Bloody Sunday - Admissibility of statements by dead Paras ‘decisive’ to prosecution case

ASHLEIGH MCDONALD, Belfast Telegraph, September 18th, 2025

The admissibility of "decisive evidence" in the trial of a former paratrooper accused of the murder of two men on Bloody Sunday is being examined.

An application to determine whether statements from two paratroopers with Soldier F on the day can be used as evidence in his trial was made in court yesterday. The statements by Soldiers G and H are key to the Crown's case in the non-jury trial.

Thirteen people were shot and killed by the parachute regiment following a Civil Rights march in the Bogside area of Derry on Sunday, January 30, 1972.

One former paratrooper who was present that day — known as Soldier F — has been charged with murdering William McKinney and James Wray, and five counts of attempted murder.

Denying all the charges against him, the former soldier sat behind a blue curtain in Court 12 of Belfast Crown Court, which concealed his identity.

Launching the legal application on the admissibility of the 'hearsay' evidence, Crown barrister Louis Mably KC said the statements of Soldiers G and H both identified Soldier F as having fired shots in the Glenfada Park North area.

Mr Mably told Judge Lynch that the statements — which were given to the Royal Military Police in the early hours of January 31, 1972 — taken together “constitute decisive evidence in the case in that they provide the only evidence which is capable of proving that Soldier F was one of those who opened fire.”

He added that if the statements were not admitted, the remainder of the evidence would not be “sufficient” to sustain a conviction.

Mr Mably said that all three soldiers were present in Glenfada Park North, and in his statement, Soldier G said he saw two men standing around 25 meters away from him, armed with what he believed were small rifles.

Soldier G — who is now deceased — said he fired three shots aimed at one of the men, who he saw fall to the ground and said 'F fired at the same time and I saw the other gunman fall.'

He also gave oral evidence at the Widgery Inquiry later that year and when asked whether Soldier F was firing at the same time as him, Soldier G said: “I know F had fired, he was by the side of me. I could tell he was firing. I was aware he was firing.” Regarding Soldier H's statement, Mr Mably said he also admitted firing shots in Glenfada Park North and said, 'I saw F fire at a man near the opening in the south-west corner of the square.'

Soldier H also said he fired shots at a youth who had a nail bomb in his hand.

In his opening earlier this week, Mr Mably said these two soldiers gave a “false account” that civilians in the crowd were armed in a bid to try and justify what happened.

During yesterday's legal application, he said the statements were “done under compulsion” and without access to legal advice.

He added that while the statements were “truthful in some respects but untruthful in others”, both did state that Soldier F opened fire and there would be “no big reason to lie about this.”

These statements, taken together, the senior prosecutor contended, were “decisive evidence” and were “capable of proving” Soldier F fired at civilians.

Stormont parties afraid to tax wealthy individuals or firms

The Executive and Assembly have extraordinary power – yet show little creativity in how that power could be used

Sam McBride, Northern Ireland Editor, Belfast Telegraph, September 18th, 2025

A few months ago, I was on the train to Dublin when the guy behind me – who had a Northern Irish accent – made a phone call. Speaking clearly in the quiet carriage, he said: “I’ve just had a call from Charles Hurst Ferrari that they need an insurance note to register the car.”

It was a reminder that while there are plenty of poor people in Northern Ireland, there are some very wealthy people indeed. Recently my colleague Margaret Canning wrote about the rise of Northern Ireland’s million pound houses.

In fact, that phrase underplays the sums involved. As Margaret reported, there is a three-bed apartment (not even a house!) for sale in Cultra for £3.5 million. It’s still on the market. According to the estate agent, the property involves "luxury living", a "prestigious address" and an "opulent master suite". It would need to.

 Yet Stormont has knowingly decided that the people who can afford to pay £3.5 million for an apartment, or can afford to drive a Ferrari, or who can go on multiple holidays a year couldn’t pay the full rates bill on their luxury properties.

Northern Ireland has a growing upper class, but Stormont doesn’t want to tax them

In the settled will of both the DUP and Sinn Féin – the two parties who have the numbers to change almost anything if they agree on it – it would be rude to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Northern Ireland’s castle owners have their mansions subsidised by the poorest homeowners.

There are perfectly reasonable right wing economic arguments in favour of not taxing these people more - or even slashing their current tax burden. But that then requires Stormont to trim its spending. It has made clear it has no intention of doing so.

Last week Michelle O’Neill and Emma Little Pengelly effectively killed off any lingering hopes from the most optimistic observers of devolution that this Executive is preparing to take long-overdue difficult decisions.

Instead, their parties will tiresomely lament how the Treasury doesn’t send them an even bigger sum, pulling long faces while telling voters how much they’d love to spend on every aspect of public services if only they were given more money.

Poverty of vision

It’s beyond pathetic. The Treasury has if anything been far too tolerant of this. After the RHI scandal some senior Whitehall figures took an acute interest in Stormont’s finances. That won’t have been forgotten, yet the Treasury is now giving unprecedentedly huge sums of money to the Executive while appearing to take on trust that it will reform its ways – when there is no evidence whatsoever that it has any real intention of doing so.

 The Treasury has poured money into this place and our politicians – and civil servants – have repeatedly squandered it. Billions have been wasted, as Audit Office report after scathing Audit Office report has made clear. Stormont says it will “learn the lessons” – and then does the same thing again and again, with zero accountability.

I was struck by this a couple of weeks ago while standing deep beneath the earth in a prospective gold mine. Stormont’s bungling means it can’t decide whether to say yes or no to the project after eight years, despite having advertised Northern Ireland globally as a place to which foreign companies should come to mine.

You can read my report of the situation, watch Kevin Scott’s film of our trip to the mine, or listen to a podcast discussion about it with Ciarán Dunbar.

