Hypocrites march for justice while turning blind eye to murder

SUZANNE BREEN, Sunday Life, February 1st, 2026

Thousands of people will march in Derry today to commemorate the murder of 13 innocent civilians on Bloody Sunday.

The desire for justice, and rightful rage at the massacre, burns as strongly as it ever did.

The dead were slaughtered by a savage British State. They were in the right place at the right time — protesting against internment without trial.

It was the Parachute Regiment on the wrong side that day, and their actions place them there for ever.

The organisers of today's march have sent a solidarity message to those in Minneapolis and right across the US who are facing down ICE agents.

The death of innocent people, followed by a campaign of lies, cover-up and the smearing of victims, is a story Derry knows all too well.

Watching videos of Alex Pretti and Renee Nicole Good shows that state brutality isn't the preserve of those with English accents on Irish streets.

But there is another killing closer to home which I think about on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday every year.

The person who lost his life was every inch as innocent as those 13 men and boys in Derry.

Not for a second did Robert McCartney believe he was in danger as he drank in a pub full of friends and neighbours in Belfast city centre on January 30, 2005.

It was something unremarkable — a hand gesture about a football team that a woman took offence to — which led to a horrendous chain of events.

IRA commander Jock Davison became involved in the ensuing argument.

A fight broke out between him and McCartney's friend Brendan Devine, who had a history with the Provos.

A bottle was smashed over Devine's head and his throat was cut three times with another bottle.

McCartney helped his heavily bleeding friend out of the premises. The pair were followed by men armed with bottles, sticks and a knife.

They were beaten, kicked, stabbed and left to die. A passing police patrol found them.

Devine survived, but McCartney passed away in hospital after suffering three heart attacks.

As well as a fatal stab wound to the stomach, the 33-year-old father-of-two had a broken nose, injured eye and extensive cuts and bruising.

Belfast Crown Court later heard he hadn't thrown a single punch and was a threat to no one.

HELPLESS

Even with the blood pumping out of him, he was beaten and kicked as he lay helpless on the ground.

The perpetrators weren't British-born and bred. They had Belfast accents. Their foot soldiers swept into action. Cover-ups aren't the preserve of the 'Brits'. CCTV tapes were destroyed and Magennis's bar was cleaned with bleach in an attempt to eradicate forensic evidence.

Of the 70 people there when the original fight broke out, nobody saw anything — all claimed to be in the toilets or on their mobile phone at the time.

And here's the supreme irony: many who stayed silent or were involved in the cover-up had just returned from the annual Bloody Sunday commemoration in Derry.

There is only one word to describe those who march for justice for 13 innocent men massacred by the British Army, and then collude in the murder of an equally innocent man hours later: hypocrites.

Not one of them showed an ounce of moral courage. Nobody phoned an ambulance for McCartney as he lay on the street, fatally injured. Nobody contacted his parents or his sisters to let them know he'd been hurt.

Those who headed to Magennis's after the Bloody Sunday commemoration hadn't been in Derry because they truly believed in truth and justice. They'd been cosplaying.

The theme of this year's march, which sets off from Creggan Shops is 'Unfinished Business'. That applies equally to the murder outside a busy Belfast bar 21 years ago. Nobody has been convicted of either atrocity.

Every one of those who played a part — big or small — in these brutal attacks should hang their heads in shame on the anniversary of Bloody Sunday.

Troubles payment warning

NOEL MCADAM, Sunday Life, February 1st, 2026

A victims' group has called on Westminster to replace a Troubles compensation scheme closing in August.

To prevent deadlock at Stormont, the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF) believes any new legislation should be led and financed by London.

The group spoke out ahead of the closing of the Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme.

Director Kenny Donaldson warned that the Executive would be unable to resolve any issues of eligibility for a new scheme.

Proscribed

“Furthermore, financial costs could not be borne by the Executive through the block grant but rather require financial commitment from both the UK and Irish Governments,” he said.

“Our message is simple: advance reparation for the non-controversial cases which do not involve people who were members of proscribed organisations.

“Now must be the time to deliver for the bereaved before many more leave this life having never been afforded their most basic need for acknowledgement.”

But the Northern Ireland Office said responsibility for any scheme would fall with Stormont.

“Support for victims is a devolved matter for consideration by the Executive, including any potential bereavement scheme,” it added.

“It is right that the Executive considers how best to support people who have lost loved ones during the Troubles.”

The Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme was delivered through Westminster during the absence of devolved government.

It is currently being delivered through the Executive Office.

'I was appalled at church leaders' indifference to reports of abuse' 

ANGELA DAVISON, Sunday Life, February 1st, 2026

YOUTH WORKER BREAKS SILENCE OVER OWN FEARS ABOUT EMBATTLED PCI WOMAN CALLS FOR EX-SAFEGUARDING CHIEF TO BE STRIPPED OF OBE, AFTER HER CLAIMS OVER INCIDENT INVOLVING CHILDREN 'OVERLOOKED'

A former youth worker with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) has called for the one-time director of the Council of Social Witness to be stripped of his OBE.

The whistleblower, a woman now in her early 40s, claimed Lindsay Conway delayed responding to, and then largely disregarded, claims she made of a sexual assault in her church.

She was also scathing of the overall church's response to the safeguarding crisis, and called for a public inquiry.

The former youth leader spoke out ahead of a vote on Tuesday to elect a new PCI moderator.

The Co Antrim woman said two children claimed in 2013 they had been sexually assaulted by an older child at a church event.

This was investigated by social services two years later, with the woman seeking advice from the church about how to deal with the alleged attacker during activities in the meantime.

She said the PCI was slow to provide guidance, creating a feeling leaders were “brushing over the issue”.

She told Sunday Life: “The church said there wasn't really a problem and apparently offered mediation to both sets of parents.

“To my knowledge, the church hadn't really dealt with the matter, completed any risk assessments or implemented any extra supervision, which I felt the situation warranted, so I raised it with them.”

She submitted a letter, seen by Sunday Life, to church elders, highlighting concerns about the alleged perpetrator being around younger children unsupervised, requesting tighter supervision and highlighting the potential risk of harm.

She said she had never been made aware of written reports about the matter, and queried whether the church was in line with its child protection policy.

A meeting she requested with the church's Kirk Session was refused, but at a meeting in 2016 with three of its representatives, she raised concerns again and asked for increased supervision of the accused, whom the Kirk Session said had admitted to the alleged incident.

Elders then said they were not going to request additional supervision of the alleged attacker.

The woman was also informed her church was still waiting on an official report from the PCI.

The pressure of the ordeal took a toll on her mental health.

“As a youth leader, I was not given any advice, and as far as I know, no other youth leaders were advised either,” she said.

“When I stepped down as leader from one activity, I asked that the person taking over from me would be briefed, but I wasn't given an answer. It was very stressful.”

Not long after that, the youth leader said, she saw the accused child had again been left alone with younger children, leading her to request another meeting.

Investigation

At that meeting, in January 2017, an official said he had details about the investigation but could not share it because the alleged perpetrator posed a low risk.

But the youth worker's concerns still played on her mind.

She said: “For the rest of the year, I just tried to do what I could.

“I felt extremely stressed, and then in June, I was told there was no more funding for my role.”

She continued her work in a voluntary capacity.

At the start of 2018, she became aware of a trip the accused child was attending with younger children, and wondered if other youth leaders knew of her concerns.

She wrote to church elders, asking for proof the child posed a low risk but received no response.

In a further meeting with the Kirk Session, elders said they were satisfied with the assessment but told the woman she could approach Church House, the headquarters of the PCI.

On February 5, 2018, she sent a letter to Lindsay Conway, at that point the head of the Council of Social Witness, via the Taking Care office, detailing the alleged sexual assault and her concerns that the alleged perpetrator was not being adequately monitored.

She submitted four emails, giving a deadline for a response on each one.

A month after sending her first email, Mr Conway replied, apologising for the delay and citing an issue with her “unusual email address”.

In the brief message, he said: “I would advise you to inform the designated person in the congregation of your concerns.

“If they require advice, they (can) contact the Taking Care Office.

“I am happy to advise the designated person that you wish to report concerns.”

A BBC Spotlight programme last December alleged Mr Conway was aware of credible reports of sexual abuse at a church in Donegal which were not reported to police when learned of 10 years ago.

Speaking on the programme, safeguarding expert Ian Elliott said Mr Conway, who was director for 19 years until he retired in 2021, was aware of the cases but did not follow up on provision of therapeutic services to those who had come forward.

The programme also claimed a document from a church investigation linked him to a general lack of safeguarding records in PCI, and suggested he ignored or stalled on concerns brought to him by ministers.

