlike Peter, though, I wasn’t coming to the issue from an ‘insurance’ perspective.

What I was recommending was that unionism – the entire pro-union community – create some sort of discussion and analysis vehicle which would prepare it for any and every challenge coming down the road.

‘Being prepared’

You probably know exactly who it was that said it, Brian (I’ve forgotten), but I do remember reading a quote from a British or American politician who said something along the lines of: “Success in politics depends on anticipating possibilities and outright surprises and being prepared.”

In other words, have the buckets, shovels and clean-up material close to hand before the you know what hits the fan.

Which is what I wanted unionism to do.

Actually, it’s what I’ve wanted unionism to do since most of it gathered together to destroy Sunningdale and Brian Faulkner in May 1974 and then realised it didn’t have an agreed, coherent game plan when the entire process collapsed.

So yes, Brian, I want unionism to prepare for a border poll.

Not because it definitely will happen, but because it seems reasonable to conclude that, if only because of the ambiguity which surrounds the subject, ruling one out would be utterly stupid in terms of strategy and preparation.

Even Gregory Campbell, who was on Talkback with me, shifted from a dismissal of the prospect at the start, to ‘it may’ later on.

And most senior unionists and loyalists I speak to do admit that the chances of a border poll are “certainly higher than they were a few years ago”.

Which brings me, Brian, to two other points that you have raised: who unionism needs to attract in the event of a unification poll, and how it responds to your view that “the English have already mentally left Ireland”.

If, as I’m now sure it will, unionism does do the spade work in terms of number-crunching and broader analysis, then it will, in turn, put together a strategy for promoting and protecting Northern Ireland’s position in the UK.

Never to late - for surprises

There will be those on the other side of the fence who will say it’s too late.

But an examination of referendums in the UK, Ireland and further afield suggest that it’s never too late to spring a surprise if you get your act and cause together.

As for British policy. I’m not sure if it’s ever been one of complete commitment to Northern Ireland or local unionism – and I’m going all the way back to 1921.

But a unity referendum will be determined by voters solely on both sides of the border and that, I think – and for all sorts of reasons – means the result is far too early to call.

SDLP calls for a ‘Ministry for a New Ireland’ to be created

JOHN MANLEY, POLITICS CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

THE SDLP leader has called on the Dublin government to acknowledge the “definite trajectory” towards ending partition and establish a ‘Ministry for a New Ireland’.

Claire Hanna told The Irish News that growing support for Irish unity identified in a number of surveys, coupled with increased “political turbulence in Britain”, meant the Micheál Martin-led coalition needed to “shift up a gear” in readiness for potential constitutional change.

She still believes it is too soon for a border poll, arguing that “hard work” is required beforehand; however, the South Belfast MP is critical of the taoiseach’s reluctance to countenance the possibility of Irish unity in either the short or medium term.

“I think Micheál Martin is sincere in his intentions towards the north but it is also clear that he is resistant to planning for constitutional change, and we don’t think that’s good enough,” Ms Hanna told The Irish News ahead of this weekend’s SDLP conference.

“We’re not just a peace project to be soothed – we are people who have a legitimate aspiration that’s reflected in the Good Friday Agreement, and we also have something to contribute, and we are perfectly entitled to further that.”

She said she wanted to see Fianna Fáil’s actions match the party’s historical claim to be advocates for unity.

Ms Hanna said her party supported the taoiseach’s Shared Island initiative but that it was now time to go further.

Shared Island initiative cannot be the limit Govt’s initiative

“We believe the Shared Island initiative, in terms of the capital investment and dialogues, is a positive thing, and we’ve been positive about them from the start, but they are not and they can’t be the limit of our ambition, and they can’t be the limit of government engagement,” she said.

“The taoiseach has made clear his resistance to moving into a phase of planning, but it’s quite simply not going to go away just because Micheál isn’t motivated by it.

“We think it is logical and legitimate to seek escalation and manifestation of the aspiration that Fianna Fáil claims to have towards constitutional realignment.”

The proposed Ministry for a New Ireland would “stress test and screen” new policies and assess their potential impact on unity and the potential to converge services on both sides of the border.

Ms Hanna said its role would be “to take the heat out of the debate and bring in more light”. The Irish government need to ‘shift up a gear’ insists Hanna

“We think a minister in the Ministry for New Ireland would be the leading advocate in government for thinking through how decisions might affect future constitutional change and therefore future convergence opportunities in public services,” she said.

