PSNI in talks with supplier over ‘stolen’ bonfire pallets

CONNLA YOUNG CRIME and SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, April 21st, 2026

Blue and red pallets stacked at Roden Street in south Belfast

PSNI leadership has engaged with one of the world’s largest pallet suppliers in a bid to clamp down on stolen material being torched on illegal loyalist bonfires.

Thousands of pallets are burnt on Eleventh Night pyres across the north every July.

Concerns have been raised in the past about the negative economic and environmental impact of the annual pyres, which can include thousands of wooden pallets.

The majority of the distinctive blue pallets often seen on bonfires belong to Chep, while French pallet company, La Palette Rouge (LPR), own many of those coloured red.

Other pallets, known as ‘whites’, tend to be produced independently and are generally not of the same quality as ‘blues’ or ‘reds’.

They also have a lower market value.

The majority of large-scale pallet providers, including Chep and LPR, operate a similar business model focusing on the hire of equipment, which is used to transport goods between two points.

Used pallets are later collected at the drop-off destination and reused as needed.

Under this ‘pooling’ system, pallets are hired out to customers but never sold.

The business model followed by the main providers raises questions about how bonfire builders in the north acquire large numbers of pallets, as they cannot be bought directly from the suppliers.

With operations in 60 countries worldwide, Chep has around 150 million pooled pallets and containers in circulation across Europe alone and has a network that comprises 300 service centres in 30 countries.

It is understood Chep has recently taken steps to reduce the misuse of their equipment ahead of the 2026 bonfire season and is working closely with the PSNI and local authorities.

A multi-agency group has now been established through which Chep has engaged directly with the senior PSNI leadership, it is believed.

PSNI: ‘We take reports of pallet theft seriously’

It is understood information shared includes data relating to suspect pallet freight movement and unrecorded thefts.

The PSNI has also increased its own activity amid suggestions it has recovered stolen pallets and is reviewing reports relating to the theft of material.

Chep recently said it does not condone the burning of its property.

“However, each year in Northern Ireland, significant numbers of these reusable pallets are removed from circulation and destroyed when used in large bonfires,” it said.

“While Chep is aware that its pallets are used in this way, the company does not condone the practice and continues to appeal to bonfire organisers not to use Chep pallets, which remain the legal property of the company.”

A spokeswoman for the PSNI said it “works alongside stakeholders and partner agencies in relation to bonfires and any associated issues, including pallet theft”.

“This multi-agency approach is particularly important in the lead up to key periods of increased demand,” she added.

“We take reports of pallet theft and any associated criminality seriously, and work hard to investigate the circumstances of each report by working to prevent and deter the theft and misuse of pallets.

“We also understand the wider impact this type of theft can have on local businesses, and the local supply chain, and we will continue to take steps to deter this type of criminal activity.”

Pallets, waste wood and old sofas dumped at bonfire site which got £1.7m makeover

CONNLA YOUNG, Irish News, April 21st, 2026

THERE have been calls for bonfire material to be removed from an east Belfast park that received a £1.7m makeover just two years ago.

Pallets, waste wood and old sofas have been dumped at Dr John Pitt Memorial Park on the Newtownards Road in recent weeks.

A ‘dump wood’ sign has also been placed at the site.

In 2024 the park underwent a major revamp that included a new playground, a multi-use games area and natural stone paths being laid down.

The redevelopment project included boundary work, floodlighting, new signage and the relocation of a local sculpture.

Belfast City Council, which had responsibility for delivering the scheme, said at the time that the costly redevelopment was “inspired by the nearby shipyard and the area’s maritime heritage”.

The ambitious project was funded by the Executive Office’s Urban Villages Initiative and the Department for Infrastructure.

Sand has previously been spread around the area of the bonfire to protect the ground from damage.

Sinn Féin councillor Ciaran Beattie said the “illegal dumping of waste in a public park is totally unacceptable and these materials should be removed immediately”.

“Illegal bonfires put people’s lives at risk, pollute our environment and often destroy public amenities,” he said.

“I am calling on political representatives to show leadership and support the immediate removal of this material.”

East Belfast Alliance MLA Peter McReynolds has said “it is extremely disappointing to see this material reappear for another year”.

“This is a public community space meant for everyone,” he said.

“While I understand that many wish to celebrate their culture, this should be done in a lawful, safe, positive and respectful manner.”

Mr McReynolds added: “I urge those responsible for the pallets to remove them immediately and to consider the impact on families and the wider community.”

