The bloody truth nobody wants to admit about the Troubles
PATRICK MURPHY, Irish News, October 4th, 2025
WHY have the British and Irish governments waited until now to deal with the past?
Why did they not deal with it when it was the present?
They have recently agreed to “find answers for families” of those killed in the Troubles, although there will be “particular protections” for former soldiers.
Their decision comes 56 years after the Troubles began, when many of those responsible for the deaths of almost 4,000 people have themselves passed away.
Like a reluctant dog chasing a car, they have waited until the car is almost out of sight before barking loudly and then beginning to run after it, secure in the knowledge that they will never catch it.
Their aim, they say, is to “enable the truth” (not establish, just enable) for “families of the Troubles” (except Sean Brown’s family).
So what do both governments regard as the truth?
They claim it means trying to establish who killed whom. However, Britain’s intelligence services already know most of this.
Why don’t they just tell us?
They know what the security forces did and through their extensive network of informers, they also know what everyone else did. So why not just tell us?
Any bits they do not know are known by paramilitaries. Would they too like to reveal the truth about their actions?
In the absence of full and frank revelations, the two governments are not “dealing” with the past, they just plan to selectively dabble in it.
Seeking the truth requires establishing not just what happened, but why.
That could be revealed in an all-Ireland Truth Commission, where the main organisations involved in the Troubles would be asked to explain what they did and why they did it.
British Govt
For example, a British government representative would be asked how the Glenanne Gang was allowed to kill up to 120 Catholics.
The 2006 independent Cassel Re-port investigated 76 killings attributed to the group and found that UDR and RUC members were involved in 74 of them.
The report found that by the early 1970s, senior UK government officials knew that some UDR and RUC officers were heavily involved with loyalist paramilitaries. Who decided to ignore that?
Dealing with the past requires the British government to explain why it authorised internment, torture, Ballymurphy and Bloody Sunday. (Hilary Benn said this week that the British army had “sacrificed so much to protect the people of Northern Ireland.”)
“ Determining who killed whom may comfort some victims’ families, but until all sides explain why they engaged in what was effectively a series of war crimes, we cannot establish the truth about our past”
They might also like to explain why they allowed Stakeknife to torture and kill to protect his role as an informer. How can Britain claim to seek the truth when it has hidden so much?
At that same commission, representatives from the UVF and UDA would be asked to explain Loughinisland, Greysteel, the Shankill Butchers and the Miami Showband killings.
Loyalists
What did they hope to achieve by randomly killing people they did not know? Were all Catholics targets in a planned genocide?
They could also be asked why loyalist paramilitaries still exist.
Sinn Féin might explain to a Truth Commission why the IRA began a war against the British army, which arrived in Belfast to defend Catholic areas, where they were offered tea by grateful nationalists.
They might also be asked why, 40 years and 4,000 deaths later, it was fine for them to drink tea with a monarch who was head of the British army.
Why, 50 years ago last month, did the IRA attack Tullyvallen Orange Hall in south Armagh, killing five members of the Orange Order and wounding seven?
Sinn Fein
If the IRA were fighting for their country, why were they killing their fellow countrymen?
If they were fighting for the tricolour, why had it no white or orange – just green?
Alan Black, the sole survivor of the IRA’s Kingsmill massacre, might ask Sinn Féin to explain how killing 10 of his workmates was justified or inevitable.
Julie Hambleton could ask why her sister and 20 other civilians were blown to pieces by the IRA in a Birmingham pub in 1973.
She might even inquire why six innocent men spent 16 years in prison for a crime which the West Midlands Police and the British establishment knew they had not committed.
Determining who killed whom may comfort some victims’ families, but until all sides explain why they engaged in what was effectively a series of war crimes, we cannot establish the truth about our past.
It is a truth so uncomfortable that the main players in the Troubles will never honestly address it.
All we will hear will be the distant barking of a reluctant dog.
'I told wounded man to play dead... he was then shot again and killed'
ASHLEIGH MCDONALD, Belfast Telegraph, October 4th, 2025
BLOODY SUNDAY WITNESS RECALLS EXCHANGE WITH TRAGIC JAMES WRAY
A witness has described how he instructed a man wounded on Bloody Sunday to “pretend you're dead”, just before he was shot again fatally.
Malachy Coyle, who was a schoolboy of 15 when he attended the civil rights march in the Bogside area of Derry on January 30, 1972 with two friends, also described how he heard a soldier tell a crowd: “I'm going to shoot you, you Irish b******s.”
Thirteen were people killed by the Parachute Regiment following the march.
Former paratrooper 'Soldier F' is on trial at Belfast Crown Court and is attending the non-jury hearing from behind a blue curtain which conceals his identity.
He denies murdering James Wray (22) and William McKinney (26), as well as five counts of attempted murder.
Mr Coyle said that after attending Mass on the morning, he called for his pals and they joined the start of the march.
He said after approaching the junction of William Street and Rossville Street there were “rumours about a man being shot” and there was “a bit of tension about”.
He recalled stones being thrown by people in a crowd, while rubber bullets and gas were being used by the Army.
‘A hell of a lot of CS Gas’
Saying he had lost contact with his two friends at this point, Mr Coyle added “there was a hell of a lot of CS gas”, which caused him to throw up.
“I couldn't breathe, basically,” he told the court.
Mr Coyle said, following this, he was “milling around” with other people. He then heard “high-velocity shots”.
When asked by Crown barrister Louis Mably KC what he heard, Mr Coyle replied: “It seemed to be one, and then seemed to build up from that.”
Describing himself as “frightened”, Mr Coyle said he started running with a crowd towards Glenfada Park North.
As he ran, he was pulled into a back yard by a man.
He said, while in the yard, he “tried to hide”.
He also explained he could see through slats in the fence and saw soldiers in the courtyard.
‘I can’t move my legs.’
When asked what else he saw, Mr Coyle said: “I looked around and I saw three people lying near the walkway. My attention was drawn to the one who was closest. He was alive. He looked up, he turned his head and he said: 'I can't move my legs'.
“I thought the other two people were dead. They weren't moving so I assumed they were dead.”
When Mr Mably asked the witness if he said anything to the wounded man, Mr Coyle replied: “I did. I [was] frightened for him and I [said]: 'Don't move. Pretend you're dead'.”
Asked if he heard anything after that, Mr Coyle said: “Another shot and he gave a groan and his head went down.
“He was shot. I could see the sparks underneath, on the pavement.”
Mr Mably then asked if the man spoke afterwards, to which Mr Coyle said: “No. He was gone.”
The man referred to by Mr Coyle was James Wray.
Mr Coyle said, following this, from his position in the back yard he saw a soldier with a rifle who looked “very dangerous”.
Describing this soldier as “angry... unstable”, Mr Coyle added he heard him tell a group of people: “I'm going to shoot you, you Irish b******s.”
‘Please don’t shoot’
Mr Coyle said people in the crowd were saying: “Please don't shoot. Don't shoot.”
He explained that, shortly afterwards, he and the other man left the back yard with their hands up.
He said he then saw the “dangerous” soldier fire at a man who was running away in Glenfada Park North.
“[At that point] self-preservation kicked in and I ran to the walkway and out through Abbey Park,” he said.
Mr Coyle confirmed to defence barrister Mark Mulholland he didn't see who shot Mr Wray as he lay on the ground, and that he was not shot after exiting the back yard.