This is inside a muddy mine, not a hot foundry. Photographer Kevin Scott insisted I stand beneath a drip for photographic reasons, but I think he just wanted me to get wet

This is inside a muddy mine, not a hot foundry. Photographer Kevin Scott insisted I stand beneath a drip for photographic reasons, but I think he just wanted me to get wet

But what also struck me about this was the potential for Stormont to think creatively. The mine proposal is hugely controversial with environmentalists and with a section of the local population. Whether it ever gets planning permission is unclear to me.

Yet this is a perfect example of where Stormont could raise vast sums of money for the areas it says it wants to fund. The mine company says it would pay about £2 billion in tax over about two decades if the mine goes ahead. At about £100m a year, that’s a heck of a lot of money. It’s almost double what the Assembly costs to run each year.

 Yet the problem from Stormont’s perspective is that it won’t get its hands on much of the money. Most of the tax would go to the Crown Estate, which owns the rights for gold mining, and that would end up in the Treasury; income taxes and national insurance contributions would similarly go to London.

 Some of that comes back here, of course, but there is no direct link between the two. Yet Stormont has sweeping powers to clobber this company with steep taxes if it wants to do so. It could use the rates system, for instance, to place a specifically high tax on the property of gold mining companies.

It could place huge charges linked to mining licences – another fully devolved area – or pass legislation to specifically bill the company for the environmental impact and security costs of what it’s doing.

 Ministers themselves have remarkable powers – not only those given to them by statute but what are known as prerogative powers. These essentially give to local ministers the powers of a monarch in most of the areas not already covered by law. Yet one of the very few times when DUP and Sinn Féin ministers used this Royal Prerogative power related to their self-interest: secretly changing the law to let them skip normal employment rules to appoint a spin doctor.

No interest in taxing wealthy individuals or firms

 Sinn Féin is particularly vocal about not having control of income tax. Yet the party – as with its Executive colleagues – has shown almost no interest in using the other tax-raising powers which Stormont either has or could create for itself.

Recently the SDLP Opposition suggested a tax on major agri-food companies to help deter the pollution of Lough Neagh, and to bring in money to help clean it up. This is a rare example of anyone thinking creatively about how to raise revenue while also tackling a major problem.

I asked the mining company’s managing director if it would pay such a tax if it came and he didn’t rule it out. The company will, like most people, want to pay as little tax as it can, but if the law says it must pay then it will have no choice in the matter.

Most of those who oppose the mine will say that no sum of money could make up for the disruption to a sensitive habitat, and the risks which they fear the mine could mean for human health.

But there remains every possibility that Sinn Féin’s Liz Kimmins – who will have the power to decide on the mine once a public inquiry ends – will approve it. Her party enthusiastically backs mining south of the border to the extent that it has suggested state subsidy for a mine in Navan, and when the Sperrins mine was first proposed in 2009, the then Sinn Féin MP for the area, Pat Doherty, was positive.

If she does approve the project, this is now astronomically more lucrative for its ultimate owner, huge US fund Orion Resource Partners, than it first thought. Not only does the company say that it’s found more gold – and hasn’t even got to the end of the seams it has discovered – but the price of gold has roughly trebled.

 This company stands to make a killing from this project. If this is to be approved, for Stormont to have any credibility here would require more than a few hundred jobs in the area while billions are shipped out of Northern Ireland – at a time when Executive ministers are bemoaning how they’ve no money to help the most vulnerable in our society.

Virtually all the Stormont parties say they'd love to spend more money but the big bad Treasury won't send it to them. The truth is that they have consciously chosen not to raise more money of their own, because that wouldn’t be popular with many of us.

Our front page story today illustrates how the powerful can be discomfited by those who don’t think they’ve much power. One of the world’s biggest booze companies was forced by a low-budget Belfast arts festival to apologise for misleadingly claiming to be a part of Belfast Culture Night.

 Stormont has extraordinary power to do good – far more power than a few arts activists. When’s it going to use it?

That’s all for this week. See you next week.

DUP leader denies broken Executive relationship with Sinn Fein -plays down TUV's poll surge

SUZANNE BREEN, Belfast Telegraph, 2025

Gavin Robinson has said he can't envisage circumstances in which his party would collapse the Stormont institutions before the 2027 Assembly election.

As the TUV continues to breathe down the neck of its larger unionist rival, concern had grown that the DUP could bring down power-sharing next year if it doesn't start rising in opinion polls.

The party has taken a notably tougher stance with Sinn Fein since MLAs returned last week from the summer recess with a range of sources describing the atmosphere between the Executive parties as increasingly poisonous.

But, in a wide-ranging interview with the Belfast Telegraph ahead of the DUP's annual conference this weekend, Mr Robinson indicated that Stormont isn't under any threat from his party.

He denied that it had moved to the right to try to make up political ground with the TUV or that it now has a “toxic” relationship with Sinn Fein.

When asked whether Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly or DUP deputy leader Michelle McIlveen was in charge of the party at Stormont, Mr Robinson replied that he was in control.

The East Belfast MP did not rule out deciding to quit Westminster and running for Stormont — potentially becoming First or Deputy First Minister in 2027.

He also appeared to hold the door open for a possible return to frontline politics by former North Antrim MP Ian Paisley, whom he described as an active party member and valued colleague.

Asked if he could foresee himself eventually crashing the power-sharing institutions before the end of their mandate — as his predecessor Sir Jeffrey Donaldson had done in 2022 when the mood in unionism hardened — Mr Robinson said: “No I don't.

Importance of devolved Govt

“I can't envisage the circumstances where that would happen. I've very clearly outlined the importance of the institutions we have, the importance of devolved government in Northern Ireland, the importance of local people being able to shape local decisions.”

The DUP leader said it was far better that Northern Ireland citizens could “decide their fate as opposed to handing power to a (Labour) government in Westminster that seems to be the most successful in history at annoying and disappointing people”.

He rejected “all this nonsense about toxicity (with Sinn Fein) and lurching to the right”. Mr Robinson said it was “wild commentary” to suggest that his party's recent robust criticism of First Minister Michelle O'Neill indicated that it was now on an election footing.