‘Unbowed and dignified’ – tributes to first person shot in 1971 Ballymurphy massacre

PAUL AINSWORTH, Irish News, April 21st, 2026

Bobby Clarke, who passed away at the weekend aged 92, had been helping families flee attacks when he was hit

THE first person to be shot in the Ballymurphy massacre will be remembered for being a “source of strength” for families campaigning for justice, following his death.

Tributes have been paid to Bobby Clarke, who died at the weekend at the age of 92.

He was the first person shot by British soldiers when they opened fire on civilians in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast on August 9, 1971, following the introduction of internment.

A total of 10 innocent people were fatally shot by paratroopers stationed at the nearby Henry Taggart Memorial Hall army base over the following three days. [The Inquest findings were that eight people were killed by members of the British Army, one other victim was probably shot by the British Army and another was shot by persons unknown. There were other British units in the area at the time, as well as the Parachute Regiment and the only soldier clearly identified as shooting a civilian was a member of the Royal Engineers, who was himself seriously injured add awarded the Military Medal. He was criticised for not making an adequate safety audit or issuing the mandatory three verbal warnings before opening fire.]

Mr Clarke – who had brought his wife and two young children to safety – had been helping residents, including young children, flee homes in Springfield Park after they came under attack from crowds coming from the loyalist Springmartin area.

He was returning across a waste ground close to Springfield Park when he was shot in the back by a paratrooper.

One of those killed in the massacre, local priest Fr Hugh Mullan, had run towards Mr Clarke, waving a white babygrow, to give the injured man the last rites, believing he had been fatally wounded. The 38-yearold cleric had anointed Mr Clarke and was leaving the field when he was struck by a bullet. Another of the victims, 19-year-old Frank Quinn, ran out in an attempt to tend to Fr Mullan, before he too was fatally shot.

During the inquest into the Ballymurphy killings in 2019, Mr Clarke spoke of feelings of guilt he lived with, saying he held himself responsible for the deaths of the two men.

“Two people lost their lives coming to help me while I was trying to help those who could not help themselves,” he told the coroner.

Mr Clarke had managed to escape the waste ground after dark in the hours after being wounded, and eventually received medical attention.

Shot in side

He had been shot in the side, with a bullet from a high-powered SLR rifle exiting his body across his spine – an injury he described in detail during the inquest.

In 2023, two years after the inquest concluded that the Ballymurphy victims were innocent, Mr Clarke – along with another man who survived being shot during the massacre, Joseph Millen – was awarded an undisclosed sum in damages in a civil case brought against the Ministry of Defence.

John Teggart, whose father Danny Teggart was one of the victims of the massacre, said Mr Clarke had helped bring an infant to safety before he was shot.

“Hours after he was shot and managed to get to safety himself, Bobby gave his detailed account of what happened to a reporter from RTÉ Radio,” Mr Teggart said.

“Over 50 years later, he gave the same evidence at the Ballymurphy inquest, word-for-word.

The victims of the Ballymurphy massacre in 1971 (from left, top) Joseph Corr, Danny Taggart, Eddie Doherty, Father Hugh Mullan, Frank Quinn; (from left, bottom) Joan Connolly, John McKerr, Noel Philips, John Laverty and Joseph Murphy

“Asked how he could remember it in such detail, he replied ‘I remember it because it’s the truth. You can remember the truth, but you can’t remember the lies’.”

Mr Taggart added: “His presence was a source of strength, and his commitment to his neighbours and his community remained steadfast until the end. He embodied the spirit of Ballymurphy – unbowed, dignified, and deeply compassionate.”

The chief executive of WAVE Trauma, Sandra Peake, said: “When there appeared to be little progress on the Injured Pension, Bobby succinctly pointed out that time was not on anyone’s side and the (victims) commissioner should post the cheque to Carnmoney Cemetery. He didn’t hold back.

Received injury pension

“We are therefore so glad that Bobby saw the Injured Pension in his lifetime – it should of course have been years earlier but nonetheless it was important validation and recognition of the work Bobby had undertaken with members of the group.”

Solicitor Padraig Ó Muirigh, who represented Mr Clarke in his civil case, said he had carried the “physical and emotional scars” from his shooting and the aftermath for the remainder of his life.

“But he never gave up his pursuit of justice for the Ballymurphy families and would be a pivotal witness in their inquest,” he said.

“Above all, he was a gentleman and I always looked forward to seeing him when he called to see us at our office. He always brought a smile and a story and he will be greatly missed by me and my staff.”

A death notice said Mr Clarke died on Sunday “seated next to his beloved wife, Maureen” at the nursing home.

New Brexit  poll shows increased majority in favour of rejoining EU

ANDREW MADDEN, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2026

A new poll has revealed 17% of people in Northern Ireland who backed Brexit would now vote to rejoin the European Union.