Teenager ‘told man not to move’ before he was shot
JONATHAN McCAMBRIDGE, Irish News, October 4th, 2025
A WITNESS has said he told a man lying on the ground not to move and pretend to be dead moments before he was shot dead on Bloody Sunday.
Malachy Coyle also told Belfast Crown Court he saw a soldier who appeared to be “angry” firing towards a young person who was attempting to run.
Soldier F, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of the murders of James Wray and William McKinney.
They were among 13 people who were shot dead by the Parachute Regiment at a civil rights demonstration in the Bogside area of Derry on January 30 1972.
He is also accused of attempting to murder Michael Quinn, Patrick O’Donnell, Joseph Friel, Joe Mahon and an unknown person.
Soldier F’s non-jury trial began in Belfast last month. He sits in the courtroom behind a curtain.
Mr Coyle said he was 15 when he took part in the civil rights march.
He told the court there was tension as rumours circulated that a man had been shot.
He told how he had been left unable to breathe and was being sick due to the effects of CS gas used on marchers.
He then moved towards Glenfada Park North, where he heard gunfire.
Mr Coyle said: “It was high-velocity shots. It was a high crack, it wasn’t like a shotgun you see in a film, it was a high-pitched crack.”
The witness said he was scared and started to run towards the Abbey Park gap. He was pulled into the back yard of a house by an older man and tried to hide.
He could see through the slats
Family members of those killed on Bloody Sunday arrive at Belfast Crown Court for an earlier hearing
He told the court he could see through the slats in the garden fence that there were soldiers in Glenfada Park North.
Mr Coyle said he saw three people lying on the ground. He said the man who was closest to him was still alive.
He said: “He looked up… he says, ‘I can’t move my legs’.
“I thought the other two people were dead. They weren’t moving.”
Mr Coyle said he told the man on the ground not to move and to pretend he was dead.
He added: “There was another shot.”
Mr Coyle said he heard a groan and the man’s head went down.He added: “He was shot, I could see the sparks underneath on the pavement.
“He was gone.”
‘I am going to shoot you, you Irish bastards’.
Mr Coyle said he then saw a bare-headed soldier who looked “dangerous” and “angry”.
He said there were a number of young men in Glenfada Park.
Mr Coyle said: “He turned and looked at them, with a gun, and I think he said, ‘I am going to shoot you, you Irish bastards’.”
The witness said he and the older man moved out from behind the fence with their hands on their heads because they were afraid they would be shot. He said there were about eight to 10 soldiers in the area.
He told the court he saw the “angry” soldier shoot towards a young man who was attempting to run away.
He said: “I know there was no body found there, but that is what I saw.”
In the afternoon, a number of hearsay statements from civilian eyewitnesses were read to the court.
Barrister Louis Mably KC said the prosecution is on course to conclude its case next week.
The trial will resume on Monday.
CONNLA YOUNG CRIME AND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, October 4th, 2025
LOYALISTS with suspected links to former DUP leader the Reverend Ian Paisley were responsible for a series of ‘false flag’ bomb attacks in the early 1970s, British army intelligence documents reveal.
While the spate of attacks across the north were initially blamed on the newly formed Provisional IRA, it has now emerged that at the time the British army believed loyalists were in fact to blame.
Details of loyalist involvement in ‘false flag’ operations were confirmed more than 50 years ago when UVF member Thomas McDowell was electrocuted while trying to plant a bomb at a power station at Ballyshannon, Co Donegal, in October 1969.
McDowell, from Kilkeel, Co Down, was also a member of the Ulster
Free Presbyterian Church
Protestant Volunteers (UPV) and Ian Paisley’s Free Presbyterian Church.
The UPV was established by Mr Paisley and others in 1966 and in its early years shared a close relationship with the UVF.
The UPV was closely linked to the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC), which was also established by Mr Paisley in 1966.
Mr Paisley, who died in 2014, was linked to several loyalist paramilitary groups before and during the Troubles.
He helped form a vigilante group,
Ulster Protestant Action, in 1956 and was a key figure in The Third Force, a loyalist militia that emerged in 1981.
Mr Paisley was also associated with Ulster Resistance, which was formed in 1986 in opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
In the late 1980s the loyalist group was involved in smuggling dozens of weapons into the north along with British intelligence that were later used to kill dozens of innocent Catholics.
Attacks on unionists were carried out just before key 1970 election
Ian Paisley speaks at an Orange Order demonstration in Belfast in July 1970, three months after winning a by-election to the Northern Ireland Parliament. Inset, British army intelligence logs regarding bomb attacks in the lead-up to the election
In 2019 it was reported that Mr Paisley, who eventually distanced himself from Ulster Resistance, supplied cash to the UVF to carry out several bomb attacks in 1969.
The ex-DUP leader’s family has denied the allegations.
The Ballyshannon bomb attack was part of a series carried out in the late 1960s in a bid to undermine then-Stormont Prime Minister Terence O’Neill.The unionist leader, who resigned in April 1969, later said the attacks “quite literally blew me out of the water”.
Unredacted Intelligence files
Unredacted military intelligence files for the first half of 1970 now confirm the British army believed various unclaimed bomb attacks targeting unionist politicians, businesses and elderly Protestants were carried out by the UVF/UPV, but despite this were blamed on the emerging Provisional IRA.
The files, unearthed by research charity Paper Trail, reveal that in late March and early April 1970, 12 attacks were carried out.
Details of each are listed in a military intelligence summary from the time and labelled A-L.
One of the attacks was carried out on a business owned by William James Morgan, an ex-Stormont minister, who at the time was a South Antrim by-election candidate.
The election, which was held on April 16 1970, was also contested and won by William Beattie, a member of Mr Paisley’s Protestant Unionist Party.
On the same day, Mr Paisley made a similar political breakthrough by claiming a seat in the Bannside constituency, previously held by Mr O’Neill.
Military intelligence documents from the time indicate who the British army believed were responsible for some of the bomb attacks in the weeks before the election.
“In view of the probable tie-in between Paisley’s UCDC and the UPV/ UVF, it is quite possible that the last two blasts were attempt, to intimidate Morgan, possibly by an apparent IRA blow, and b, to gain support for Paisley candidates who could only benefit by a swing to the right in reaction against the so-called terror campaign,” a document states.
“This UPV responsibility could also explain blasts b, c, g, i, j.”
One of these attacks singled out the home of a 78-year-old woman in north Belfast, while other attacks centred on commercial property across the city.
Fall out from dustbin bomb
A bomb, left in a dustbin on April 4, targeted an estate agent on Donegall Street in Belfast, resulting in five casualties.
Despite suspecting loyalist involvement in some attacks, the British army took a decision to blame the emerging Provisional IRA.
“The locations of the others (bombs), and especially the viciousness of (attack) e, make more sense if the IRA Brady group are provisionally blamed,” intelligence files say.
A statement reported to be from the ‘Provisional Army Council’, which is believed to have been bogus, claimed responsibility for one of the 12 bomb attacks at a tailor’s shop on Royal Avenue in Belfast city centre.
This was dismissed by the Dublin-based “Provisional Army Council”, which said it “disclaims all responsibility for this action and the issuing of such false statement is highly irresponsible in the present circumstances”.
Nationalist political leaders were also not convinced by claims the Provisionals were responsible.
Gerry Fitt
On April 7, West Belfast MP Gerry Fitt referred to claims that the IRA was responsible for the recent explosions.
“But that is not so and there is no one here or anywhere else who can point the finger of accusation at the IRA,” he said.