“It’s not about a big bang moment. It’s not just about the referendum moment. It’s about shifting the machinery of government around to actively thinking about this and not just investing all energies in the Shared Island concept.”

The SDLP leader acknowledged that preparing for unity was not a priority for everybody in the Republic.

“I understand that people aren’t knocking down the taoiseach’s constituency office door in Cork asking him to prepare for unity, but surveying the landscape, it is a prudent thing for a government to do,” she said.

“Even though Brexit seemed unlikely, government departments in Dublin were planning for that eventuality and they should be doing the same on unity; this Ministry for New Ireland would be a logical convening point for that.”

Ms Hanna said in the same manner that public authorities in the north undertake a ‘Section 75 audit’ of policy and legislation to identify inequalities, that major political decisions in the Republic should be analysed “for their potential impact on unity”.

She also warned that British politics was in a state of increased upheaval that had the potential to create greater constitutional instability.

Farage as PM ‘entirely possible’

The South Belfast MP welcomed the “reset” in Anglo-Irish relations following Labour’s election victory, but she said the Dublin government itself had acknowledged the possibility of a Reform UK led administration in Britain, which she said would “shift the dynamics considerably”.

“The political system in the UK is adapting to Reform rather than repelling Reform, and the electoral system means that a Nigel Farage government is entirely possible and plausible. Labour has failed to set out a clear vision; they’re just adjusting.

“UK politics is changing and we don’t see Labour or anybody else sufficiently able or with enough vision to repel Reform and create a different politics than that which Nigel Farage is driving. I think it is forcing people here to reconsider where the future lies.”

In relation to the timing of a border poll, which Sinn Féin argues should happen in 2030, Ms Hanna said the date was “much less of an obsession for the SDLP – it’s the how we are focused on”.

“A border poll should be called when it’s likely to pass, when we are confident the work has been done.

“It’s a distraction to focus on the when without doing the hard work, and the hard work has not been done, and that is what we are seeking to convene and progress, including through this ministry.”

Fermanagh councillor quits SDLP ahead of conference

JOHN MANLEY, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

AN SDLP councillor has quit the party on the eve of its annual conference.

Garbhán McPhillips, who was originally co-opted onto Fermanagh and Omagh District Council in 2016, said he disagreed with the party’s direction on “certain issues” but declined to elaborate on the nature of his concerns.

His departure from the party to sit as an independent leaves two SDLP representatives on the council.

Claire Hanna’s party is due to hold its annual conference in Belfast tomorrow. Mr McPhillips, whose father Richie McPhillips served as an MLA for 10 months after the 2016 assembly election, is one of three SDLP councillors who have resigned since the party secured 39 seats in 2023’s local government elections.

The Erne East councillor, who was hospitalised last year with suspected meningitis, told The Irish News he had taken time to consider his decision to quit but regarded it as the best outcome.

He said he had a “good relationship” with former SDLP colleagues on the council but that relations with members of the constituency branch were less positive.

“There’s been a few issues and decisions made that I don’t agree with but I’m not going to go into the detail,” he said.

“The core values of the party are not there any more.”

Ms Hanna said she was “disappointed” by the 39-yearold’s resignation.

An SDLP spokesman said: “We acknowledge the decision by Councillor McPhillips and wish him the best for the future.

“The SDLP’s focus is on working with councillors committed to delivering for their local communities.”

In a world addicted to war, could pacifism’s day finally have come?

DENIS BRADLEY, Irish News, October 3rd, 2025

‘ARMOURED cars and tanks and guns came to take away our sons.’ The tanks and guns that we lived with for 40 years were deadly, but definitely less lethal and sophisticated than those presently wreaking destruction and bloodshed in Gaza and Ukraine, not forgetting Sudan and Lebanon and so many other war zones throughout the world.

Because our violence lasted 40 years, the main but not the only lesson we have to bequeath to the issue of war is that, short or long, the violence has to conclude before the solution to the conflict is to be found.

Another lesson is that political institutions, local and international, need challenged and even goaded by strong moral values into constructing pathways out of the morass.

But the harsh reality is that humankind is not very good or successful at peace-making and peace-keeping.

After the horror of the First World War, the League of Nations was established in 1919 to reduce the possibility of such violence happening again and when it did reoccur in the Second World War, the United Nations was established to replace and strengthen national co-operation between the countries of the world.