The 2016 referendum saw a 51.9% to 48.1% vote in the UK to exit the EU.

However, here 55.8% voted Remain, and 44.2% voted Leave. Since then there has been disruption to trade and significant political upheaval, particularly in Northern Ireland, given the border with the Republic.

The latest LucidTalk poll for the Belfast Telegraph shows some voters have changed their minds on Brexit.

Those surveyed were asked how they would vote if a referendum was held today. The majority (59%) said they would rejoin, 34% would stay out, and 6% said they weren't sure, but would vote. Just 1% said they wouldn't vote at all.

Ninety per cent of nationalist respondents said they would back rejoining, while 72% of unionists said they would stay out, and 93% of those constitutionally neutral or non-aligned said they would rejoin.

Support for rejoining was strongest among SDLP voters at 97%, compared to 91% of Sinn Féin voters and 94% of Alliance supporters.

Forty-three per cent of UUP voters would stay out, while 38% would rejoin, and 19% weren't sure.

For DUP voters, 80% polled would stay out of the EU, while 10% would rejoin, and 10% weren't sure. Eighty-nine per cent of TUV voters still support Brexit, while 7% back rejoining, and 4% weren't sure.

The results also show 17% of those who voted Leave in 2016 would now vote to rejoin the EU, while 8% of those who backed Brexit now say they are 'unsure' how they would vote today.

Seven per cent of those who voted Remain in 2016 said the UK should stay out of the EU, perhaps because they have changed their minds or, given the original decision was to leave, they feel the UK should honour this and 'make the best it'.

Northern Ireland had the lowest voter turnout of any UK region in 2016 at 62.7%. The latest survey reveals 74% of those who didn't vote — whether through choice or because they weren't on the voting register at the time — would rejoin the EU.

Looking at how people would vote today by age, 63% of those 18-34 said they would rejoin, with the strongest support for staying out being among those aged 55-64 (40%).

In 2021, in a bid to ease trading friction caused by Brexit, the UK and EU agreed the Northern Ireland Protocol, which introduced new checks on goods from Britain.

The protocol was subsequently amended by the Windsor Framework in 2023, and another agreement — Safeguarding the Union — was made the following year, further reducing paperwork and checks on goods

The changing Ancient Order of Hibernians: ‘Irish America has moved past nostalgia’

Mark Hennessy, Ireland and Britain Editor, Irish Times, April 21st, 2026

Though still green politically, Irish-America is moderating its attitudes on Irish unity

Kathleen Savage has, in her own words, mellowed. Now in her 80s, she remembers being in the kitchen in her family’s home in Lynn, north of Boston, the day after Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972.

“My father was reading the Boston Globe. I remember he put the newspaper down and said, ‘Oh, dear God, they’re killing our people’. And I said, ‘Dad, what is it?’. And he explained it to me’,” she says.

Savage has visited Ireland frequently in the decades since, while also becoming a prominent figure in the 1980s in Noraid, the US-based group condemned as an IRA fund-raiser by Dublin and London.

She has long backed the cause of Irish unity, but her focus today is on the need for agreement between all sides on a package that would improve the lives of everyone.

“We’re pushing for Irish unity, yes, but I believe people are more interested in the economics,“ she says. ”If the economics work, then people get what they want on pensions, healthcare and everything else.”

Sitting in a Derry hotel just yards from the city’s walls, she says unity now is “less about flags and four green fields” than about practical cooperation.

“Oh, yes, as far as I’m concerned. People have to live together. Everybody should be treated equal,” she says during a break in a 10-day fact-finding tour for a 43-strong Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH) delegation. Their trip was themed the ‘Freedom for All Ireland’ tour.

Does she believe her changed attitude reflects a broader shift in those among Irish-Americans?

“Well, it’s a critical change for me, I can tell you,” she says, with a dry chuckle.

“Because I came to the realisation that people have to live together. They have to accept where someone else is coming from. That everyone can keep their beliefs.”

Trenchant beliefs

Savage’s opinions reflected the views of others on the trip, though the AOH remains as trenchant as ever in its beliefs, especially about the British government’s handling of legacy cases.

The Irish-American group, who travelled from 14 US states, were told about the last minutes of Bellaghy GAA chairman Seán Brown, who was killed in May 1997.

Brown was kidnapped outside the club as he locked the gates and subsequently killed by loyalist paramilitaries, some of whom were suspected British agents.

“Yeah, that was very moving,” says Ed Campbell, now on his fifth AOH trip. “It’s a horrible thing. One minute, you’re walking along minding your own business. Then people beat the living daylights out of him and murder him. That’s just... I don’t understand how people can be so cruel. Especially [to] somebody like Seán. He never bothered anybody.”