“But what we do know is that the explosions early in 1969, in March and April, were the work of the illegal Ulster Volunteer Force, an extreme right-wing unionist organisation with which, to my mind—although he has publicly said that he had nothing to do with it—the Rev Ian Paisley has a close connection.”
According to Hansard, Mr Fitt added the explosions were caused “with the intention of bringing about the downfall of the Northern Ireland Government and particularly of Captain O’Neill”.
British military intelligence agreed with Mr Fitt, who was a staunch opponent of the Provisionals.
“The latest wave of explosions and the failure by the security forces to apprehend those responsible, continue to give cause for concern,” an intelligence summary states.
“The facts would suggest that they are primarily the work of an extreme Protestant organisation intent on inflaming the sectarian issue and on causing the downfall of the present N Ireland Government…”
The South Antrim by-election was called when unionist Richard Ferguson resigned his seat after being expelled by his local association.
His home was also targeted in a bomb attack in April 1970 while another unionist was singled out in the Carrickfergus area of Co Antrim a month later.
A British army file from the time makes a link between the attacks.
“This attack smacks of the bombing of the former Lisburn-based MP Richard Ferguson, on 28 April, who spoke out against PUP electoral gains, (Rev Beattie),” the document states.
“Both attacks are attributed to the UPV/UVF”
Reduction in attacks after Paisley elected
Another intelligence document covering the period April 14-21, 1970, refers to a reduction in attacks after Mr Paisley’s election victory.
“If anyone had gone to a bookmaker and backed the Paisley and Beattie combined ticket a month prior to the election his chances of a win would have been poor…” the file states.
“The halt in the bombing wave is a welcome relief.
“This is probably due to the PUP (Paisley’s Protestant Unionist Party) election successes, although recent intensified efforts by the security forces to catch those responsible may have deterred the culprits temporarily.”
Intelligence documents also raise concerns about RUC Special Branch, with one senior British army officer remarking: “The lack of progress on the bomb explosions and a complete absence of worthwhile Special Branch information generally emphasises either their weaknesses, or their reluctance to impart information to the Security Forces, or both.”
Concerns were also raised about the Ulster Special Constabulary (USC) and the theft of weapons.
“An uncanny number of USC arms go missing regularly,” a document states.
“The ‘loser’ is quite likely to be not quite ignorant of the ‘lost’ weapon’s whereabouts.”
The apparent ‘false flag’ attacks fit with a pattern in the early 1970s that includes the McGurk’s Bar atrocity.
The attack resulted in the deaths of 15 innocent Catholics after a bomb was detonated at the north Belfast bar in 1971.
At the time security forces blamed the IRA, a claim later shown to be untrue.
Researcher Ciarán MacAirt, whose grandmother Kitty Irvine was killed in the McGurk’s Bar explosion, said “the short-term success of their false-flag bomb attacks cannot be understated”.
“They blew O’Neill out of office in 1969 and blew Paisley into office in 1970,” he said.
“At the time, the IRA had limited capacity, so we could argue that the greatest paramilitary threat to the stability of the Unionist government from 1966 to 1970 was actually the UVF.
“Paisley and his ilk benefitted from this immensely, of course.
“The false flag bomb attacks by British extremists also began a pattern of wilful collusion and cover-up of loyalist paramilitary violence by the British armed forces and a capitulation by Ulster unionist politicians to loyalist threats.
“This led directly to the highly discriminatory internment of Irish Catholics in 1971 and, for my family, collusion and cover-up of the McGurk’s Bar massacre by the British armed forces.”
Police begin investigation into multiple cases of racist graffiti in Lisburn
JONATHAN McCAMBRIDGE, Irish News, October 4th, 2025
POLICE are investigating racist graffiti at a number of locations in Lisburn.
A councillor said graffiti in one area was targeting the city’s Muslim residents.
The PSNI said it had received a number of reports on Friday.
A spokesperson said: “These reports are being treated as racially-motivated hate crimes and our inquiries are ongoing.
“We will also continue to engage with local representatives and partner agencies concerning this issue.
“We would appeal to anyone who may have witnessed suspicious activity in the area, or who may have relevant dash-cam, CCTV or other footage, to contact us on 101, quoting reference number 214 of 03/10/25.”
SDLP councillor Pat Catney said graffiti which had appeared in the Chapel Hill area targeting Muslim residents was “chilling”.
He said: “This disgraceful incitement has no place in Lisburn.
“So many people from across all faiths and backgrounds are working hard to lift this city up and bring everyone together, and this goes completely against all of that work.
“Anyone inciting violence like this is to condemned.
“I have already contacted the PSNI in relation to the chilling appearance of this hateful message and I am working with council officials to get it removed.
“It is up to all of us to come together to reject division and bigotry in whatever form it takes.”
Baroness Hoey asks if On-The-Run comfort letters are reason for no trial of Hyde Park bomber
By Philip Bradfield, Belfast News Letter, October 3rd, 2025
The criminal justice system has been pressed on whether On-The-Run letters are still in effect as a de-facto amnesty, after a six-year delay in prosecuting the suspected IRA bomber who brought them to light – John Downey.
In October 2019 Downey was charged in Omagh Magistrates’ Court with the murder of UDR members Alfred Johnston and James Eames in Enniskillen in 1972.
In 2014 he stood trial at the Old Bailey in London for the 1982 Hyde Park bomb attack.
However the trial collapsed when he produced an On-The-Run comfort letter from the UK government - part of a secret deal with Sinn Fein and Tony Blair to assure republicans they were not wanted by police.
John Downey, who is facing prosecution for the murder of two soldiers in Northern Ireland is taken from Omagh Magistrates' Court in Omagh in October 12, 2019. Six years later there is still no date set for his trial.
However, the trial revealed fresh evidence linking Downey to the Enniskillen murders and he was extradited from the Republic in 2018.
The former Labour cabinet minister, Baroness Hoey, is pressing for answers as to why there is still no trial date for him, six years after he was charged.
Justice Minister Naomi Long, of the Alliance Party, and Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan both said they could not comment on individual cases and declined to address her concerns on OTR letters or amnesty.
‘Hugely important case for victims’
Baroness Hoey said: "This is a hugely important case for victims of the IRA. But I suspect there are many people who do not want him to be cross examined or the issue of the On-The- Run comfort letters issued by the last Labour government, for them to be judicially tested.
"I am calling on the independent judiciary to prioritise a trial as it has been far too long since 2019 when he was first charged and appeared in a magistrate's court .
"We must finally be told whether these OTR letters have the force of an amnesty."
Ms Long wrote to Baroness Hoey that the issue is a matter for the independent judiciary and it would be "inappropriate" for her to comment.
However, she said that after Downey was charged in 2019, his case saw a number of witnesses interviewed and 70 applications on issues such as Abuse of Process, Bad Character, Hearsay and Special Measures.
The judge ruled that there was a case to answer and transferred the matter to the Crown Court on 4 September 2024.
The minister noted that although the case does come before the courts for mentions, no date had yet been set for a trial and no plea has been entered.
She added: "Case management is a matter for the independent judiciary and it would be inappropriate for me to become involved in or comment on any aspect of the proceedings."
A Public Prosecution Service spokesperson said it was a complex case which was delayed by the pandemic, a protracted Preliminary Inquiry and a pending defence No Bill application - a claim that the evidence is too weak for a trial.