The European Union, a reaction to the Second World War, still remains the outstanding example of nations co-operating in a fashion that made war between them nigh impossible.

That European example has not transferred into the United Nations, where the more powerful countries hold a veto over each other and everyone else.

UN failure

The UN can be judged to have failed in its primary objective, leaving us, at best, with Beckett’s “Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter, Try again. Fail again. Fail better”.

We are back at one of those ‘fail again’ moments and it is scary: primarily, but not exclusively, because of the daily images of the agony and death of men, women and especially children, but also because politics has returned to the belief that the only sensible and acceptable response is to enhance and prioritise the defence industry, expanding armies and using their finances to produce more deadly weapons.

Any counterargument, any resistance to the growth of armies and armaments, is considered old-fashioned, naive and irrelevant.

During our Troubles, the main moral premise was the Just War Theory.

It surprisingly had its origins in the Christian Churches, first proposed by Saint Augustine and developed by Thomas Aquinas.

Where are the voices for pacifist protest today like Martin Luther King?

“ The fact that it is so counter-cultural, so idiosyncratic, may mean it has a greater impression and penetration than its more logical rivals

It is an ethical framework that evaluates the justification for war, focusing on the conditions under which it is permissible to engage in armed conflict and how to conduct it morally.

It is a theology that proposes that war and violence is inevitable and the best that can be done is to restrain its extremes.

Just wars

In our conflict it was as useful as the proverbial ashtray on a motorbike. All our combatants, on all sides, claimed to be fighting a just war.

Strangely, pacifism, which is much more rooted in the teaching and the life of Christ, hardly got a look-in in our conflict and has no traction in modern politics, where the thrust is to more deadly warfare.

Pacifism renounces violence totally, allowing for no rational excuse or justification. It is intolerant of Israel’s violence but not unblinded to that committed by Hamas.

It has historically and continues to be considered as ‘nice’ in theory and aspiration but ridiculous, inept and nonsensical in the real world.

The fact that it is so counter-cultural, so idiosyncratic, may mean it has a greater impression and penetration than its more logical rivals.

It might release and realise a greater oppositional force than expected if it could receive some support from whatever moral guardians and organisations that are left in the world.

There is something very powerful and memorable in witnessing an elderly clergywoman being carted off by police when protesting against the arms race.

That might be an example of ‘failing better’.

True purpose of 'Brit Cards' isn't about controls on immigration... it's controlling people who already live here

FIONOLA MEREDITH, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2025

Ulster says no — to ID cards. Finally, the warring tribes at Stormont have found something they can agree upon. All five of Northern Ireland's main parties have unanimously rejected Sir Keir Starmer's plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID, otherwise known as a 'Brit Card'.

Under the scheme, every adult in the UK will be required to use digital ID to prove their identity. Starmer said: “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID, it's as simple as that.”

Unsurprisingly, First Minister Michelle O'Neill is incandescent at the idea of the BritCard. She calls the Prime Minister's plans for a compulsory, UK-wide digital ID scheme “ludicrous, ill-thought out” and an “attack” on the Good Friday Agreement.

The SDLP leader, Claire Hanna, though less voluble, isn't keen either: “The truth is that a Brit Card won't fix the problems we face. Here in Northern Ireland, where people cross the border every day for work, family and study, imposing this scheme could be especially problematic.”

The DUP, too, is opposed. Leader Gavin Robinson takes issue with Starmer's claim that digital ID “will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure”.

Robinson says the scheme will do “very little to stop illegal immigration”, adding that “the real challenges in tackling illegal entry to the UK lie at our borders and in enforcement, not in creating yet another layer of bureaucracy for ordinary citizens”.

The Ulster Unionists describe the ID cards as “an excessive and ill-conceived initiative that compromises the fundamental right to privacy for law-abiding citizens”.

Meanwhile, Alliance MP Sorcha Eastwood storms: “The UK Government's proposed ID cards are a backwards move. No one should have their job threatened or be turned into a criminal just for choosing not to have a digital ID. Alliance will oppose them at every step.”

So, there you go, all five parties in the hat, which is surely a first. To quote the arch-villain Hans Landa, from Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds: “Ooh, that's a bingo.”

I'm surprised Stormont is united in opposition to the Prime Minister's toxic plan, given how keen several of the parties have previously been on grotesquely authoritarian over-reaches of parliamentary power, particularly during the pandemic. But I'm also pleasantly encouraged.