The handling of legacy cases has to be faced, numerous members of the AOH delegation argue. They point to wholesale redactions in official documents about killings. This must not be allowed to stand, they say.

Great-grandparents

Back in Columbus, Ohio, Michael C Mentel is a Court of Appeals judge. His great-grandparents came from Thomas Court in Dublin’s Liberties.

Now in his 60s, Mentel illustrates the importance of Ireland for his family as he grew up.

“Every week we’d meet, all the family,” he says. “Three things were talked about. First, the grandkids, they had to be talked about. Then, local politics because my entire family was involved. And then Ireland, even before the Troubles and certainly afterwards.”

The opinions held were traditional and fervent. They were imbibed from his grandmother, Bernadette Moran, who was born in Perth, Scotland, after her parents were forced to leave Ireland for work.

“She was very staunch, very much so – it was about suppression, colonialism,“ Mentel says. ”A lot of that, obviously, came from the lives her father and mother faced even before emigrating to the US.”

Now living in Albany in New York state, Dolores Desch’s upbringing was also coloured by the history of Ireland. Her grandfather, Thomas Raleigh, was expelled to the US from Mullingar, Co Westmeath.

“He was arrested for throwing stones at British soldiers. They were going to deport him to Australia. He asked the judge, ‘please, deport me to New York – I have a brother there. Don’t send me to Australia’.”

Once in the US, he married a woman who was also from Mullingar, though they had not known each other in Ireland. “She was very anti-Brit,” says Desch. “Her brothers were deported, too.”

In time, her grandfather joined the US army in an effort to accelerate naturalisation, serving during the first World War after the US joined in 1917.

Desch continues: “When he came back, they married. They would fight over one thing – that the Brits weren’t so bad after all. My grandfather would say [that] because he had been in the foxholes together in France.

“They became brothers there. My grandmother never bought a dime of it.”

Desch grew up on Staten Island, New York, where the family helped out Noraid during the 1970s and later. Like the others, she sees the future as something requiring co-operation and agreement, though the Irish Government’s decision not to plan for unification is disappointing for many of them.

A decision to hold a unification referendum requires approval from the Northern Ireland Secretary of State. “So, that’s always the fly in the ointment, right?” she says.

The passage of time helps, Desch argues. “I always believe that as you distance yourself from the violence, the sadness of it, the hatred of it and start to build together, that unity is inevitable.”

Shared island

Taoiseach Micheál Martin’s Shared Island programme is applauded, but few, if anyone, in the AOH group believe it goes far enough.

Desch is more supportive than many. “You build on what you can, as it goes. That’s a great way to keep going, sharing hospitals, sharing infrastructure, all of that.

“The (Irish) Government has a lot of practical issues they’re trying to deal with and that’s quite understandable, but you always need to think about what the people, in their heart of hearts, want.”

In Mentel’s eyes, Irish-America has moved on, but it has not left its past behind. The AOH was founded in 1836, he notes, and one of its main purposes then was “freedom for all Ireland when it was doubted that any of it could be free”.

“We’re still following through on that. We hope to work with others to achieve it. But Irish America is not living in nostalgia – it has moved past that. It is sitting in 2026 and looking forward,” he says.

“Our role is to encourage, it’s not interference. It’s not just about singing Four Green Fields, and all that. There’s now a more sophisticated Irish America that’s yearning and listening.”

During the trip, tour leader Martin Galvin – the face of Noraid during The Troubles – walked towards the Guildhall for a presentation by the mayor of Derry, Sinn Féin’s Ruairí McHugh, to Kathleen Savage.

Galvin remains insistent that the opinions he held in the past were right, that they have been vindicated, though questions about the legacy questions facing the IRA are deflected.

The interests of everyone in each of the 32 counties will, he says, be better served by an Irish government in Dublin than having “the six counties’ interests decided to suit English interests at Westminster”.

DUP leader calls for a 'deep dive' on ex-Police Ombudsman appointment

BRETT CAMPBELL, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2026

ROBINSON CLAIMS SECURITY CONCERNS DURING ANDERSON VETTING IGNORED

The Prime Minister has been urged to include a “deep dive” into the appointment process of Northern Ireland's former Police Ombudsman, Marie Anderson, in a review of Government vetting procedures.

DUP leader Gavin Robinson claimed security information unearthed during the vetting of Ms Anderson in July 2019 was ignored, as he questioned Sir Keir Starmer in the House of Commons yesterday.