Fixing a date for trial is a matter for the court in consultation with legal parties, they added.
Lady Chief Justice Siobhan Keegan's office said it would "not be appropriate for this office to comment on an ongoing individual case".
However, she noted that the judiciary generally manages cases "to ensure trials can proceed when all the necessary evidence is available, all pre-trial applications have been dealt with and all parties are ready". The judiciary is very aware of the need to reduce delays and the need to ensure fair trials, she added.
Bail granted for alleged rioter who has IQ among ‘bottom 1%’ of population
ALAN ERWIN, Irish News, October 4th, 2025
A MAN allegedly shot in the groin with a police baton round during racial rioting in Ballymena is to be released on bail, a High Court judge has ruled.
Curtis Dunlop (23) is accused of taking part in the serious public disorder which erupted in the Co Antrim town during the summer.
Defence lawyers said he wanted to get out of custody to help care for his father and start a football coaching course with the King’s Trust.
Dunlop, of Lanntara in Ballymena, faces a charge of rioting in connection with the street violence on June 11.
Crown counsel claimed he was first observed carrying a bottle of cider among hundreds of people gathered in the Bridge Street area.
Minutes later he allegedly covered his face before throwing a piece of masonry at a PSNI vehicle.
Dunlop then joined other rioters in a prolonged attack on police lines with paint and rubble, ignoring warnings to leave the area, according to the prosecution.
The defendant was detained at Larne Road Link where bins had been set on fire to block the road.
“He was noted to have been struck by an AEP (baton round) during this disorder,” counsel disclosed.
Previous courts heard that Dunlop claimed he was shot in the groin area.
The unrest has been linked to an alleged sexual assault on a schoolgirl in Ballymena.
Opposing Dunlop’s renewed application for bail, the prosecutor insisted a strong message should be sent out to deter any further outbreaks.
“Police have evidence that the applicant was involved in racially-aggravated public disorder,” she added.
“This public disorder could have led to serious injury or death.”
Dunlop’s barrister, Danielle McMahon, confirmed he denies involvement in the trouble.
IQ assessed as among bottom one per cent of population.
She told the court her client’s IQ has been assessed as among the bottom one per cent of the general population.
“He is hopeful that a course as a football coach through the King’s Trust would still be open to him,” Ms McMahon added.
“He is hopeful that a course as a football coach through the King’s Trust would still be open to him
Defence barrister Danielle McMahon
With any trial unlikely to take place before next Easter, Mr Justice O’Hara also heard Dunlop wanted to help provide care for his father following a serious illness.
Granting bail, the judge ordered him to live under curfew at an agreed address.
Dunlop was also banned from taking part in any protest or demonstrations in Northern Ireland under the terms of his release.
Mr Justice O’Hara stated: “Part of the reason for granting Mr Dunlop bail is because…he is somebody who I interpret might be relatively easy-led.”
‘If we can fix unity we can fix a lot of the other things that flow from it’
DENZIL McDANIEL, Irish News, October 4th, 2025
DESPITE huge changes in her political and personal life, Michelle Gildernew says she is determined to use her talents in whatever way she can to pursue her lifelong ideals.
“I obviously have other challenges now. I’m a grandmother, I’m a carer,” she says, referring to the serious stroke her husband Jimmy Taggart suffered in recent years.
She also gave up the Fermanagh and South Tyrone Westminster seat that she first won in 2001, ending the 18-year tenure of Ulster Unionist Ken Maginnis.
Gildernew held the seat for most of the next 23 years, winning five out of six elections including some narrow victories – one by just four votes.
It is an iconic seat for republicans, won by hunger striker Bobby Sands in 1981 in an election Gildernew recalls as highly significant even as a 10-year-old.
In 2024, she announced she would not fight the upcoming Westminster election and would instead contest a European Parliament seat in the Midlands-North-West constituency.
She insists she has no regrets, apart from not winning.
Was it a party decision?
“No, that was my decision. I was obviously asked to think about it and I put my name forward,” she says.
In the meantime, Pat Cullen was successful for Sinn Féin in Fermanagh and South Tyrone and in the period since, Gildernew’s “time-related” full-time party role came to an end.
Never off the clock
It’s been an exhausting 25 years for an MP who was “never off the clock”.
She admits her confidence has been dented a little, but on reflection says: “I was nearly liberated by the fact that I was no longer having to be accountable to people day and night. It was only when I took a bit of time off to think that I realised just now hard I’d worked.”
If she’s feeling bruised by events, or lacking confidence or weary, she doesn’t show it in a morning in her company.
In my role as a journalist in Fermanagh I’ve interviewed and met her numerous times and the energy, passion and people skills that I’ve seen are still there.
She’s currently recording a series of podcasts on the constitutional future of the north with the BBC alongside co-presenters Chris Buckler and Ian Paisley junior.
The Borderland – UK or United Ireland? will broadcast this autumn.
She says she’s excited by the thought of canvassing for Catherine Connolly, who will “make an amazing president”.
And she knows the door is also open with the party or a role in the wider political field, with the campaign for Irish unity likely to remain a particular focus.
“I’ve spent my whole life working towards unity,” she says.
“There’s loads of things I’m passionate about, but I know ultimately if we can fix unity we can fix a lot of the other things that flow from it.
“I do realise that if we get this right, it’s going to be for the betterment of everyone, including my children and grandchildren.”
Call for Sorcha Eastwood to 'clarify' her view on Naomi Long's claim that some terrorists are victims
By David Thompson, Belfast News Letter, October 4th, 2025
Alliance's sole MP has faced questions about whether she agrees with leader Naomi Long that some terrorists can also be victims.
Alliance's sole MP has faced questions about whether she agrees with leader Naomi Long that some terrorists can also be victims.
Sorcha Eastwood has been asked to clarify whether she agrees with comments by her party leader Naomi Long, in which she claimed that some terrorist perpetrators could also be victims.
The Alliance boss also said that she is not “incapable of empathy” with some involved in Troubles violence – and suggested their own experience of violence was “part of how they came to the point” where they carried out terrorist acts.
The DUP say that Ms Eastwood, the MP for Lagan Valley, should “come clean and state whether she stands with” Mrs Long on the matter. The constituency has a large number of police families, both serving and retired.
However, the Alliance MP has yet to make clear whether she agrees with her leader on the issue, and has not responded to queries from the News Letter on the matter.
Upper Bann MP Carla Lockhart said: “This week Sorcha Eastwood visited the RUC GC Museum and paid tribute to the men and women of the RUC GC who were brutally murdered during the Troubles.
“That recognition is welcome. But only last week the Alliance Party was expressing its view that the very terrorists who carried out those murders should be regarded as ‘victims’ too. That is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Terrorist-victim doublespeak
“Sorcha Eastwood must now come clean and state whether she stands with Alliance in claiming that the perpetrators who lurked in the dark or planted booby trap bombs and murdered brave RUC officers are somehow ‘victims’ themselves.
“The families of those murdered RUC officers deserve clarity and honesty from Sorcha Eastwood – not double-speak. Will Sorcha clarify, or will she stay silent - silence will speak for itself”.
The comments by justice minister Naomi Long came as she defended her party’s decision to back Sinn Fein on removing the word “innocent” from a definition of a victim during a Stormont debate – saying there are “many people” who both carried out violence, and were victims of it.