“Like you're having a laugh. It's 19 months to the next election,” he said. “Nobody wants to start a 19-month election campaign, even those of us who love politics and love elections — 19 months is a bit of a stretch of the imagination.”

On DUP-Sinn Fein relations in the Executive, Mr Robinson said: “There's no toxicity at all, but we will stand up for our position. We will reflect (our) manifesto, the positions that we have.

“We can see that Sinn Fein and some of their colleagues in Londonderry are prepared to discriminate against their unionist neighbours in banning the Army from a jobs fair.

“We're going to say something about that. We're not going to be quiet about it (but) that doesn't mean we're speaking out of turn or causing trouble.

“We will disagree strongly and that's OK. It doesn't endanger stability. A stable system should allow for us to have disagreements and to call out each out, so there's no lurch or change.”

Casement Park

Some GAA and nationalist sources believe that DUP Communities Minister Gordon Lyons is running down the clock on the redevelopment of Casement Park until planning permission expires.

Mr Robinson denied that was his party's strategy and defended his minister. “Gordon Lyons has been so unfairly castigated whenever all he's said is, 'Where's the money?' Ravenhill and Windsor cut their cloth according to the money they were given,” he said.

“The GAA sit back and say, 'Unless we get all-singing, all-dancing, every part of what we ask for, we'll just castigate those who don't give it to us'.”

Mr Robinson said the GAA “deserved a sporting facility but we also have to work within the money available”.

On the dispute over Irish language signs at Belfast's Grand Central Station, the DUP leader said Sinn Fein Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins should listen to Mr Justice McAlinden's words last week that the Executive needed to grow up.

Ms Kimmins must accept she didn't have the power to alone make the decisions on the signs and should now bring the issue to the Executive, he stated.

Mr Robinson said Ms O'Neill was “not First Minister for all” and added: “From my perspective, she never has been”.

Ms O'Neill last month suggested to the Belfast Telegraph that while she was in “control of the ship” in her party, Emma Little-Pengelly's power as Deputy First Minister was greatly limited by the DUP.

SF ‘run by Connolly House’

Mr Robinson said that “you just have to search the Belfast Telegraph archives” over the years to see that Sinn Fein was “run by Connolly House, run by people outside of the elected system”. In response to claims from a range of sources that Ms Little-Pengelly has to seek approval for her every decision from party officers, Mr Robinson said that DUP policy was set by its executive and outlined in its election manifesto.

“When things come up that are new or complex or controversial, you will find that as colleagues we will discuss issues. Nobody gives me (Executive) papers that I'm not entitled to, but we'll talk about issues,” he said.

“If we don't have a policy, we have to decide a policy — that's quite normal in any political party.” When asked who was in charge of the DUP at Stormont, Ms Little-Pengelly or the party's deputy leader, Strangford MLA Michelle McIlveen, Mr Robinson said: “Gavin Robinson leads the DUP at Stormont.

“I'm there every week with my team. I go every Monday morning. We co-ordinate as a team. Representatives from Westminster, the Assembly and other structures within the party — we meet together.”

Some in the DUP believe Mr Robinson should run in the 2027 Assembly election so he could become either Deputy First Minister or First Minister — if Sinn Fein is ousted as the largest party — in the next executive.

When asked if he is planning to swap Westminster for Stormont, the East Belfast MP said if “people are having these conversations, they're not talking to me about it but I will lead this party as best I can”.

When pushed on his plans, Mr Robinson said: “It would be silly to rule anything in or out. I've been an MP now for 10 years in East Belfast. It's no secret that I believe in a locally devolved assembly.”

Paisley Junior come back?

There has been speculation that former North Antrim DUP MP Ian Paisley could contest the next Assembly or Westminster election or both. However, some party sources have suggested that Mr Paisley's removal from the DUP parliamentary team has helped with party unity.

Mr Robinson strongly defended the former MP. “I'm in touch with Ian as much today as I was when he was in Parliament,” he said. “I sometimes hear this nasty and energetically lurid commentary that's made about Ian and his impact within the party.

“Ian is still at party functions. Ian is still at party meetings. Ian still holds office within the North Antrim (DUP) association. Ian's not a colleague of mine at Westminster but he's very much a colleague.

“He's very much still engaged with some of the key employers within North Antrim. He doesn't turn his back on people that invested in him and with him for so many years. He invests and returns in spades in that constituency and across the party too.”

So would he be happy for Mr Paisley returned as a DUP MLA or MP? “That's a matter for him if that's what he wants to do,” Mr Robinson said. “He's a member of our party, we see him at functions. I engage with him personally and directly.”

Asked if he'd be content to support and endorse Mr Paisley's candidature in future, the DUP leader replied: “There's no question about that.”

The TUV has lambasted the DUP for claiming after its deal to restore devolution last year that the Irish Sea Border was gone.

Mr Robinson insisted he had never made that claim but instead had “talked about the removal of checks and barriers within that UK internal market system”. He accused the previous Tory government and the current Labour one of failing to keep “commitments to remove checks”.

On Nigel Farage's chances of becoming prime minister, the DUP leader said: “People are losing the run of themselves on this. We're four years way from a Westminster election.” It was still “a possibility, not a probability”.

However, a strong Reform UK performance in the Welsh and Scottish Parliament elections and local elections in Britain next year would be “seismic” and spell serious trouble for Keir Starmer, he added.

On Starmer

Asked to score the Prime Minister out of 10, Mr Robinson replied: “Can you go into negative figures?”

In last month's LucidTalk poll for the Belfast Telegraph, the DUP was on just 17% with the TUV on 13%, whereas the biggest unionist party had enjoyed a 14-point lead over its smaller rival in the last Assembly election.

Mr Robinson said he wasn't concerned about those figures as the polls would change as the 2027 election neared.

He became DUP leader after Sir Jeffrey Donaldson resigned when he was charged with historical sexual offences last year.