It's vital to resist digital ID because, however Starmer may opportunistically prattle on about immigration and controlling our borders, it's really about controlling the people who already live here.

As supposedly free citizens, we have the right to exist in privacy, without being continually snooped on, directed and managed by the State. That's a fundamental principle which we must never give up on.

And here's another, much more practical thing: do you really trust the Government to handle such an enormous amount of personal data without screwing it up? I certainly don't. What about leaks, fraud, IT glitches and general mismanagement?

Post Office scandal

Just look at the Post Office scandal, where faulty accounting software caused false financial shortfalls in postmasters' accounts.

Disastrously, the Post Office blamed and prosecuted these innocent individuals, leading to wrongful convictions, financial ruin and wrecked lives.

According to independent polling commissioned by Big Brother Watch and conducted by YouGov, 63% of the public said they would not trust their digital security to be protected with a digital ID.

You know where this comes from, don't you? Tony Blair. Yes, there he is, just over Starmer's shoulder, grinning away like a crazed Messiah, since his wishes are finally coming true.

Blair first tried to introduce a compulsory ID card system when he was PM, and only a few days ago — just before Starmer's announcement, by some incredible coincidence — the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change put out a report calling, yet again, for digital IDs.

Interestingly, the Spectator magazine reports that among the listed donors for the Tony Blair Institute is the Larry Ellison Foundation.

Larry Ellison is the founder of the technology group Oracle, which, as the Spectator notes, is “exactly the sort of company that might be needed to assist with a compulsory ID card system that would require the development and maintenance of a comprehensive dataset of all UK citizens and residents”. How very convenient, if so.

But never mind all that. Keir Starmer says that digital ID will “offer ordinary citizens countless benefits, like being able to prove your identity to access key services swiftly, rather than hunting around for an old utility bill”.

How handy, how convenient. Mass surveillance is such a small price to pay.

Questions on new legacy framework still unanswered, warns Robinson

DAVID YOUNG, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2025

DUP LEADER MEETS WITH SECRETARY OF STATE TO EXPRESS OVERHAUL CONCERN

A new framework for dealing with the legacy of the Troubles could result in a “disproportionate” investigative focus on actions of the state, Gavin Robinson has warned.

The DUP leader was speaking after meeting with Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn in Belfast yesterday.

Last month, the UK and Irish governments unveiled a joint package of measures aimed at breaking a long impasse over how best to approach outstanding issues from the conflict.

The framework will result in a major overhaul of policies unilaterally introduced by the last UK Conservative government in its contentious Legacy Act.

It will see the removal of the Legacy Act's bar on legacy-related civil cases in UK courts and allow the resumption of inquests that were halted by the Act.

There will also be a significant restructuring of the existing Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) — a body empowered to investigate Troubles killings.

A separate truth recovery mechanism will also be created called the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval.

‘Fullest possible co-operation’

The Irish Government has committed to the “fullest possible” co-operation with the structures in Northern Ireland and it is creating a new dedicated Legacy Unit within An Garda Siochana.

The Dublin administration is also ring-fencing €25m to support victims and survivors in participating and engaging with legacy bodies.

Mr Robinson said there were still many unanswered questions about the framework.

He said his party had not yet been given sight of the legislation the Government is planning to bring forward to implement some of the measures.

“We've had a useful meeting with the Secretary of State where we've reiterated our position yet again on his legacy proposals, where we will stand full square for truth and justice, where we do not believe in rewriting the past,” the DUP leader told reporters.

“And we have some concerns about the proposals that he intends to bring forward in Westminster in the coming weeks, in legislative terms that some of those processes will make it easier for people to put a disproportionate focus on the state, that there won't be the same opportunities for investigations or inquisitorial processes for all families, and that there are three layers to the potential for investigations.

“You should know that we will always stand up for innocent victims in Northern Ireland.”

Mr Robinson said he restated to Mr Benn his concerns that the Irish government had been given too much of a role in developing the framework.

The DUP leader expressed concern that the €25m fund proposed by the Irish government would be “anti-state” in emphasis, and support cases focused on UK state actions.

Mr Robinson said there were also questions around accountability of the new Garda unit.

“There's no answers to any of that, and nor is the Secretary of State in a position to give them,” he added.