When Sunday Life approached Mr Conway for comment yesterday, he said: “I am not making any comments until the conclusion of the police investigation.”

The former youth worker was astonished at how Mr Conway responded to her concerns.

She said: “It's unbelievable that Lindsay Conway was ignoring emails when there was such a risk, and when he did come back to me, he just told me to go to the Kirk Session. He should be stripped of his OBE.”

The woman sought help from the NSPCC, which said it would submit a report on her behalf to the police and social services.

She also went to the police herself.

Officers assured her the correct safeguarding measures would be put in place from their side.

Despite being told a risk assessment should be completed, that anyone involved in the care of the alleged perpetrator should be made aware, and that records should be kept, a letter from the church to the woman said it was happy with its “robust” measures.

Warned

It also said church leaders had taken advice from Rev Trevor Gribben, at that point the PCI clerk of the General Assembly, and warned her that “compiling information about any other individual is a contravention of that individual's rights and a breach of data protection legislation”

The Kirk Session then advised the woman to destroy any information she might be holding.

The records referred to were notes that she recorded after witnessing the alleged perpetrator of the attack unsupervised.

Later that month, on advice from her solicitor, the woman returned the laptop she had been using in her employed and voluntary roles, with all the information still on the hard drives. She then left the church.

She said she was disappointed with how the PCI had been handling people after asking them to come forward with their experiences in November.

After the shock resignation of Dr Gribben as moderator, the church appealed for any victims of failings to get in touch.

Feeling hopeful she would finally be heard, the woman was left appalled and frustrated by unanswered emails, empty promises, a lack of urgency and “standard responses”.

Last month, a dedicated phone line was closed down.

She said: “This lack of response is highly disappointing and disturbing. If it had not been possible for the PCI to respond in full, I would have at least expected a holding email at some point. At one stage, I waited 15 working days for a reply.

“Unfortunately, this lack of communication is reminiscent of past experiences when I tried to report safeguarding issues to PCI.

“Not everyone in the church was unsupportive, and in fact, many did support me, but as a young woman from a working-class background, I didn't feel respected.

“I'm happy to share my experience with the PSNI, but I have no confidence in the PCI.”

My uncomfortable reminder of why Belfast needs Irish passport office

SAM MCBRIDE, Sunday Independent and Sunday Life, February 1st, 2026

Why is there no Irish passport office in Belfast? Once, such a question would only have been asked by the most ideologically committed northern nationalists. Demand for Irish passports was limited, the issue was seen as controversial and even if those objections were overcome, security considerations would have made such a proposal problematic.

Today, none of those objections endures to any significant extent.

It is increasingly hard to explain this, when there are passport offices in Dublin, Cork and London.

Even for unionists who view the Republic as a foreign country (something distinctly un-British, in that the UK's Ireland Act 1949 states "it is hereby declared that, notwithstanding that the Republic of Ireland is not part of His Majesty's dominions, the Republic of Ireland is not a foreign country…”), how could they object to such a country having a consulate when several foreign countries have consulates in Belfast?

China, Poland and the US have had consulates in Belfast for years. Last year India opened one. Ireland has an embassy and two consulates in Australia, an embassy and two consulates in Germany and an embassy and three consulates in Great Britain. In the US, there is an embassy and eight consulates.

Huge numbers of unionists now have Irish passports; it does nothing to alter their constitutional preference, but reflects a pragmatic acceptance of the benefits of having access to two passports — especially when one is now an EU passport. Even Ian Paisley Jr has an Irish passport.

The Northern Irish can be exceptionally canny at finding personal advantage in constitutional complexity.

The 2021 census showed that 78pc of Northern Ireland's population held one passport while 6pc had at least two. From 2011-2021, the number of people in Northern Ireland with a UK passport declined by 70,000 to one million, despite the population increasing in that period.

Irish passport holders nearly doubled

By contrast, those holding an Irish passport almost doubled to 614,300 — and will have increased substantially since. And about 120,000 Northern Ireland residents now apply for an Irish passport each year.

Sinn Féin has repeatedly raised this, yet that is the least likely way in which such a change will come about. When raised by Sinn Féin, it is seen as a partisan issue rather than one of common sense practicality.

Two years ago, the then foreign minister Micheál Martin ruled out a Northern passport office, saying it wasn't justified in a world where only 1pc of applications are now made using a paper form. Government policy is to encourage online applications.