Mr Robinson said the circumstances of him becoming leader “shook people to the core. There's no getting away from that — it was difficult for us all”.

His focus has been on “bringing a level of unity and cohesion... building relationships within the party”.

Over the past year, he had focussed on “the internal workings” of the DUP and restructuring the party. He had needed “the space to get the internals and the mechanics right, boring and all as it is”.

However, his focus as leader would now move to being more outward looking. “This will be a year of productivity, of presentation, of people being able to see, feel and hear the DUP,” he added.

Unionist pact in 2027?

The party is keen on a unionist pact for the 2027 Assembly election but Mr Robinson said there hadn't been any dialogue between the DUP and other parties on the issue so far.

“Unionism lost two seats to Alliance — one in Strangford and one in North Antrim — and a seat around the Executive table because there wasn't co-operation,” he said.

“I know where I stand on this. I can't do this on my own. I need others to co-operate and I believe the people want us to,” he added.

When devolution was restored in February 2024, DUP Education Minister Paul Givan branded TUV leader Jim Allister as a “dead end unionist”. Asked if he agreed with that description, Mr Robinson said: “Paul has been doing a fantastic job as Education Minister.

“Paul is fantastic. Many commentators recognise that he is very political. Sometimes he'll ruffle feathers and that's fine.”

Mr Robinson said that he personally had kept his promise to not attack rival unionists when he became leader, but he “lamented” that this wasn't reciprocated by some.

Asked if he would take off the political gloves in the run-up to the 2027 Assembly election if attacks from rivals continued, Mr Robinson said he was “nobody's lackey”.

He added: “If it were damaging me, I can take that on the chin. I've got a thick enough hide. If it were damaging our collective cause, perhaps I would change my approach.”

Jennifer Todd’s proposals for how to approach the issue of Irish Unity

By Andy Pollak, 2IrelandsTogether, Wednesday, 17 September, 2025,

Jennifer Todd is a distinguished academic. She is a former professor in UCD's School of Politics and International Relations; former director of UCD's Institute for British-Irish Studies, and currently a fellow at that university's Geary Institute for Public Policy. She has been researching ethnicity, identity, conflict and Northern Ireland for more than 30 years.

19 years ago my first blog when I was director of the Centre for Cross Border Studies was based on a study of inter-generational attitudes in the border area by a team of political scientists and psychologists from UCD and Queen's University Belfast led by Professor Todd.1

This concluded that British and Irish government and EU policy “to encourage cross-community and cross-border contact, is on exactly the right lines, and should be extended. This is the way in which lasting change can be provoked in enough individuals to percolate through entire communities.” They warned, however, that this would be a long-drawn out business and “it would be counter-productive to demand immediate and measurable political results from cross-community and cross-border initiatives.”

In a paper last year called 'Irish policy making and planning for a possible future united Ireland', Todd once again urged caution, even if it was based on cautious optimism.2

"Policy planning for a future united Ireland is foundational, difficult and dangerous, "she said. "At basis, it involves the Irish government providing a model of a united Ireland to be put to all the people of the island in concurrent referendums in each jurisdiction. If planners get it wrong – if for example there is a 'yes' vote for a model of united Ireland that no one really wants and which generates widespread disillusion – the consequences will be felt for decades."

It is even more dangerous because of "global public disengagement from conventional forms of democracy, from expertise and from ‘change leaders", she warned. Ordinary people's views had to be taken into account, and most people in both jurisdictions wanted clarity on the type of united Ireland on offer before they vote. "Modelling a future united Ireland is a foundational task that potentially touches on all aspects of life, and that has deep, often unspoken, emotional resonances which differ in each jurisdiction."

"The Irish government has the central role in putting forward a model of a united Ireland in a future referendum in each jurisdiction." This is a particularly unusual kind of task. "Irish policy makers will have to outline the form of a new state (a future united Ireland), whose remit will cover the whole island and which must be acceptable not just to the citizens in the Irish state but also to those in Northern Ireland. They must have this model available at a time chosen by another state - the initiation of a referendum in Northern Ireland is the defined task of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland - but the same question and model must be available for the referendum in Northern Ireland and the concurrent referendum in the Republic of Ireland."

Finding an acceptable change process

She said there is a "strong argument that a ‘process’ model is preferable whereby many decisions are made in a transition period after a positive vote for unity in each jurisdiction". However she warned that the task for the Irish state – and its politicians and civil servants – is particularly difficult for at least four reasons:

First, the Irish government has responsibility without power. The Irish state is the only body that can credibly and legally design a model to go forward in a unity referendum and it will have to implement the voters' decision. But some of the key decision-making citizens are in another jurisdiction, Northern Ireland.

Second, the issue is "exceptionally and existentially difficult. It touches on identity and loyalty as well as interest. It speaks to foundational assumptions about the political and social world. And it does so for different populations who have radically opposed perspectives and different paradigms of understanding of politics and society. Moreover, these differing perspectives were at the centre of group conflict in Northern Ireland. To open these opposing paradigms to discussion is necessary, because they frame judgements and even emotions. But this also threatens to retrigger group solidarity and conflict."

Third, "the language of constitutional debate has provoked widespread disengagement, and silence, rather than reflection." "Opinion polls and research have shown that around half of the population on the island wants to distance from traditional nationalist/unionist debates."

"The issues are not only emotive, but those emotions have been silenced and thus not dealt with. Some try to avoid thinking about a possible future united Ireland because the issue seems to ensnare them in perspectives they do not much like but are unable to find a way out of. Their views are thus likely to swing widely, seemingly unpredictably." 