PSNI probe after fireworks and speeding vehicles 'tribute' to loyalist cocaine dealer

ALLISON MORRIS, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2025

WILLIAM 'BUFF' HUNTER DIED AFTER HIS MOTORCYCLE CRASHED INTO SKIP

Police are investigating a “tribute” involving speeding cars and motorbikes, held in east Belfast on Tuesday, less than 24 hours after the death of convicted drug dealer William 'Buff' Hunter.

Hunter died after the motorcycle he was driving collided with a skip on the Castlereagh Road in east Belfast on Sunday evening.

He was treated for his injuries at the scene but died later.

Police have appealed for any witnesses to the crash to contact them on 101.

His funeral service will be held on Monday, with committal afterwards in Roselawn Crematorium.

On Tuesday evening, videos posted online showed cars and motorcycles involved in a 'tribute' to Hunter, driving dangerously with some setting off fireworks from the windows of the vehicles.

Around 50 people can be seen gathered at the side of the road cheering as the cars performed handbrake turns in the east Belfast street, just yards from where the 38-year-old lost his life the previous evening.

A spokesperson for the PSNI said: “Police are aware of a number of reports of anti-social driving in the Castlereagh Road area of east Belfast on Tuesday evening, 30th September, around 8pm.

“There were scramblers and cars, some being driven dangerously, in the area with fireworks being let off.

“Our officers attended, we will now review all evidence gathered and, if any offences are detected, a police investigation will be carried out.”

Recently released

Hunter had recently been released from prison, having been jailed for breaching a Serious Crime Prevention Order (SCPO).

He was treated at the scene on the Castlereagh Road by paramedics and taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, but died of his injuries.

The Ambulance Service said it received a 999 call at 11.48pm on Sunday following reports of a collision.

Mr Hunter was previously convicted of supplying cocaine alongside UVF members, brothers Glenn and Mark Rainey.

In April he appeared in court again charged with breaching his SCPO by failing to notify police of the details of a vehicle in which he was a passenger.

The driver of the car, Joshua Murphy (25), from Conway Court in Dublin, appeared in court on the same day, charged with going equipped for theft, fraudulent use of a vehicle registration plate and driving without a licence or insurance. A police officer told the court how her colleagues stopped a grey VW Golf on Glenmachan Street, where the registration plates were found to be false.

A search uncovered balaclavas and gloves, and enquiries established that Hunter had not given details of the vehicle to police, which put him in breach of his order.

Hunter was handed the SCPO in September 2022 after being jailed alongside the Raineys for being involved in the supply of class A drugs.

Mark (44) and Glenn Rainey (38) were handed six-year sentences, with Hunter given three years and four months.

The Raineys were among the biggest drug dealers in the east of the city, raking in a fortune for the UVF by selling cocaine sourced from Dublin crime gangs.

Since then Glenn Rainey has been convicted of the murder of Ian Ogle and is serving a life sentence.

A family notice said Mr Hunter was a “dearly loved son of Tanya and Billy, loving daddy of Jackson, William, Maddie, Darla and Ben”.

“Our Son. It broke our heart to lose you but you did not go alone, a part of us went with you the day God called you home,” it added. “A million times we've thought of you, a million times we've cried, if loving could of saved you, you never would have died.”

Order 'to delete an invoice to an audio tape'... how alleged Nama fraud unravelled

SAM MCBRIDE, Belfast Telegraph, October 3rd, 2025

TRIAL HEARS CLAIMS COLLEAGUES OF ACCUSED CAUGHT HIM WITH MILLIONS OF POUNDS THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT

A jury has heard dramatic evidence about how a top solicitor alleged to be behind a vast fraud saw a sophisticated plan unravel after his senior colleagues caught him with millions of pounds they knew nothing about.

Belfast Crown Court was told yesterday that Ian Coulter engaged in elaborate money laundering linked to the biggest property transaction in Northern Ireland's history — the £1.1bn sale of loans owned by Nama in 2014 — but then sought to “save his own skin” as colleagues discovered what was going on, even offering them all huge sums from the deal.

As the prosecution opening in the Nama trial came to an end at Belfast Crown Court, the jury of nine men and three women were told that Coulter's own secretary quietly refused his request to delete a £7.2m invoice linked to the deal, and that they will hear audio of a meeting where Coulter's colleagues grilled him on what was going on.

Former banker Francis (Frank) Hugh Cushnahan (83), of Alexandra Gate in Holywood, is charged with fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by false representation.