Yet the logic of this position, if taken to its extremity, would be to close all passport offices or consulate passport desks. Such offices exist because this can be a complex bureaucratic procedure, where advice and assistance is unusually important.

A fortnight ago, I had an uncomfortable reminder of this. A week before I was due to fly to Jaipur, a problem emerged with my Indian visa application, which had been submitted online.

As a journalist, I had to apply for a special visa with additional checks, and that — it turned out — could only be done with a paper form.

After filling in the long form, I rushed down to the Indian government's Belfast office to submit it, only to be told that by putting in "British” as my nationality I had made a mistake. The correct field, ­apparently, was "United Kingdom” — even though that is actually the name of a country, not a nationality.

Because I'd done this in Belfast, I was able to rush home, fill in the form again online, print it out, then return to resubmit it. The process took half a day — and even then I had to fly to London the day before departure to collect my visa in person.

The human factor

Being in that office for several hours was a reminder of the importance of these offices. There was a young couple with their newborn baby, trying to get their child a passport. There was a man trying to resolve a power-of-attorney issue for a relative. A woman was nearing despair as she remonstrated with the staff, saying she had been there repeatedly but kept being asked to bring some other document.

Having a local office where these complex wrangles can be resolved in person is far more efficient. Imagine travelling from Coleraine to Dublin only to be told that something is amiss. This is doubly significant for those who have cognitive impairments or require special assistance.

Not everything that a foreign consulate exists to provide is necessary in Belfast. There is no need for any British or Irish person to get a visa to travel to Dublin, nor for any Irish person to get assistance to navigate a strange foreign land.

Yet the Irish Government already has a de facto consulate in Belfast, and has done since 1985. The Irish Secretariat on Linenhall Street is essentially an Irish diplomatic mission staffed by diplomats, even if it is quite deliberately not referred to as such. ​

The Good Friday Agreement involved two elements that are relevant here: the acceptance by the Irish people that Northern Ireland is British, and will remain unless its people decide otherwise — but also that it is the right of anyone in Northern Ireland to have an Irish (as well as, or instead of a British) passport.

Given that there already is a de ­facto Irish diplomatic mission in Belfast, this wouldn't involve renting a building or hiring lots of staff — it could be as simple as opening a ­public counter for what the Department of Foreign Affairs says is modest demand.

And to those unionists who object, the Irish Government could respond that Northern Ireland remained as British as London — where there is such an office.

Momentum to break up the Union doesn’t exist in Northern Ireland – Emma Little-Pengelly

By Jonathan McCambridge, Belfast News Letter, February 1st, 2026

Momentum for an Irish unity referendum “doesn’t exist” in Northern Ireland, deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly has said.

However, First Minister Michelle O’Neill has reiterated Sinn Fein’s call for a border poll by 2030, stating she could envisage a vote happening while she is in post.

The DUP’s Ms Little-Pengelly and Ms O’Neill were asked about Irish unity during separate interviews on the Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme on Sky News.

Ms Little-Pengelly said she believed the “best future” for Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland and Wales, was within the United Kingdom.

She said: “When we look across the globe at a time of instability, of a lot of concern and apprehension, a strong and United Kingdom, working together, fighting together, defending together, I think, is what serves all of our citizens better.”

The deputy First Minister added: “I think it’s important to say that in Northern Ireland, nationalism and republicanism haven’t increased their vote from 1998, despite demographic change.

“They’re sitting in and around the same percentage that they had in 1998.

“I think those who want to see the breakup of the Union do try to constantly get this momentum.

“I have no doubt that you will hear that again, because to serve their purpose is to try to get that sense of momentum towards that.

“That doesn’t exist in Northern Ireland.”

Ms O’Neill said she “absolutely” could imagine a border poll while she is First Minister.

She added: “My party’s view is that we should have this by 2030, that’s only a short way away.

“So now is the time for the planning, the preparation.

“I don’t want done to the people here what was done in relation to Brexit.

“Brexit was a massive act of economic self-harm, it was done against the wishes of the people here.

“We have an ability to take control of our own fortunes. I encourage all political leaders to reach for that together.

“Let’s find accommodation for each other. Let’s build a new Ireland where those of us that have an Irish identity, a British identity, and those people have made here their home.

“We can make this a much better place for all of us, an inclusive place.

“That’s the prize I’m reaching for.”