She cited a recent focus group overseen by herself and fellow researchers, Joanne McEvoy of Aberdeen University and John Doyle of Dublin City University, made up of people who did not know how they might vote in a future unity referendum, to illustrate this volatility. Despite their uncertainty, "once issues about a future possible united Ireland were raised, they responded intuitively, emotionally and forcefully – when asked about changing the flag and anthem, they answered ‘No, no, no, no’. When asked about joining the Commonwealth, they said it was like ‘spitting on your ancestors’ graves for everything that they fought for’. Once they heard their own conversation, they pulled backed: at the end of the 90 minute focus group, participants were saying ‘sure that’s never going to work’, ‘We have to be more open minded, ready for some change as well’... It was clear that they held contradictory views, and swung between them. Was this simply because they didn’t have a defined constitutional preference?"

Fourth, "this is a situation where people do not have accurate information about conditions in the other jurisdiction". For example, "the cost of unity to the Irish state depends on negotiations with the UK, which have not yet happened. In this situation, misinformation and partial information is likely to be weaponised."

However she cited one positive factor. "Although the planning task is very difficult, it is not yet immediate. Unlike the German government in 1989, the Irish government has a number of years - one might guess a decade - to accomplish it before a referendum happens."

Clear divisions

People's preferences today are clearly deeply divided: Unionists differ from nationalists, Southern nationalists from Northern nationalists. "Learning from this, analysts attempt to find the highest common factor in the radically opposed views, the options that would be least bad, and that would maximise losers’ consent in a future referendum. Thus, for example, it has been argued that a devolved Northern Ireland under Irish sovereignty is the best option because it is least disturbing to Northern unionists. It also would have the benefit of minimally disturbing institutions and practices in the Republic. But there is a potential problem: this is a model of a united Ireland that no one really wants, one that is uninspiring as well as costly. It is very likely to lead to later disillusion."

"Are there ways to anticipate where people's views might move in the future?" asked Todd. She came down in favour of 'deliberation' [the Republic's Citizens' Assemblies are examples of deliberative structures, where a random sample of citizens, alongside politicians, discuss and make recommendations on controversial issues]. However it should be deliberation that aims "to find points of commonality and convergence", rather than "to arrive at an informed choice between pre-given options."

"Moreover the deliberative net has to be cast very widely, going beyond representative sampling to look at many diverse clusters of the population whose perspectives, unease, and potential for change may be distinctive, prioritising access rather than representativeness, and inclusion of different perspectives, not just different social categories. And, since we do not yet know the issues at stake for participants, the deliberative method has to allow them – to the maximum degree possible – to set their own agenda of discussion, define their own priorities, and interrogate one another."

Todd then outlined the findings of her team's 2020-2024 research, based on interviews and focus groups with about 100 people, North and South, accessed through community associations. These were mainly women, migrants and young people because previous research had shown that they are the groups most disengaged from discussion on the constitutional question. In 2022 the researchers had held four in-person 'deliberative cafes' – small informal local deliberations of about three hours – with over 60 participants. Their participants were defined 'transversally', i.e. not as unionists or nationalists, but for example, as border women or gender activists. "They were very diverse, from all parts of the island, all religions and none, and with diverse political perspectives. Our method was to raise the broad issue of constitutional change and North-South relations and ask for their perceptions and priorities around the issues, so as to encourage their participation in defining the issues in debate."

Conversations rather than debate

Their findings surprised them. First, they found "very substantive convergence" amongst the diverse participants on issues of process and values. Participants agreed that there should be conversations – not debates – about the issues, but starting from people's organic experience, not from ideology. They agreed that as many people as possible should be involved. "They agreed that bread-and-butter socio-economic and rights’ issues were priorities, much more than the precise issues of institutional design. They agreed, for the most part, that time should be taken to get the picture right. Participation of these transversally defined groups increased convergence, and provided confidence that participatory discussion, properly organised, could be constructive."

Women, in particular, argued for conversation rather than debate. They saw this as beginning with ‘pre-conversations’ which helped understand other perspectives and develop shared values, even if they have different preferences. Participants saw this as something that could take place locally – in local ‘knit and natter’ groups – networked together.

"Second, they were surprised that amongst the obstacles to participation, the constitutional discourse itself was most emphasised." It was seen as ideological, rather than based on experience, "as provoking knee-jerk responses rather than engaging in thought, and as non-organic. The very terms ‘constitutional change’ and ‘Irish unity’ were criticised. This was a very immediate intuitive response by many – one gender activist said she felt that she had ‘rocked up to the wrong meeting’. On the other hand, the vast majority of our participants were concerned about the shape of a future society, interested in how others saw it and wanted to continue the discussion, but on terms that spoke to real experience."

"Third, our participants emphasised issues of practical life – bread-and-butter issues and rights, not primarily identity and institutions. It wasn’t just the financial cost of unity, but the form of life that would result, and the changes to their lives, and those of their families. They wanted improvement – not just the end of barriers of religion in Northern Ireland, but the end of barriers of class in Dublin. In this sense, they wanted constitutional change that would be inspiring."

This sharing of experience led to "clear and credible collective definitions of the shared problems – a step change from individual experience to convergent collective definition. This provides one criterion for judgement on policy initiatives and constitutional change. To put it crudely, any model of a united Ireland that did not alleviate present problems of cross-border healthcare would not be good enough."

Todd would like to scale up these deliberations to include sessions with politicians and policy makers about how to remedy the problems raised by the people in the 'deliberative cafes' ("This builds accountability - the absence of which so frustrated our participants in earlier research - into the process.") And a subsequent 'constitutional' session "where deliberation is structured around the construction of a constitutional model (either united Ireland or United Kingdom) that would help alleviate the problems."

I know ARINS - the collaboration between the University of Notre Dame and the Royal Irish Academy - is already doing some of this kind of work, albeit with little unionist participation. However I would like to see the Irish universities, north and south, being more involved. A possible vehicle for this would be Universities Ireland - the network of 10 university presidents on the island - which is administered by the Centre for Cross Border Cooperation (formerly the Centre for Cross Border Studies). This is a body looking for a role. Funding and overseeing the kind of deeply serious research leading to clear policy recommendations on a possible 'new Ireland' that Professor Todd is leading would be an obvious candidate.