The Alliance leader said that “everyone who has a basic need in terms of their recovery, in terms of dealing with their trauma” should be “able to access the service”. In the interview with the BBC’s Nolan Show she said that wouldn’t “change the moral authority” about whether their actions were right or wrong – but said “to try to exclude people” based on what they had done at another point in their lives is “a dangerous road to go down”.
Earlier this year, Sorcha Eastwood appeared to hit out at her own party’s handling of the justice system amid outrage about a lenient sentence given to loyalist Winkie Irvine over weapons offences.
Despite the ministry being largely held by Alliance since justice was devolved, the Lagan Valley MP said a perception of unfairness has become “reality in some people's eyes” and cannot be dismissed.
UUP MLA Doug Beattie said Mrs Long had been “silent when she should have been vocal, argumentative when she should have seen others trying to help, and visible only when things are going her way”.
The Alliance leader did not respond to questions about Ms Eastwood’s apparent criticism.
Heather Humphreys could bring a unique quality to the presidency
Olivia O’Leary, Irish Times, October 4th, 2025
The problem is, judging by the Fine Gael candidate’s performance in this week’s television debate, she doesn’t believe in herself
When Éamon de Valera was leaving Áras an Uachtaráin in 1973, he sent an invitation to RTÉ staff to come out and visit.
Buses lined up and the newsroom emptied as people took their chance to see the Áras and Dev. I stayed behind. Apart from the fact that Dev was about as popular in our house as the Pope in Ballymena, he represented so much of what was wrong with our country.
Dev and his 1937 Constitution, with its “special position” for the Roman Catholic Church and its ban on divorce and contraception, set in stone a confessional Catholic state. Catholics and Protestants were educated separately, socialised separately, and rarely intermarried, largely due to the Catholic insistence that children of mixed marriages be brought up Catholic.
In my school education, being Catholic was seen as more important than being Irish. The tribe was more important than the State. Indeed, the Catholic Church was deeply suspicious of the State. This tribal split had created a fissure in Irish society and weakened people’s sense of citizenship and allegiance to their institutions.
Kissing the ring
So often, when I saw a picture of President De Valera, he was kissing the ring of some Catholic cardinal or archbishop. That told its own story. Our head of State should be a symbol of unity, not division.
Dev’s successor, Erskine Childers, had a much surer sense of an inclusive presidency. A Protestant, he insisted that the service in St Patrick’s Cathedral which preceded his inauguration was interdenominational.
In the Áras, which had been stripped of so much evidence of its viceregal past, Childers brought back plaques in the grounds commemorating royal visitors – something of which former Northern Ireland premier Terence O’Neill took note.
As for President Mary Robinson, one of her first decisions was to attend the memorial service in Dublin for the Irish dead of the two world wars. Until then, no Irish president had ever formally respected the 35,000 Irish – Protestant and Catholic – who died fighting in the first World War, or the many thousands who died in the second.
Greater national unity
Previous presidents had been invited, but the advice from government was that the president did not attend memorial services for the armed forces of other countries.
Robinson broke that taboo, and subsequent presidents continued the tradition. Over the decades, the presidency has been used to create greater national unity.
And this is where Heather Humphreys comes in. The great Kilkenny essayist Hubert Butler wrote cogently about the price this State paid for not having the dissenter tradition, represented by Irish Protestants, as part of our public debate.
It was something for which he excoriated his own community as much as the Catholic one. And sure enough, few Irish Protestants have been elected as TDs or appointed to cabinet.
But now there’s Humphreys: a Presbyterian from the Ulster county of Monaghan, a TD for many years, a Cabinet minister for rural and community development, for social protection and, for a period, justice.
She has plenty of experience and comes from a proud tradition. So why didn’t she say more about that in the first debate of the election campaign this week? Why didn’t she make more of the unique role she could play as an Ulster Presbyterian president?
If we are serious about a united Ireland – or even a shared island – it is vital that we learn to accommodate the nearly one million Protestants in the North.
In recent years, there has been more and more talk about a Border poll. But people of my generation who lived through the Troubles will quote John Hume’s axiom: the importance of uniting people rather than territory.
There is a job of reconciliation to be done with the unionist community in Northern Ireland, whether or not we have a united Ireland.
Heather Humphreys is uniquely placed to lead that effort as president. Other presidents have done their bit to improve relations with the UK and with unionism. Even while the Republic and the UK were both members of the EU, and Irish ministers were regular visitors to London, no Irish president went to the UK.
President Hillery, invited to the wedding of Charles and Diana, was advised to refuse.
While relations at a political level had normalised, the president was kept at home to be rattled like a nationalist skeleton if the British got too complacent.
Mary Robinson changed that by persuading a very reluctant Charles Haughey to let her attend the opening of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London in 1991. That broke the taboo and led to various visits to Britain and a visit with the Queen.
Building relationships
Mary McAleese, a northern nationalist, used her time in the presidency to build relationships with former loyalist paramilitaries. She worked hard at her promise to build bridges.
She also welcomed Queen Elizabeth II on her first state visit to Ireland, a role she performed with dignity and warmth. The fact that she was a northern nationalist added extra significance to that moment of Anglo-Irish history. President Higgins carried off his 2013 return visit with aplomb.
Heather Humphreys could play her own role in the history of this island – because of who she is, where she comes from, what she’s done, and because, after three decades of relative peace, perhaps the time is right.
We’ve had Protestant presidents before, but none with Humphreys’s unique blend of common sense, Monaghan warmth, and her link with northern Presbyterians. The problem is, judging by her performance in this week’s television debate, she doesn’t believe in herself. She was the least convincing of all three candidates as to what her role could be.
At this stage, there’s no avoiding Yeats: you come from “no petty people”. Heather. C’mon.
Olivia O’Leary is a journalist, writer and current affairs presenter
Stormont is pretending to close RHI, but it's quadrupling payments, locking them in to 2036
Sam McBride, Belfast Telegraph, October 4th, 2025
THOUGH KEY DETAILS HAVEN'T YET BEEN DISCLOSED, HERE ARE EIGHT POTENTIAL FLAWS IN WHAT STORMONT'S HAPLESS DEPARTMENT FOR THE ECONOMY IS PROPOSING — AND WHICH MLAS MIGHT NOD THROUGH WITHOUT SCRUTINY
On Monday, Stormont set out how it plans to close the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) scheme, but there were two problems: key details were missing, and what it's planning doesn't in fact shut the scheme at all.
In fact, what's planned here would drastically increase every RHI claimant's payments, would lock those payments in for a decade, would make fraud easier, and would leave the department which has bungled this scheme from the outset in complete control of overseeing the spending of what it estimates could be £196m of Treasury money.
To be more precise, Caoimhe Archibald's Department for the Economy (DfE) is proposing to shut RHI but that same day transfer everyone who's in the scheme into a new and far more generous scheme. There are suggestions that those who've dropped out of RHI could now be allowed back in. Essentially it is about rebranding the Renewable Heat Incentive, not shutting it.
Monday's proposal came in the form of a public consultation. But it seems that the department has mostly made up its mind on what to do.
It said that the closure will be “fair to participants and taxpayers alike” and the consultation is an “opportunity to shape the final arrangements”.
But key details haven't yet been disclosed. Crucially, the department has not published the draft legislation for closure — even though that is what will decide the rules of the new scheme — and it was missing words from the original legislation which led to the RHI scandal.
Eight potential flaws in what is proposed:
1) It's not closure at all
Nine and a half years ago, Stormont claimed to be shutting RHI, but didn't. It stopped new entrants, but those already in had guaranteed payments for 20 years.