It comes after MPs grilled the Prime Minister for more than two hours as he again acknowledged he made the wrong call in appointing Lord Mandelson as US ambassador in December 2024, but denied misleading MPs — even unintentionally.

Sir Keir blamed officials in the Foreign Office for deliberately and repeatedly withholding the fact that the Labour peer initially failed security vetting for the high-profile job.

The former Northern Ireland Secretary was sacked last September amid revelations about the extent of his relationship with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The Prime Minister insisted he had not misled the Commons when he previously told MPs “full due process” was followed during the appointment and said he should have corrected the record last week “at the earliest opportunity”.

During the row, Mr Robinson told MPs that Northern Ireland's now-retired police watchdog Ms Anderson had also been granted security clearance, “despite Security Service concerns” which “continue to this day”.

“The Prime Minister knows he is the main character in an ongoing national scandal,” Mr Robinson said.

“Given all the blame apportioned in his statement, it is incredible that only one person has lost their position.

“Does the Prime Minister also recognise that it is incredible to learn that in Northern Ireland a political appointment was made following the refusal to clear an individual for security access; that they have continued in their post and engaged on issues connected with the legacy of our troubled past with full security clearance, despite security service concerns; and that they continue to this day?”

The East Belfast MP also called on the PM to examine the issue as part of a review to be carried out by Sir Adrian Fulford. “Will he ensure it includes, within its terms of reference or separately, a deep dive into the appointment of Marie Anderson, the Northern Ireland Police Ombudsman?” he asked.

‘Why was she appointed?’

“Why she was appointed, why the security information was ignored, and how that can be the case?”

Sir Keir agreed to the request saying: “I will ensure that the review covers all relevant issues and material, and I will take into account what the right honourable gentleman has just said.”

The appointment of the Police Ombudsman normally falls under the remit of the Department of Justice. However, as a result of Stormont's collapse in January 2017 to January 2020, responsibility fell to then Secretary of State, Karen Bradley, just before she was sacked by Boris Johnson, having held the post for 18 months.

As Ombudsman, Ms Anderson was required to investigate complaints against police officers, including legacy cases. She was also privy to highly sensitive information. She retired at the end of 2025.

In response to Mr Robinson's statement, a Northern Ireland Office spokesperson said: “We are looking into our records and will respond as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has also confirmed this matter will be included as part of the Fulford review.”

Earlier yesterday, DUP MLA Trevor Clarke told MLAs that concerns had been raised about the “integrity” of vetting processes in the appointment of Ms Anderson, who was “nevertheless deemed appointable and subsequently appointed to the role, which carries access to very highly-sensitive information regarding senior policing personnel, something which alarmed us then and should alarm us more now”.

“If such claims are accurate, they raise deep and serious concerns about the robustness of the vetting process, the safeguards that were put in place at the time and the decision-making that led to her particular appointment.” Mr Clarke said it was “essential that full transparency is provided on this matter”.

TUV leader Jim Allister said his party had raised concerns over the Ombudsman's security vetting last year in a letter to the Security Minister.

“The response failed to answer those basic questions. Instead, responsibility was passed elsewhere — with the minister stating that departments determine who requires clearance, and that responsibility in this case rests with Northern Ireland departments,” he said.

‘Not good enough’

“Timothy Gaston subsequently raised the matter with the First and Deputy First Minister, and with the Justice Minister. Their responses provided no clarity.

“The position is now clear. Despite repeated questions, no authority has confirmed as a matter of fact that the Police Ombudsman holds active Developed Vetting — only that it is said to be a condition of appointment.

“That is not good enough for a role with access to sensitive policing information and material which may engage national security considerations.”

Unionist parties previously called for her resignation after a file of evidence was sent to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) following an alleged domestic incident at her home in 2023.

The PPS later decided not to prosecute Ms Anderson, saying there was “no reasonable prospect of conviction for any criminal offence”.

The Department of Justice and Police Ombudsman have been approached for comment.

Ex-soldiers facing charges over shootings say they were ‘fired upon’

ALAN ERWIN, Irish News, April 21st, 2026

FORMER British Army soldiers charged over historical shootings in Belfast allegedly came under fire in an area where IRA men may have been present, a court heard yesterday.

Counsel for one of three retired soldiers facing criminal proceedings also claimed a potential breach of a previous promise he would not be prosecuted.

The ex-servicemen were all members of an undercover unit known as the Military Reaction Force (MRF) which operated in the city at the start of the Troubles.

They have now been charged in connection with two incidents back in May 1972.

Patrick McVeigh, a father of six, was shot at the junction of Finaghy Road North and Riverdale Park South.