1 'Ignore the Cynics: Cooperation Works!' A Note from the Next Door Neighbours, 6 September 2006

2 publicpolicy.ie/governance/irish-policy-making-and-planning-for-a-possible-future-united-ireland

Codename of ‘Mairead Farrell’ given to informer in unsafe convictions case

CONNLA YOUNG, Irish News, September 18th, 2025

A MAN suspected of setting up a republican attack on an RUC soccer team almost 40 years ago claimed he was working for British military intelligence.

The Court of Appeal in Belfast yesterday ruled the convictions of three men, Sinn Féin councillor Declan John Murphy, Conor Gilmore and Declan John Moen, were unsafe.

The three served prison sentences after they were convicted in relation to an attempted bomb attack at Limavady United FC’s grounds ahead of a home match against the RUC in December 1989.

The bomb, which included Semtex and ball bearings, had been placed in the away dugout, and was to be detonated by radio remote control.

The cases were later referred by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), a body set up to examine potential miscarriages of justice, which in turn sent them back to the Court of Appeal in 2022.

The CCRC cited sensitive reasons for the decision and centred on the emergence of potential fresh evidence which was not disclosed at the original trial.

‘Today’s ruling highlights the need for full accountability’

Sinn Féin councillor Declan Murphy describes overturning of conviction for 1989 bomb plot as “personal vindication”

Most of the appeal hearing took place behind closed doors due to the sensitivity of the material.

Agent provocateurs

The three men believe “agent provocateurs” were involved in their case that led to their convictions.

While at the time it was claimed the soccer match did not go ahead due to the fixture being rearranged, it has long been suspected an informer or agent had a part to play.

In the aftermath of the foiled attack a man, originally from Derry, is believed to have fled to Britain.

It has now emerged the suspected informer, whose identity is known to The Irish News, was interviewed as part of the RUC follow-up investigation.

One of the officers involved in the investigation later provided a statement to lawyers for the three men.

That document reveals the suspected informer admitted during police interview that he was working for British military intelligence and that it was responsible for setting up the failed bomb attack.

‘A strange case from the outset’

“This was a strange case from the outset,” the former policeman says in the document.

“I remember the circumstances of the case as it concerned someone reportedly seeing a light at the Limavady grounds.

“A road stop was set up to stop any cars leaving the grounds. It would appear that at the road stop they got away.

“At the time I was suspicious they got away, as I became aware that this was a military type operation and they usually set up checkpoints in such a way so that cars cannot pass.”

The former RUC member said he interviewed the suspect on his own, which he found “strange” as two police officers were usually involved.

“I met this man aged about 18 or 19 who stated he attended the University of Ulster at Coleraine,” he said.

“He told me he was a trainee psychologist or psychiatrist and he was trained to recognise when someone was telling the truth. I initially became suspicious of him and in a short time I knew he was working for military intelligence.

“I felt that he knew the questions that he was going to be asked and answered in such a fashion, as if he was prepared or prepped before I interviewed him.”

The former officer said the man told him that his then partner had hired a car to be used in the planned attack.

“I think I asked him if he would be talking to military intelligence again,” he said.

“He said he would. He told me his girlfriend had hired the car as he did not have a licence. He told me this job was set up by the military.

“I became very suspicious that I was handed this man and I came to the conclusion it was a set-up.”

‘I felt a sucker that day’

The former detective felt that he had been used.

“I felt a sucker that day, I knew I was being used to interview their agent only,” he said.

“I never interviewed any of the other suspects which was again unusual.”

From memory the former officer believes the suspected agent was allowed to evade capture.

“From what I remember I believed that he was in the car that escaped and that he was allowed to escape through the checkpoint,” he said.

“This was a job which involved the HSMU (Headquarters Mobile Support Unit) and would have been heavily manned.

“It was very rare that anyone escaped from these surveillance jobs.”

The former officer said the suspected agent claimed he was from Derry and had been given the codename ‘Mairead Farrell’, an IRA member shot dead in Gibraltar in March 1988.

“This man told me he was from Derry City, I think he said he was a third year student,” the officer said.

“He told me he would report to his (handler) as Mairead Farrell who was shot in Gibraltar.

“I told him to continue to do this. “I don’t know why I told him to do this.”

It is understood the CCRC was also provided with details of comments made in relation to a blog about the film ‘Hunger’, which made reference to one of the three men and the planned attack.

The author claimed to be responsible for sending the three men to jail “without passing go”.

“If I had my way they wouldn’t have got the chance to go to jail,” the author added.

In a statement, Declan Murphy described the overturning of his conviction as a “personal vindication”.

He added: “Today’s ruling highlights again the need for full accountability.

“Upcoming legacy framework agreements between the Irish and British government must command the confidence of the families who are still searching for the truth.

“Sinn Féin will continue to fight for truth and justice, and stand shoulder to shoulder with victims and families.”

Prison officers ‘burnt out’ as attacks triple since 2020

CONOR SHEILS, Irish News, September 18th, 2025

ATTACKS on prison officers in Northern Ireland have tripled over the past five years, according to the latest figures.

The number of attacks on prison officers in the north’s prisons was 96 in 2024. This compares with just 32 in 2020.

The number of attacks rose to 71 in 2021, before dipping to 66 and 59 in 2022 and 2023 respectively.

However, 2024 represents a three-fold increase from 2020.

In response to an assembly question from Upper Bann MLA Jonathan Buckley, Justice Minister Naomi Long said that overcrowding and high numbers of prisoners were to blame.

“Experience across prison environments is that high prison populations coupled with overcrowding are the most significant factors contributing to prison instability, incidents and violence,” she wrote.

“The current population challenges being faced by the Northern Ireland Prison Service are therefore clearly a factor in the increasing number of assaults.”

Her views are echoed by Northern Ireland Prison Officers’ Association chair Ivor Dunne, who said the spike was down to the number of prisoners being held on remand due to a backlog in criminal cases being heard since Covid.