Now it's again presenting this as closure. But even a cursory glance at the proposal shows that payments would continue until 2036 — and will soar from their current (absurdly low, in comparison to RoI and GB) levels.
Many claimants will see their annual payments quadruple to £11,000. Marketing this as closure is deeply misleading; hiking everyone's subsidy and keeping those payments going for a decade means we're nowhere near the end of this saga.
2) Anti-fraud efforts have failed
When the RHI scandal erupted almost nine years ago, DfE promised to root out fraudsters. It simply hasn't done so to any appreciable extent.
Instead, it has taken the easy route by tarring all RHI claimants with the same brush. Slashing everyone's payments has been very successful at cutting the bill, but very unsuccessful at finding who'd been screwing taxpayers.
DfE has admitted to me that it has recouped “approximately £400,000” from enforcement against claimants.
That's a hopeless fraction of a per cent of the total expenditure on this scheme — and part of the reason for that is the department's repeated failures to urgently inspect every installation, and then to follow its own rules, leading to court reversals.
If its anti-fraud efforts have failed for a decade, why should we believe they're suddenly about to work?
3) New scheme payments are crude
The new scheme will involve 'deeming' payments — in other words, the department will take a guess at how much heat someone is likely to be producing and pay them that amount every year, irrespective of precisely how much heat they are producing.
This is great for the department because it doesn't involve much work for civil servants.
We know that's a key consideration, because one of the main reasons officials said they disregarded expert advice against an RHI at the outset was that it would mean too much work for them.
But here the priority for this to be easy for the department seems to trump getting accurate payments which actually incentivise green heat use — which is, after all, the only justification for the scheme in the first place.
4) New scheme wide open to abuse
What's being proposed involves light-touch regulation, which, in relation to RHI, ought to trigger flashing red lights in MLAs' heads as they consider this. The department is ditching the need to submit meter readings; in fact, it's ditching the need for biomass boilers to have heat meters full stop.
That means that there's no way for the department to know, let alone prove, how much a boiler has been used.
Indeed, unless boiler owners voluntarily choose to keep meters (which anyone with fraudulent intent wouldn't), they would have no means of themselves knowing how much heat they'd produced.
The scheme is being deliberately set up in a way which makes it impossible to know how much heat is produced.
One source told me that boiler owners in negotiations with the department had wanted tougher safeguards to catch fraudsters but that it was the department which insisted it didn't want metering, saying it didn't have enough staff to run a more complex scheme with extra checks.
5) Heat calculation is flawed
The sum claimants will get each year is based on their average heat consumption during the period 2017-19, when sharp subsidy cuts took effect. DfE says this is because the scheme “had known flaws in its early years, which may have distorted boiler usage”.
But it knows that there is a separate distortion involved in the 2017-19 period. In a case against Dennison Commercials, which had 11 boilers rushed into the scheme before the most lucrative subsidy was slashed in 2015, DfE argued that the drastic fall in heat output from the company's boilers after it retrospectively cut tariffs in 2017 implied that the company had been essentially milking the scheme.
The High Court threw out this argument, saying there were all sorts of reasons a company could use less heat, the most obvious being the commercial decision to do less of something because it no longer made business sense. Yet the department is now presenting this period of what may be atypical usage as the basis for a decade of future payments.
6) Ongoing arrogance
With RHI, the department has consistently given the sense that it knows best and so it has started with what it wants to do and worked backwards to justify why that should be done. Here that seems to be happening again.
The consultation is constructed in such a way as to offer no real alternative beyond what DfE wants. This is repeating its foundational error in this shambles. Right at the outset of the scheme, the expert consultants hired by the department advised it against an RHI; it would be better to do a grant scheme, they said.
The department didn't want to hear that and so, after it made its views clear to the consultants, they altered their recommendations to make far their view far less explicit. There are echoes of that here.
The department is desperate to shut RHI, desperate to get the 'free money' available to it for this purpose from the Treasury which for years it has been wasting, and desperate not to have to pay the compensation bill to boot every RHI claimant out of the existing scheme. Using the Treasury money to pay off the existing claimants is attractive because the department doesn't have to find this money from its own budget.
7) Repeatedly wrong
DfE is asking the public to trust it on getting this right — when it has spent years getting it wrong, without admitting that.
When it slashed subsidies, DfE officials insisted to me personally in private briefings, and to others, that fears people would turn off their boilers and revert to fossil fuels were wrong. Now it's quietly admitting those fears were accurate. Of the original cohort of more than 2,000 boilers, the department now admits that only about 1,200 are still being used to any appreciable extent. This newspaper has reported that people have been literally giving away their boilers, yet still the department insists it was right. One source said that most of those who've dropped out of the scheme might be allowed in, although there's no mention of this in the consultation.
8) Rushing the Assembly
The department has repeatedly rushed the Assembly, presenting it with a fait accompli. Here it has again left this until late in the day.
Ofgem, which administered the scheme for DfE, warned in April 2024 that it would be handing back the contract in April 2026. It gave DfE two years to sort alternative arrangements. Yet there was no sense of urgency. Instead, this consultation is only now starting and won't finish until late November.
Will MLAs show they have teeth?
By the time the responses have been considered, legislation is unlikely until January, leaving MLAs just weeks to consider it. There are rumours of using accelerated passage to rush it through. Unless the MLA is a toothless plaything of the Executive, it should by now realise that this department needs more scrutiny, not less.
Philip Brett, the DUP chair of the committee scrutinising DfE, is one of Stormont's sharper MLAs who has refused to be fobbed off by departmental assurances in the past. His party is undermined in criticising Sinn Fein on this because of its own sorry history here. But this is more important than party politics; ultimately every party stands to lose out if this is bungled again. Stormont needs to assure the public that it can handle this, and there should be a shared interest in robust scrutiny to ensure a fair outcome.
I asked DfE how many staff would police the new scheme and what that would cost. DfE said it “anticipates that only a small number of inspectors would be required to undertake an annual inspection programme”.
When asked how it would know if someone getting £110,000 over the next decade per boiler (£1.1m for someone with 10 boilers) was just turning their boilers on briefly and turning them off again, it admitted that “actual annual output in the future may differ from the figure used to determine closure payments”.
Flawed audits
It referred to some of the boilers being audited but highlighted only two sources of evidence to be checked: fuel receipts and maintenance records.
When asked how it could assess those who grow their own wood and maintain their own boilers — or falsify such documents — the department said, vaguely, that there would be “onsite inspections”. What those inspectors would examine is unclear.
Boiler owners I've spoken to are split on this. Some believe this is wrong in principle and they should be paid closer to what their counterparts in Britain and the Republic are getting. But a firm majority, weary from years of failed court challenges and lobbying which hasn't seen their payments restored, seem to just want it to end and are supportive of what's proposed.
One major RHI claimant involved in a significant Northern Irish business said that DfE seems to have thought: “Give them a bit of a bung and that'll keep them quiet — and maybe they're right. It needs to finish somewhere. But I will never trust another government scheme again.”
He may be right that this is a reasonable alternative. But that should be rigorously tested in public — not only to see if the arguments stack up and fix flaws, but also to convince the public that MLAs have some basic curiosity and the ability to hold civil servants to account.
One of the strengths of what's proposed here is that an overspend appears to be impossible. The figures seem to be based on assuming the worst-case scenario of everyone claiming high payments; if so, then there would be a guarantee this figure couldn't go above £196m.