Former solicitor Ian George Coulter (54), of Templepatrick Road in Ballyclare, faces two charges of fraud by false representation, a charge of making or supplying articles use in fraud, a charge of removing criminal property, a charge of transferring criminal property.

Coulter had been the head of major Belfast law firm Tughans.

Both men deny all the charges.

The deal to sell Nama's loans to Cerberus had gone through in April 2014 and Coulter had been working with US law firm Brown Rudnick on dividing a huge £15m success fee.

Shielding the beneficiaries

Crown counsel Jonathan Kinnear KC told the jury that the day after £15m went to Brown Rudnick, a note from within an Isle of Man firm, which allowed people to shield their ultimate ownership of companies, set out instructions from Coulter.

The solicitor was said to have instructed that the company he secretly controlled, Morley Enterprises Ltd, should open a bank account and apply for VAT registration. An Isle of Man account for Morley was then opened on August 6, 2014, in the names of “the front men”, Mr Kinnear said, but Coulter wasn't happy and changed the arrangements so that he was “in complete control over the bank account”.

A form to set up the account said the ultimate beneficial owner was Coulter.

After the bank requested further information, it was told: “We are still in negotiations with potential customers. However, initially we are looking at £2.5m being invoiced this week.”

After further questions from the bank, it was told the business would involve “individuals and companies mainly based in N Ireland and typically would be around the property industry. We could be invoicing for introducing buyers to sellers, sourcing finance, etc.”

Mr Kinnear said: “That's just all untrue.”

Invoice for £9 million

On August 13, a Tughans letter signed by Coulter accompanied an invoice for £9m.

The invoice detailed Tughans' main account at Ulster Bank. But that's not where the money was ultimately paid.

Mr Kinnear said Coulter told Tughans' legal secretary Rosemary Shanks that after creating the invoice she should hand a copy to Mr David Mawhinney, Tughans' finance director, and then told Ms Shanks she should delete it.

“It was not normal to delete invoices, and she did not follow his instructions.

“There was no legitimate reason for Mr Coulter to ask for that invoice to be deleted. It meant there wasn't a proper audit trail on the system.

“We say he was trying to cover his tracks by deleting an article created for the purposes of fraud.”

He said that no one at Tughans other than Coulter and Mr Mawhinney had even heard of Morley, and “Morley had never done any services for Tughans”, so “this is all a sham and is a fraudulent”.

Mr Kinnear said this was to try to convince the bank that these were “clean funds” and allow “the money laundering to take place”.

Mr Kinnear said Coulter asked Mr Mawhinney to help him move the money, telling him that he was “working on a highly confidential deal” and that, as with several other Tughans staff, he “tricks them effectively into doing what he wants”.

He told jurors that Mr Mawhinney said Coulter told him the confidentiality of the deal meant he didn't want to use Tughans' main bank account and he informed Coulter that there was a dormant Danske Bank account.

Dormant account

Two payments of £4.5m were then sent to the dormant account on August 18.

The barrister told jurors that Mr Mawhinney said the unusual nature of the request meant he told two senior Tughans partners — John George Willis and Phyllis Agnew — “who indicated he had nothing to concern himself with and it was a matter for Mr Coulter”.

He said that Mr Mawhinney then opened another account with Danske Bank, and that's where the money would ultimately be moved.

On August 19, Tughans' owners met. Mr Kinnear said Coulter “announced he'd been involved in a highly confidential transaction and the firm was to get £1.5m”.

Mr Kinnear said that made no sense because the supposed Tughans invoice said the firm was to get £9m.

He said Coulter told the meeting that Cushnahan had originally been involved in the deal but had to step aside and wasn't getting paid.

Mr Kinnear said the partners should be paid “immediately”, something the barrister said was unusual, because that normally happened at the end of the year.

He said Coulter was using the payment “to distract from the other £6m he was diverting from Tughans to Morley… Like a big shiny toy, he's using this £1.5m to distract the partners who are each receiving tens of thousands and, in some cases, over £100,000 as an unexpected windfall.”

Taking the jury to Tughans' bank statements, Mr Kinnear showed them two payments to John George Willis, who got almost £179,000, and Patrick Brown, who received £83,000.

Overall, hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid to Tughans' equity partners, the jury was told.

Later, he said, when the partners realised more fully what had happened, they all repaid the money.