“The figures don’t lie, the prison population has increased enormously since 2020,” he told The Irish News.

“We’re dealing with the most dangerous people in Northern Ireland at the moment because they’ve been put into prison because of the crimes that they have been either convicted for or they’re being held on remand before their case comes up.

When will courts get back on track since Covid?

“I would ask, when do the courts expect to be back on track after Covid?

“There’s so many people being held on remand, and a remand prisoner is a much more volatile prisoner than a sentenced prisoner because they doesn’t know what’s coming down the track. They are a completely different type of prisoner.

Attacks on prison officers across the north have tripled over the past five years.

“Our staff are working in a stressful situation, and they’re dealing with people that are stressed out, often because of delays and backlogs, and the only person that the prisoner takes their frustration out on is my members.”

He added that many of the north’s prisons are silently struggling due to an increased prison population and staff shortages.

“People forget what goes on behind the grey wall. People are focused on people with blue flashing lights on their vehicles – fire brigade, ambulance, and police. They forget about the strains of being a prison officer. We are coping with the most volatile people in Northern Ireland. And we are doing a very good job at coping with them.”

Power of Peatlands embraced in new strategy to tackle climate crisis

REBECCA BLACK, Irish News, September 18th, 2025

THE “power of peatlands” is to be embraced in a new strategy by Stormont to tackle the nature and climate crisis and improve water quality.

Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister Andrew Muir described Northern Ireland’s peatlands, which cover around 12% of the region, as having “enormous potential” as he unveiled the region’s first Peatland Strategy.

The pathway for peatland conservation and restoration, which has been approved by the executive, sets out five strategic objectives and 26 actions over the next 15 years to respond to biodiversity loss and climate change.

It aims to deliver conservation, restoration and management of peatland to support greater carbon storage and improve biodiversity and water quality.

Mr Muir said he hopes the strategy will mark a “turning point for how these precious habitats are protected, restored and managed.

“We must embrace the power of peatlands as a nature-based solution to tackle the nature and climate crisis and improve water quality,” he said.

“Peatlands, which cover approximately 12% of Northern Ireland, are our rainforest equivalent and have enormous potential to store and sequester carbon.

“However, there is now widespread recognition that well-managed peatlands enhance water quality, help reduce flood risk, combat climate change and provide vital habitat for threatened species such as the hen harrier, curlew and golden plover.

“It is essential that our peatlands and the ecosystem services that they provide are acknowledged and appreciated for the value and benefits they bring to people, nature and climate.”

Mr Muir said repairing damaged peatlands “offers real return on investment and creates good green jobs”.

Some £7.8 million has been allocated for peatland restoration through the Environment Fund and Shared Island Fund to 2028.

In addition, Peaceplus funding of approximately €40 million (£34.6 million) is currently awarded for nature projects in Northern Ireland to 2028, which includes a major peatland restoration element of around 12,500 hectares.

Mr Muir hailed environmental groups in Northern Ireland as having “already been leading the way delivering pioneering peatland restoration projects”.

“We must build on this capacity and know-how to scale up peatland restoration across Northern Ireland,” he added.

“It is encouraging that substantial investment in peatland restoration has recently been secured through the Environment Fund, Shared Island and Peaceplus.”

More Humanist weddings than Protestant ones

MARK ROBINSON, Irish News, September 18th, 2025

THE number of humanist weddings taking place in the north provisionally totalled more than the three main Protestant denominations combined last year.

First gaining legal recognition in 2018, their popularity has continued to grow due to their customisable nature.

But what is a humanist wedding and how does it differ from traditional ceremonies?

A humanist wedding is a nonreligious ceremony which is conducted by an accredited humanist celebrant.

According to Humanists UK, the celebrants “write and deliver a meaningful ceremony” for each couple, meaning that they are personalised ceremonies.

Ritual moments, such as readings and poems, songs and traditions can all be added, taken out or modified to the taste of the couple – pets can even be included. Roles typically defined among a bridal party or groomsmen can also be changed. For example, some couples can choose to have a ‘Best Woman’ instead of a ‘Best Man’ – or both.

Humanist weddings have grown in popularity in recent years

The personalised nature of the ceremony distinguishes it from other non-religious civil ceremonies or register office weddings.

Humanist weddings can take place in any venue or space – it could be on a beach, in the woods or even at home.

The site of the ceremony typically holds meaning to the couple getting married.

They are also open to same-sex couples.

The first legal humanist wedding took place in the north in 2017, between model Laura Lacole and footballer Eunan O’Kane. It was the first to be held after a high court decision granted humanist weddings legal recognition.

An appeal on the decision was not upheld and since 2018, couples in the north have had legally recognised humanist weddings.

While also legal in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland, they are currently not legally recognised in England or Wales.

Couples there have to register their marriage separately at a register office.

Benn accused of hypocrisy on legacy amnesty and letting Dublin off the hook

By David Thompson, Belfast News Letter, September 18th, 2025

​Hilary Benn has been challenged over his apparent hypocrisy on legacy, in a new report out yesterday.

A new document by the Westminster based think tank Policy Exchange asks the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why he has been opposing the recent Tory government’s conditional amnesty plan for Troubles killings when he apparently supported a fuller amnesty for the IRA and others under Tony Blair.

The report warns that Mr Benn seems to be about to strike a deal with Dublin that will put UK veterans at risk of lop-sided legacy probes, without having challenged the Republic of Ireland over its own hypocrisy on its approach to giving Irish republican terrorists an effective amnesty since the 1990s.

The News Letter put these criticisms of Mr Benn to the Northern Ireland Office, and got a general reply on the government’s approach to legacy. The NIO’s answer ignored all of the specific Policy Exchange criticisms of him that we forwarded to them.

The Policy Exchange paper, backed by legal and military experts including Admiral Lord West, the Labour peer and ex head of the Royal Navy, who feared “hard-won” legal protections for veterans will be lost.