Ditching RHI would allow new green heat support schemes to be created, which is long overdue; Northern Ireland has been falling further and further behind much of the developed world in this area over the past decade.
But to convince people to join such schemes, DfE needs to convince us that it has changed. Thus far, there's scant evidence of that.
Irish unification can offer ‘new rising tide of energy and momentum’, McAleese says
Former president of Ireland spoke at launch of book on unity by the Belfast-based writer Ben Collins
Former president of Ireland Mary McAleese says partition was never intended to be permanent.
Irish Times, Mark Hennessy, Irish Times, October 2nd, 2025
The ending of partition and the unification of Ireland can be “a really noble undertaking” that can offer “a new rising tide of energy and momentum”, former president of Ireland Mary McAleese has said.
“It raises the bar of human endeavour, human virtuousness, human kindness, and human good,” said Mrs McAleese, as she launched a book on unity by the Belfast-based writer, Ben Collins, The Irish Unity Dividend on Wednesday night.
Partition was never intended to be permanent, she said, quoting liberally from the speech given by King George V in Belfast City Hall on June 22nd, 1921, when he presided over the opening of the new parliament of Northern Ireland.
“Partition was born. He came, as he said, to the political leaders of that day, as the head of the empire, to inaugurate this parliament in Irish soil. I wonder how many people since then would resonate with the phrase, ‘Irish soil’,” she added.
King George V
She said she had often been reminded of the importance of King George V’s speech by none other than the late Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip: “He always raised [it] with me, whether I wanted it raised or not.”
“He would always say, ’People need to read her grandfather’s speech, meaning his wife, on the opening of the parliament in Northern Ireland.’ Because that speech makes it absolutely clear that partition was never to be guaranteed in perpetuity,” she said.
King George V had come to Belfast with “a deep-felt hope” that politicians would do their “utmost to make it an instrument of happiness and good government for all parts of the community” in Northern Ireland.
“We know they did not do that. They didn’t do that. They didn’t live up to that hope, that aspiration. Partition presaged two de facto confessional states with marooned religious and political minorities in each.”
The monarch then had appealed “to all Irishmen, in his words, ‘to pause, to stretch out the hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and forget, and to join in making for the land which they love, a new era of peace, contentment, and goodwill’,” she said.
“It could still happen, but it hasn’t. Our experience was not that. It was a noble aspiration that I think still awaits its fullest realisation, though the realisation is probably nearer today than at any time these past 100 years,” Mrs McAleese said.
Throughout the last century, there “were always people who wanted that reconciliation, who needed to see us live as good neighbours. Partition or not, good neighbours,” said the former president.
“We’ve lived with the violence, we’ve lived with the injustices, we’ve lived with the un-thought-out downstream consequences. And now, we try conscientiously to make the best of them, to make the best of our relationships.
“We try to build a decent, shared, mutually respectful, inclusive, compassionate, and kind culture of engagement with our neighbours, a culture of good neighbourliness, which will stand us in good stead and is the right thing, partition or no partition,” she declared.
Partition has “provoked estrangement, an unhealthy estrangement that was further poisoned by sectarian politics and political sectarian violence, and the stark reality that there were conflicting political ambitions at play,” she went on.
Unification offers the opportunity for everyone, north and south and east and west, “to put all our genius and our hopes and our aspirations and our problems together, and try to solve them together.
“Life will reveal itself to us in an entirely new and an entirely wonderful way, in a way that offers real pride and hope to the children of the next generation in a way that others were deprived of because we were too narrow,” she added.
'His presence was always felt': Tributes paid as Enniskillen bomb survivor Jim Dixon passes away
By Johnny McNabb, News and Sports Journalist, Belfast News Letter, October 4th, 2025
Enniskillen bomb survivor Jim Dixon and his wife Anna lay flowers at the cenotaph in the town, to mark the 34th anniversary of the atrocity, in November 2021
Political, community, and victims’ groups have expressed sorrow at the passing of Jim Dixon, who suffered serious injuries during the 1987 Enniskillen bomb.
Twelve people were killed and almost 70 others were injured in the IRA bombing of a Remembrance Sunday commemoration in Enniskillen in 1987 which shocked the world.
Mr Dixon survived the bomb but had to endure many surgeries in the aftermath of the atrocity and told the News Letter in 2021 that “my head was smashed badly and that is where most of the pain comes from”, with his tongue left 80% paralysed and his cheeks also paralysed.
He passed away at the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen on Thursday (October 2).
A death notice reads that “Jim will be lovingly remembered by all his family and friends.”
It adds that Mr Dixon was t”he beloved husband of Anna, dearly loved father of Suzanne (Jeff), Sharon (Gordon) and Serena (Stephen) much loved grandfather of Gareth (Gabrielle), Victoria (Nigel), Matthew, Ashley, Andrew and great-grandfather of Louie, Gavin and Sophie.”
A Service of Thanksgiving for the life of Jim will take place in Enniskillen Independent Methodist Church, Tempo Road, Enniskillen on Monday (October 6) at 3.00pm.
In a heartfelt social media post, Roy Crawford, UUP Councillor for the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, posted: “I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Jim Dixon.
"Jim was a mentor, a man of great faith and integrity, and someone who gave so much of himself to others. His quiet strength, wisdom and compassion left a lasting impact on everyone who knew him.
“My thoughts and prayers are with Anna and all the family circle at this difficult time. Jim will be sorely missed.”
Mr Dixon helped form the Ely Centre in Enniskillen who provide support to veterans and other victims/survivors impacted by the Troubles.
In a statement, written by Lee McDowell & Roy Crawford, they paid tribute to a “beloved father, grandfather, friend, patron, and brother in Christ.”
They added: “The impact of Jim Dixon’s life is impossible for me to capture fully in words, but those of us who knew and loved him will carry the lessons he taught us for the rest of our lives. Whether as a father, a trusted friend, a respected boss, or a loyal brother, Jim led by example—with wisdom, fairness, compassion, integrity, and a quiet resolute strength.
"Jim was a man of integrity. His leadership in the Ely Centre was grounded not in position or title, but in character. We can all testify that he led with fairness, he listened without judgement, and he stood firm in his Christian value and the Truth. If Jim gave you his word, that was it. In a world full of noise and uncertainty, Jim was a steady voice of calm and reason.
"What we admired most about Jim wasn’t just what he did, but how he did it. We all knew the relentless suffering that Jim endured on a daily basis ever since the Enniskillen Bomb, many days in the office we knew he was in agony, but he always kept going. There was a quiet strength grounded in his deep faith in the way he carried himself. He never sought the spotlight, but his presence was always felt.
“Jim was fiercely loyal— to his beliefs, to his family, to the truth and to us all here at the Ely Centre. He respected those who held differing perspectives on our past and always surprised many during our meetings and speaking events in confirming that he was a Proud Irishman, a Unionist, Gaelic Speaking Christian from Clones. He really was one in a million, whose perspective is so desperately needed in our country.”
Victims’ group SEFF also paid tribute and offered their condolences following his passing.
Kenny Donaldson, director of SEFF, said on Facebook: "Jim was someone well-known throughout County Fermanagh and much further afield and whilst already a personality within his community through the earlier years of his life, it was the Enniskillen Poppy Day bomb which brought Jim’s name and story to the fore, front and centre.
“Jim’s horrific injuries were projected across the world and he proved his abilities as a fighter, defying the predictions of medical professionals and others, to not only survive that fateful day but to also reach the grand age of 88 years.