He said that Coulter also told Ms Shanks and Mr Mawhinney that they'd each get a £10,000 bonus.

Mr Kinnear told jurors that Ms Shanks said she was very surprised because “the amount of work on the deal had not warranted it”.

The barrister said that the “highly unusual” bonuses had been “unilaterally declared” by Coulter, adding: “They were designed by him to… buy the loyalty of the recipients… or perhaps to have something he could hold over them”.

He told them that Coulter had handed a cheque for £36,000 to Robin Horner, described as a representative of some of the debtors, in breach of a guarantee Coulter had given not to pay any third parties from the success fee.

On October 3, 2014, Coulter went to the Isle of Man to meet one of Morley's directors along with the bank and an investment adviser.

The director's note of the meeting referred to a discussion of “offshore products”. Mr Kinnear asked the jury what the point of that would have been unless Coulter was planning to keep the money for himself and Cushnahan.

But back in Belfast, the alleged fraud began collapsing, the jury was told.

The Law Society announced a routine audit of Tughans, which Mr Kinnear said caused “all of Mr Coulter's plans to unravel”.

On November 20, Coulter called John George Willis to his office and told him there was “further good news” in relation to the deal, the jury heard.

Coulter was then said to have called in another partner, Phyllis Agnew, asking her to meet him in Cushnahan's office with Mr Willis where Coulter asked if Cushnahan could be paid a “consultancy fee” for people he'd introduced to Tughans. In Cushnahan's presence, Mr Kinnear said Coulter stated that “a third party, who he identified as Andrew Creighton [a developer with Nama debts]… was so delighted with the outcome of the Cerberus deal that he decided he wanted Tughans to have the £6m fee that he was due from the transaction… This was a complete lie.”

He said Mr Creighton wanted “it to be split — £4m for Coulter personally and the other £2m to Tughans”.

The barrister said it was “so far-fetched” that a hard-nosed businessman would “gift” such a huge sum to a solicitor and his firm.

Shortly after, Mr Brown asked Mr Mawhinney to show him the bill for the deal, “and he found out the Tughans invoice had in fact been for £7.5m”, the jury was told.

A series of frantic meetings was held by Tughans' bosses during which Mr Kinnear said Coulter “eventually admitted” he was behind the Morley invoice and controlled the firm.

The partners demanded the money be returned to Tughans.

On December 3, Tughans' partners met again — and the meeting was recorded.

Coulter said Cushnahan “was very resistant” about agreeing to forgo money and was “very annoyed” he'd agreed in writing that wouldn't happen, telling Coulter: “I expect my fees. I expect payments.”

Mr Kinnear said: “This is just lies, members of the jury… he's trying to save his own skin.”

As the transcript was read, Coulter had his head down in one corner of the dock, following the documents on a screen and taking some notes.

Coulter said of Cushnahan that “one of the last acts in his business career is to potentially ruin my career”.

Mr Kinnear told the jury: “He's blaming Mr Cushnahan now for ruining his career. The only person who ruined Mr Coulter's career was Mr Coulter.”

Coulter went on to tell his partners the money needed to go to Morley “to try to solve this mess” and that the “lion's share” of the sum was earmarked for others, although he was “hopeful” that he “might get some” for himself.

Coulter investigation followed his resignation

Coulter resigned from Tughans on January 9, 2015, and the Law Society then started an investigation into him after being alerted to the situation by Tughans.

In March 2015, Coulter told the Law Society that Cushnahan was “driving” the deal but “acted in the background”, with input from “his close business associate Andrew Creighton” — something the Crown say was a lie.

Coulter said he was “anxious to avoid the matter becoming public knowledge until a solution had been achieved” which “recognised the role” of what he described as “third parties”, who were to be paid “fees”.

He said he had discussions with Cushnahan about the situation, and these “often became quite heated”, with the “underlying threat” he'd make the situation public.

Coulter said he saw Cushnahan “as the beneficial owner of the fee”.

In multiple police interviews, Coulter would only confirm his name and date of birth.

Cushnahan similarly made no comment to many questions over multiple interviews but said at some points that he had been paid, but “hadn't done it for the money” and that “his aim was to safeguard the interests of Northern Ireland”.

Asked about a claim that Peter Robinson and Sammy Wilson were to be paid, he said that was wrong, had been “taken completely out of context” and “it's just bulls**t”.

The Crown said there's “not a shred of evidence” that either DUP figure was to be paid.