Irish Taoiseach Micheal Martin has previously said he is not planning for a border poll by 2030.

Under the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, a referendum would be held if the UK Secretary of State believes it is likely that a majority of people in Northern Ireland would vote for Irish unification.

Burrows has 16 months to save the UUP but he can’t do it alone

Alex Kane, Belfast Telegraph, February 1st, 2026

To be honest, it didn’t really matter what Jon Burrows was going to say to UUP members in his leadership speech at Saturday’s Extraordinary General Meeting.

Barring an internal rebellion — which I think is very unlikely — or a catastrophic personal error by him, he will remain leader until the Assembly and Council elections are over in May 2027.

If there is demonstrable evidence of significant success at that point, with an increase in votes and seats won, then he will be hailed as the conquering hero. If, on the other hand, it’s much the same-old, same-old in terms of election results, he’ll join an increasingly lengthy list of post-David Trimble leaders who have failed to lift the curse.

There are, of course, MLAs, members and councillors who haven’t been won over by his Tiggerish approach to politics, or his meteoric rise in media recognition. But none of them challenged him.

None of them took on the virtual unknown and offered their own strategy for fixing the UUP and pushing polling numbers far north of the 15+ percent the party needs to be taken seriously again.

That alone tells you something about the mood of the party that Burrows joined just months ago and now finds himself leading. One other thing to remember: Jeffrey Donaldson would not have toppled Edwin Poots a few weeks into his leadership had Donaldson himself not challenged Poots and run him so close in the first contest.

There is no one in the UUP, at any level, breathing down Burrows’ neck. Anyway, another internal revolt and toppling of the leader would simply look like industrial scale farce.

But even if he is reasonably secure until May 2027 Burrows still has to lay out a strategy for success. He has said he wouldn’t support bringing down the Assembly. Gavin Robinson has said the same thing. He says he wants the UUP to return to largest party status; which is what Robinson wants for the DUP.

A couple of weeks ago, in response to a message of congratulations from Robinson, Burrows said, ‘We are also mindful that decisions taken over the last 20 years by some within unionist leadership have failed to deliver for the Union, but rather have championed the largest of strategic mistakes.’

Lucid Talk polls crucial

The spat with Jamie Bryson is unlikely to do him any real damage, particularly if the next couple of LucidTalk polls, in the run-up to the summer break, indicate that the margin between the UUP and TUV has grown in Burrows’ favour.

Anyway, at this point I can’t see Burrows being prepared to reach any sort of formal electoral arrangement which involved the TUV; because it would involve embracing positions that many in the UUP would be uncomfortable with, as well as putting off potential new traction for the UUP.

The route to the electoral growth that the UUP has been chasing since 2005 lies, not in sharing the existing — and declining — pro-union vote with the DUP and TUV, but in attracting back the soft-u unionist vote that drifted to Alliance, or just stayed home, post-Brexit.

The route also includes a side track to softer elements of the DUP vote which, quite frankly, is sick and tired of the now serial failure of the DUP to persuade successive British governments since 2017 to address the genuine concerns of unionism about the very odd relationship it has been pushed into with the EU.

Burrows makes party unity plea as he denies having ‘difficult meeting’

In other words, what Burrows needs to do within the next few months is set out a strategy which is not just a mush of what is already on offer from other unionist parties.

Crucially, he must not get distracted by a so-called ‘culture war’ which is, in reality, an anti-SF/Alliance campaign rather than a detailed, thought-through defence of the benchmarks, symbols and touchstones which, in many cases, bind far more people together than the faux battles which merely increase the divisions between us.

Instead of complaining about constantly being on the losing side, unionism needs to work out why it loses and how it can address those problems.

Burrows cannot do this alone. He needs his party to stand behind him. What he also needs to do is understand his party better. Understand why so many of them have stayed loyal through the long years of electoral decline and come and go leaders. If that means weekend after weekend at constituency associations, talking, talking, talking, then so be it.

If it means finding new roles and responsibilities for his MLAs and councillors, then so be it. If it means putting the voice of the executive and the grassroots above the voice of the party officers, then so be it.

I mentioned in a previous piece that Burrows probably represents the last throw of the dice for the UUP. If it doesn’t get the growth it needs in 16 months then I genuinely have no idea what would come next.

His greatest weakness is his newness and lack of experience as a politician and leader. His greatest strength is that he can legitimately ask his party to join together and help him return the UUP to top level politics again.