“Jim’s journey was of course not an easy path, he suffered profuse pain and challenging health, however supported by his devoted wife Anna and their children, grandchildren and the wider family and medical support, he persevered and achieved against the odds.
“Jim’s legacy post the bomb is his central role in the development of The Ely Centre, (as former Chairman for many years) and he will have taken immense joy and encouragement through the group’s growth and journey.”
Orange Order is part of Ireland – we need to build bridges to it, not demonise it
By Andy Pollak on Monday, September 29th, 2025
The Mail on Sunday (Irish edition) is not everybody's idea of a truth-telling newspaper (that's an understatement). They had a front-page 'exclusive' earlier this month entitled 'Humphreys Husband's Secret Orange Order Past' about the Fine Gael presidential candidate Heather Humphreys' husband Eric's's alleged membership of the order some 50 years ago.(1) It claimed the candidate, who is a Presbyterian, tried to "evade" questions about when precisely her husband may have been in the order, and "admitted" that she had attended Orange parades in Monaghan as a child. This was the moment "the wheels came off" her media appearance in her home county, it added.
In a follow-up opinion piece in the Irish Times(2), UCD historian Edward Burke, who has written a well-reviewed book about the unionists of Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal during the War of Independence period, told the story of Heather Humpheys' grandfather, an Ulster Volunteer Force section leader, shooting an IRA volunteer in the face during a raid on his house in Aghabog, near Humphreys' home village of Drum, in 1920. He went on: "But what can associations a century or a century and a half ago tell us about a presidential candidate in 2025? Firstly, if we are to live in a 'shared island' that respects 'green’, ‘orange' and many other traditions and cultures, these so-called 'gotcha' moments in a Border county over alleged membership of the Orange Order decades ago should be self-evidently inappropriate."
He added in a LinkedIn message: "We can't have a situation in Ireland where we talk about respect for traditions, a 'shared island' - and then launch a witch-hunt against a presidential candidate because her husband may have belonged to one of those traditions."
A week later, Mark Hennessy, the Ireland and Britain editor of the Irish Times, put the row into a wider context.(3) He quoted Monaghan historian Noel Carney, who was born in 1953: "In the past, it was difficult to find a Protestant who wasn't a member of the Orange Order." Hennessy reported that "there are concerns in Monaghan - to say that it is a fear would be overstating it - that Humphreys' Presbyterian background will be used against her to stoke division."
He also quoted Angela Graham, a highly regarded Clones community worker, and a friend of Humphreys, who believed that she would "follow in the footsteps of those amazing women, the two Marys there before, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese." If elected, as a Monaghan Presbyterian who is is favour of a united Ireland - "but only through working with people and bringing them together" (her words at her Monaghan campaign launch) - she would be able to offer a hand of friendship across the Border in a way that no other president has been able to do. "She's lived it. She understands. It's in her DNA. That's what's so important", Graham says. "No other candidate will bring that. She has that unique ability to cross community divides. She wouldn't just be talking the talk."
The Belfast-based grand secretary of the Orange Order, Rev Mervyn Gibson, seemed to agree when he told the Irish Times: "Personally, I think Michael D Higgins has been horrendous for community relations. I'm looking for a president who will build on what Mary McAleese did to grow relationships with Northern Ireland." The best that can be said about Higgins was that he had little interest in and knowledge of the North. The worst is that by refusing to attend a harmless ecumenical service of 'hope and reflection' in Armagh in 2021 to 'mark' partition and the foundation of Northern Ireland, he showed himself to be an old-fashioned nationalist republican, and thus abdicated the role of peacemaker which his two predecessors had so bravely and successfully espoused.
I am no lover of the Orange Order. As an exclusively Protestant and anti-Catholic organisation, it has more than its fair share of bigots. I would like to agree with the Presbyterian leader, Rev John Rogers, who told a meeting in Kerry in 1850: “Presbyterian Ulster is not Orange. Presbyterianism is incompatible with, and destructive of, Orangeism. Orangeism is Toryism, and the genius of Presbyterianism is utterly antagonistic to such a despotic creed.” Unfortunately in the 175 years since then, much of Presbyterian Ulster has become just that: right-wing, fundamentalist, separatist and Orange.
However, like it or not, the Orange Order is an Irish organisation. It is supported by scores of thousands of Northern Protestants, and particularly working class and rural Protestants. In many unionist rural areas the Orange hall is the equivalent of the GAA club in nationalist Ireland: it brings together people for local, community, cultural and charitable events. United Ireland or no united Ireland, it is going to continue in existence for many years to come. Indeed, if the North is voted into a united Ireland by a narrow majority in a Border poll, and the political unionism of the present unionist parties becomes meaningless as a result, the order may see a renaissance as the main standard-bearer of Ulster unionist culture (such as it is), comprising the order itself, its associated bodies the Royal Black Preceptory and the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the 12th July and other Orange parades, the marching bands that go along with those parades, and the bonfires which precede them.
And it has its more open-minded and pro-Irish aspects. The late Rev Brian Kennaway, a senior Orangeman, doubled for a while as president of the longstanding cross-border peace and reconciliation group, the Irish Association. Several Orange banners on show at 12th July parades feature slogans in the Irish language (notably 'Ireland's Heritage' Loyal Orange Lodge in Belfast). The writer Ruth Dudley Edwards, in her 1999 book on Orangeism, recalls that at the turn of the 20th century there was a Donegal Gaeltacht-born County Grand Master of Belfast who taught Irish classes on the Falls Road. Its current leader, Mervyn Gibson, who can be seen at Shared Ireland events in Dublin, is a courteous and intelligent man. There is still a Dublin and Wicklow Orange lodge, although for obvious reasons it keeps its head well down.
The historian Felix Larkin points out that representatives of the Orange Order from both sides of the Border were welcomed to Áras an Uachtaráin during Mary McAleese's presidency and she visited the Orange Hall at Barkey in County Cavan in 2008. "That is what 'bridge-building' across the communities on this island is all about, " he wrote.(4)
Most people in the South are deeply prejudiced against the Orange Order, and see it, because of its history of anti-Catholicism, as an evil organisation (a mirror image of many unionists' and loyalists' view of the GAA, who believe that it is an evil organisation because many of its supporters backed the Provisional IRA's campaign of violence). A unionist acquaintance of mine, a decent man, recently recounted a conversation with friends in Galway who, when he told them he was an Orangeman, “looked at me as if I had been beamed down from Mars, as if I was some sort of alien.”
The Orange Order, unlike the IRA, never killed anybody in recent memory. And yet more and more people, particularly younger people, are coming to accept the IRA and Sinn Fein's view, that such killing was necessary to bring about Irish unity. I would venture that some of the bitterest critics of the Orange Order are supporters of this view. Such hypocrisy is one of the less attractive characteristics of Irish attitudes.
We in the South need to get over our prejudices and do some more bridge-building to our Northern Protestant - and Orange - brethren, difficult though it may be. There was a lot of it going on in the 10-15 years after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the end of the 'Troubles', but it has gone backwards in recent years. There will be no genuine Irish unity without it.
1 The Irish Mail on Sunday, 14 September
2 'Humphreys family has nothing to explain or apologise for', Irish Times, 16 September
3 'It was difficult to find a Protestant not in the Orange Order', Irish Times, 20 September
4 Letters to the Editor, Irish Times, 17 September