The ​Policy Exchange report calls for full public and parliamentary scrutiny of the UK government’s coming new agreement with Ireland, as part of the repealing of the Legacy Act 2023 and the conditional amnesty under that legislation.

A summary of the document from the think tank also says this “could mark a return to a failed cycle of investigations and prosecutions of British veterans and security forces, who would then face being hauled through the courts for alleged Troubles-related offences from decades ago”.

It further says: “The government seems to be failing in its negotiations with the Republic of Ireland, conceding their objectives without apparently securing anything in return and failing to challenge the Irish government’s double standards and hypocrisy.”

Offering Benn right of reply

The News Letter put the entire document, which has been written by distinguished public figures such as the Oxford professor, Richard Ekins KC, to the Northern Ireland Office, offering Mr Benn a right of reply. We highlighted specific criticisms made of Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government and its approach to the legacy of NI’s past, such as that it seems to be "driven primarily by a desire to placate the Irish government and to bring a close" the legacy legal action that Ireland has taken against the UK to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

We also asked the NIO about the Policy Exchange document’s query as to whether the UK government’s policy is based on what it genuinely thinks will bring truth to victims and promote reconciliation, or “is driven instead by a dogmatic commitment to the ECHR".

And we put to them the claim that Labour “foolishly abandoned its appeal to the Court of Appeal against the [Belfast] High Court’s decision [on the incompatibility of its Legacy Act] and thus forfeited the ability to a further appeal to the Supreme Court”.

We asked about Policy Exchange’s observation that Mr Benn’s recent remarks “to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee suggest that the UK government has not pressed the Irish government to answer difficult and serious questions about its own approach to handling legacy issues" and that his evidence “certainly gives the impression that agreement with Ireland has been prioritised over the consultation with other interested parties the secretary of state had proposed originally".

We asked the NIO in particular about a specific criticism of Mr Benn, that he was a cabinet minister (for international development) when the Northern Ireland Offences Bill 2005 was prepared and presented to Parliament by Tony Blair.

Policy Exchange said: “That bill would have granted immunity in respect of offences committed before 10th April 1998 in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland irrespective of whether they were committed for terrorist purposes or in the course of efforts to combat terrorism. In other words, it would have amounted to a more or less a categorical block on prosecutions of both paramilitaries and security personnel. Prime Minister Tony Blair defended the proposal, stating to a Commons committee that: 'I’m not pretending this is an easy issue at all. This is an issue that’s uncomfortable to deal with for very obvious reasons…If you don’t deal with this, you can’t move forward, and I think the most important thing is to move it forward.'

The Policy Exchange report section that we put to Mr Benn for comment continued: “In the end, the bill failed to secure sufficient support in Parliament and was withdrawn. It is worth asking current ministers, including those in office at the time, whether they now think that what was proposed then by a Labour government – something much more categorical than anything in the Legacy Act – was in breach of Article 2 and morally and legally outrageous? Have they changed their minds? If so, why? If not, then it is worth asking what made the policy proposed in 2005 a permissible approach to securing reconciliation then, while a more modest and conditional approach to immunity – that requires information recovery – must be regarded as unacceptable now?"

Most of these specific passages from the Policy Exchange report were ignored by the Northern Ireland Office in their reply to us, which was put in the name of a UK government spokesperson. The spokesperson said: “The last government's scheme would have given terrorists immunity from prosecution, including for the murder of British civilians and soldiers.

​"That scheme was widely opposed and rejected by our domestic courts, before this government had even been elected. Any government coming in would have had to put in place new, deliverable legislation.

"The Northern Ireland Secretary and Defence Secretary are committed to a fair system that will enable families – including over 200 Armed Forces families - to seek the answers they deserve.

"As part of this there will be new and effective protections for veterans. We will ensure no veteran who properly carried out their duty is forced to face an endless cycle of legal uncertainty. Any agreement between the UK and Irish governments would have to include firm commitments from both governments."

The Policy Exchange paper is written by Professor Richard Ekins KC (Hon), Head of Policy Exchange's Judicial Power Project and Professor of Law and Constitutional Government, University of Oxford, Sir Stephen Laws KCB KC (Hon), Senior Research Fellow, Policy Exchange and former First Parliamentary Counsel and Dr Conor Casey, Senior Fellow, Policy Exchange and Senior Lecturer, University of Surrey School of Law.

Loyalists plan 'Operation Shutdown' anti-immigration protests on Thursday

Conor McParland, Belfast Media, September 18th, 2025

September 18, 2025 09:08

PROTESTS: Loyalists have been increasing the intensity of anti-immigration protests in recent weeks

A SERIES of anti-immigration protests organised by loyalists have been planned for this Thursday.

‘Operation Shutdown' will commence from 7pm on Thursday night, with locations including Chimney Corner, Shankill Road, Sandy Row, Glengormley, Shore Road and Lower Newtownards Road in East Belfast.

The event has been highlighted on the social media page, 'Official Protestant Coalition' which was originally linked to the loyalist flag protests of 2012 but in more recent times has been focused on anti-immigration demonstrations.

A poster advertising locations for demonstrations on Thursday says other areas will be participating but "because of Republican Marxist aggression cannot release their details until last minute."

A post about the upcoming demonstrations said: "This is only the beginning of things to come—we will never give up fighting for the future of our children and grandchildren.

"Let’s stay united, keep it peaceful, and do not let the usual suspects – statutory agencies – agitate or divide us. No surrender!

"From all the organisers' of operations shutdown, we have two days, keep spreading the word."

A further post added: "Remember it's operation shutdown meaning block the roads not white line. White line protests achieved nothing. WE WANT SHUTDOWN!!!"

Commenting ahead of Thursday’s planned protests, a PSNI spokesperson said: “Police are aware of planned protests taking place across multiple locations this Thursday, September 18 from 7pm.

“We are monitoring the situation and are planning for a proportionate policing response.”