He had reportedly stopped to speak to those manning a civilian checkpoint when the gunfire began. Four other men were shot and wounded in the incident.

One of the defendants, referred to as Soldier F, is accused of murdering Mr McVeigh and four counts of attempted murder.

He has been assessed as being medically unfit to participate in a preliminary pre-trial process.

Two of his former military colleagues, Soldiers B and D, are jointly charged with the attempted murder of two other men at Slieve Gallion Drive in west Belfast.

Public Prosecution Service (PPS) representatives took the decision in 2024 after examining evidence gathered during a police investigation into MRF activity.

Members of the plain-clothes army unit used unmarked cars to patrol parts of the city before being disbanded in 1973 amid controversy over its tactics.

The case against the veterans remains at an early stage amid ongoing debate about whether they should stand trial.

Lawyers representing Soldier B have urged the PPS to review the decision based on the contents of disclosed documents.

At Belfast Magistrates’ Court today Mark Mulholland KC indicated the charges related to claims of shooting at a barricade in the Slieve Gallion Drive area.

“The case made at interviews by several of the accused was they were fired upon,” he said.

“An Armalite rifle had been found shortly after this incident adjacent to this barricade.”

The barrister went on: “There is now a reference to up to five IRA individuals either (being) there at the time or shortly thereafter.”

Claiming Soldier B previously received a letter stating he would not be prosecuted, he confirmed plans to attempt to have the case stayed.

“At one point we were (told) ‘there are two different incidents and that non-prosecution letter related to one of two, not to both’,” the barrister added.

“This is all to ground a stay application we plan to bring before this court on grounds of breach of promise and abuse of process.”

Counsel for Soldiers D and F, Ian Turkington KC, also submitted that the proceedings against them should be withdrawn.

A PPS barrister indicated that a future response will be made to some of the issues raised on behalf of Soldier B.

“We don’t, of course, accept everything… in the points made,” he added.

Deputy District Judge Liam McStay adjourned the case until May 18.

Sister of Troubles victim among 10 people to lodge complaints over relatives' group

ANGELA DAVISON, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2028

WOMAN BLOCKED FROM RELATIVES FOR JUSTICE'S SERVICES AFTER FALLING-OUT

A woman who campaigned for a victims' group for 27 years has lodged a complaint against it to the charities watchdog.

It is one of 10 complaints submitted to the Charity Commission about Relatives For Justice.

Tina Barrett says she initially found refuge in the charity in the years following the shooting dead of her teenage brother Danny in the garden of their Ardoyne home in 1981 by the Army.

But last year she was blocked from using Relatives For Justice services after a breakdown in the relationship.

She said the charity had agreed to help her produce a publication about her brother's killing ahead of what would have been his 60th birthday in 2025.

However, his inquest papers were never picked up, despite promises by Relatives For Justice to do so.

A last minute invitation to an event in February 2023, when she had been told she “had been missed off the mailing list”, further fuelled feelings of being shunned. These increased when she realised she hadn't been invited to a follow-up.

Still keen to get the booklet published, Tina went to the charity's chief Mark Thompson and suggested doing a co-commission with another non-governmental organisation (NGO).

She said Mr Thompson agreed, so she handed over the inquest papers to the NGO at a legacy event on May 1, 2025.

No explanation

A few months on, however, Tina claims she was told at a meeting with Relatives For Justice that it wouldn't work with the NGO on the project, and no explanation was given.

A subsequent phone call about the project became heated and she admitted using strong language.

Despite that, she said the pair engaged amicably at an event the following month.

Last October, she submitted a complaint to the board of Relatives For Justice about the delays with the booklet and other concerns she had.

Three days later she received an email from chair Bill Rolston informing her that she had been removed from Relatives For Justice services.

Mr Rolston stated he had spoken to both Mr Thompson and (deputy director) Ms (Andree) Murphy about the concerns she had raised, concluding that there was “little of any substance involved”.

He admitted there were some delays and crossed wires, “but nothing to convince me that anyone sought to marginalise or ignore you”, and concluded that Relatives For Justice had no reason to apologise.

He also said he was shocked to hear staff had experienced “verbal abuse”, saying her actions had breached the charity's “zero tolerance” policy.

Mr Rolston added: “With regret, we are informing you that your ability to use our services will now come to an end. We cannot spend more time trying to fix the unfixable.”

He said Relatives For Justice would contact the Victims and Survivors Service so Tina could continue to receive support.

She said at no time was she invited to discuss the issues by Mr Rolston.

She added: “I was so confused because the only exchange I had was with Mark Thompson, yet he had greeted me so warmly at the tribute event and I felt reassured there were no issues.”