The Crown has now finished setting out its case; next week, a long list of witnesses will begin being called.

Irish Presidential Election

Backing Catherine Connolly is a shrewd move by Sinn Féin

Stephen Collins, Irish Times, October 3rd, 2025

Sinn Féin’s decision to support Catherine Connolly’s presidential bid rather than running its own candidate has been widely portrayed as a failure of ambition. But it could turn out to be the shrewdest move the party has made since it decided to recognise the legitimacy of Dáil Éireann.

Backing Connolly may actually be the “game- changer”, promised by Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald. By positioning her party as the undisputed leader of the left- wing Opposition in the Dáil, she now has a realistic chance of becoming Taoiseach after the next election.

If Sinn Féin had run its own candidate, it risked splitting the anti-Government vote and possibly even coming last. By waiting for the various left-wing parties to declare for Connolly, and then coming in as the leading force in her campaign, the party has turned a potential problem into an opportunity and transformed the political landscape.

Whether Connolly wins or loses the presidency doesn’t really matter to Sinn Féin. Its primary focus is on getting its hands on the levers of power south of the Border. Supporting Connolly has brought that prospect closer than ever, and with it the ultimate goal of pursuing its particular vision of a united Ireland.

The party’s domination of the Opposition benches began on the very first day of the 34th Dáil, when other left-wing leaders trailed out to the gates of Leinster House to provide a supporting chorus for McDonald as she denounced the Government’s deal with Independents.

Failure of nerve

By throwing its weight behind Connolly, Sinn Féin has now formalised its position as the undisputed leader of the Opposition. The Labour Party, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the various Trotskyite factions in the Dáil now appear to be content to behave as supporting acts in Sinn Féin’s grand strategy.

It could have been very different after last November’s election, given that Labour, the Social Democrats and the Greens had 23 seats between them, not all that far behind Sinn Féin on 39. It was an opportunity for the democratic left to co-operate and build an alliance capable of making serious inroads into the support base of the Government parties.

Instead, a mixture of ineffectual leadership, lack of ambition and a failure of nerve left them all trotting after Sinn Féin, competing in the outrage stakes which they can never win, rather than coming up with a united and coherent platform.

There is deep anxiety among many Labour supporters and some of its TDs at the party’s drift into the orbit of Sinn Féin. Alan Kelly has reflected that mood by openly challenging the decision to back Connolly. But most of the party’s TDs who oppose the move are too loyal, or too embarrassed, to publicly question the decision of the party leadership.

Enduring hostility

Throwing its lot in with Sinn Féin represents a change in direction for Labour, which has for more than half a century utterly rejected any justification for the use of violence to achieve political ends. Its history has been one of commitment to a peaceful reconciliation in Northern Ireland and improved Irish/ British relations.

The Greens, like Labour, have participated in Government at various stages, with both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Both smaller parties now appear to be ashamed of their past rather than taking pride in their significant achievements in office. The Social Democrats and the Trotskyists come from a different perspective and have made no secret of their enduring hostility to the current parties of Government.

By the time of the next election, expected in 2029, Fine Gael will have been in Government continuously for 18 years, with Fianna Fáil involved for 13 of those years in one way or another. By 2029 a significant portion of the electorate, particularly younger voters, will inevitably be in the mood for change.

That election will present Sinn Féin with its best chance to date of achieving power, not simply in a coalition of equals but as the dominant partner in a left wing alliance, with McDonald the clear alternative Taoiseach.

Concerted attacks

Unless the current Government can manage the near- impossible task (in the face of a rapidly rising population) of solving the housing and infrastructural crises over the next four years, it is difficult to see how it can persuade the electorate to give it yet another term in office.

Faced with a Sinn Féin- dominated Opposition, the Coalition needs to brace itself for concerted and raucous attacks for as long as the 34th Dáil lasts. Standing up to such pressure, while attempting to cope with the routine difficulties all governments face, will inevitably take its toll and could even shorten the Government’s life.

Paradoxically, though, the success of Sinn Féin in taking control of the left could prove to be the Achilles heel of the Opposition. If the only alternative to the current Coalition is a Sinn Féin-led alliance promising radical change, a significant element of the electorate could baulk at the prospect.

No matter how disillusioned voters may feel, enough of them might be tempted, in Hilaire Belloc’s words, “to keep ahold of nurse for fear of finding something worse”.