Then she received a package containing sensitive material, including her brother's legacy paperwork.

Although there was nothing improper about this, she was taken aback that she was not informed in advance the material was being sent to her, adding she hadn't provided consent to receive the intimate information.

She said: “Relatives For Justice knew what Danny meant to me. I struggled even hearing his name. Why did they send me this material without warning?”

The paperwork also contained highly sensitive medical information about another Relatives For Justice service user; this has been reported to the relevant authorities.

Tina added: “I was so upset. I recall standing alongside my daddy in his decades' long struggle for truth, justice and accountability against the State. I never in my wildest dreams envisaged having to seek such credentials from the victims' organisation my family held in the highest of esteem.”

When Relatives For Justice was contacted for a response, its solicitor disputed the accuracy of Tina's claims and asserted the charity follows robust safeguarding and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) policies, and stated her complaint to the Charity Commission was not upheld.

The Charity Commission, when asked for an update on the complaints concerning Relatives For Justice, said it referred some concerns to other regulators, that other matters were for the charity to resolve with support from the commission, and that it had issued Relatives For Justice with self-regulatory guidance.

The watchdog indicated that it had not disclosed details of the complaints received or identities of the complainants to Relatives For Justice, only the general nature of the concerns.

Danny Barrett's publication was produced by the Pat Finucane Centre in September 2025.

The decade after Brexit has clearly impacted unionist psyche

BILL WHITE, CEO Lucid Talk, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2026

Years later, voters here remain deeply divided on Brexit — although young people are shifting the dial. It is almost a decade since one of the most seismic political events of recent times, when the UK voted to leave the European Union.

The Brexit referendum triggered major change, with David Cameron resigning, his successor Theresa May struggling to negotiate a withdrawal deal from Europe, and, in turn, ushering in Boris Johnson as Prime Minister.

In Northern Ireland, which opted as a region to remain in the EU, divisions linger on. We asked if there was another EU referendum today, how people here would vote.

What we found was a comfortable majority (59%) would now opt to rejoin the EU. Meanwhile, 34% said 'stay out', and 7% were 'don't know' or 'wouldn't vote'.

Modelling this on the June 2016 referendum (excluding the 'don't knows' and 'wouldn't votes'), if a vote were held today it would be 63% in favour of rejoining to 37% staying out.

In 2016, 56% of people in Northern Ireland opted for Remain, and 44% voted Leave. So the pro-EU side has gone up from 56% to 63%.

Two factors have caused this change.

Firstly, 17% of those who voted Leave in 2016 would now vote to rejoin the EU (and 8% of those who voted Leave now say they are 'unsure', but they would vote in a new referendum).

Secondly, 74% of non-voters in the 2016 referendum would now vote to rejoin the EU; these are mostly younger (18-30) age-group voters who weren't of voting age in 2016.

Our survey also analysed the result by voter base. Not surprisingly, 90% of nationalist/republican voters and 93% of the Alliance/Green/Others would vote to rejoin.

Shifting Unionist opinion

The unionist analysis is more interesting. Would all the difficulties and controversies surrounding the Irish Sea border impact the way unionists would vote in a new EU referendum?

We found 72% of unionists would vote to stay out, but crucially 17% would vote to rejoin, and a sizeable 11% are 'don't know/not sure', but would vote.

Digging in to the make-up of unionists we see that although DUP and TUV voters are overwhelmingly in favour of staying out, the UUP voter base is split on the issue.

Some 38% of UUP voters said they would vote to rejoin the EU, while 43% would vote to stay out, and a significant 19% of UUP voters are undecided, but say they would vote in a new referendum.

There is a subtle point here, in that we're not comparing 'like-with-like'.

Having a new referendum about rejoining the EU, now that the UK has left, is different from the situation in 2016 when the UK was still a EU member.

Indeed, we see that 7% of those who voted Remain in 2016 say the UK should now stay out of the EU. This may not mean they have changed their minds or regret voting Remain, but perhaps they just think that as the 2016 decision was to leave, the UK should now stay out and make the best of it. Perhaps these people, having experienced the process of the UK leaving the EU and how difficult that was, may not relish trying to reverse it all. So what can we say about the 'extra' 7% of pro-EU converts compared to the 2016 result?

The vast majority of those aged 8-18 a decade ago and are now aged 18+, would vote to rejoin the EU in a new referendum.

In addition, the vast majority of the 17% converts to the pro-EU side (those who voted Leave in 2016 but would now vote to rejoin the EU), come from the unionist community, with most of this unionist 'change-of-mind' coming from UUP voters. However, 7% of TUV voters and 10% of DUP voters would now also vote to rejoin the EU.

The turmoil and controversy surrounding the Irish Sea Border has certainly impacted the unionist psyche and resulted in a notable number of unionist Leave to Remain converts.

One thing is clear. A decade on, the Brexit debate is far from settled in the minds of voters.

Two-thirds of voters don't support MLA pay rise

SUZANNE BREEN, POLITICAL EDITOR, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2026

Almost two in three voters don't support MLAs earning more than £60,000 a year, according to a new LucidTalk poll.

From April 1, Assembly members' salaries were raised by 27% to £67,200. The TUV and People Before Profit were the only parties to robustly oppose the rise.

We asked the public what wage they believed Stormont's 90 MLAs deserved. One in 20 people think it should be under £30,000, with one in four saying £30,00-£50,000.

The most popular choice is for salaries to have stayed where they were at £53,000: a third of voters believe £50,00-£60,000 is fair.

One in four think £60,000-70,000 is appropriate, while one in 10 say MLAs deserve more than £70,000. Northern Ireland MPs who sit at Westminster earn £94,000.

Sinn Féin's seven abstentionist MPs aren't entitled to that salary but can still claim allowances for staff, offices and travel.

Unionists are keenest on lower pay for MLAs: some 16% believe their Stormont representatives should receive under £40,000, compared to 11% of nationalists and 6% of Alliance/Green voters.

MLAs' previous £53,000 salary was supported by 44% of Alliance/Green voters, 32% of unionists and 31% of nationalists.

‘Could have funded £300 energy payment for 4,000 struggling households’

The new £67,200 salary was most popular with SDLP supporters (40%), followed by those who vote Ulster Unionists (38%), DUP (30%), Sinn Féin and Alliance (28%), People Before Profit (17%) and TUV (10%).

Paying MLAs over £70,000 was most popular with SDLP (15%) and DUP (13%) voters, and least popular with UUP (4%) and TUV (5%) ones. Indeed, three in 10 TUV voters would pay Assembly members less than £40,000. Whereas half of middle-class voters believe they deserve over £60,000, only three in 10 working-class voters agree.

The Independent Remuneration Board (IRB) proposed the £14,000 uplift for MLAs in February, which was rubber-stamped despite an “overwhelmingly critical” public response.

IRB chair Alan Lowry said it had to balance several issues, including “the importance and complexity of an MLA's role, the financial viability of a political career, and the levels of pay for political representatives in peer parliaments”.

He added: “It is clear the public have been frustrated by the 'stop-start' nature of government that has impacted the political institutions in recent years.

“It is clear the system for considering MLA pay hasn't been working properly for 10 years, and any delay would only further exacerbate the situation.

“Having taken this corrective measure, we can now move forward to a situation where any changes to MLA pay levels are likely to be more in line with normal inflationary trends.”

The TUV's Timothy Gaston said: “As families across Northern Ireland struggle to pay heating bills and our roads are full of potholes, Stormont politicians have somehow found millions to increase their own salaries.”

People Before Profit's Gerry Carroll said: “If Executive parties and the SDLP truly believed that MLA pay should be benchmarked to public sector pay, they would have supported my amendment to limit pay increases to CPI inflation — but they voted this down.

 “The £1.2m being used to line MLAs' pockets could have been used to fund a £300 energy payment for 4,000 struggling households. This is a clear indication of Stormont's political priorities and will be remembered at the ballot box in 2027.”

In what other job can you publicly fail for years and still get a pay rise?

AOIFE MOORE, Irish News, April 21st, 2026

POLITICS is probably the only job where you can publicly fail for years but return every five years after a review.

The review will point out that you have failed in multiple areas, you’ve gone back on some of your most dearly-held beliefs, and you did almost nothing you said you’d do.

Most are returned to the job. You might even get promoted, and you’re almost guaranteed a pay rise.

A lot of democratic societies are like this, from the House of Representatives to the House of Commons.

Failure often presents with a nice suit and no sense of shame.

For Stormont, we’d have to invent a new word for failure.

Although the politicians shoulder much of the blame, the institution itself is set up to fail.

We learned this month that the north “raises the lowest level of revenue in the developed world compared to other jurisdictions”, with the Treasury providing 95% of the Executive’s budget.

Forget pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, we’ve not even got socks on. Stood barefoot, with our hands out to our coloniser, begging for scraps off Westminster’s table.

The same document highlighted how the devolved administration is almost £1bn worse off in the current financial year due to a shortfall of £400m and the end of other funding streams.

Added to this, Stormont has yet to secure or implement any regionalised revenue-raising powers like Wales or Scotland, our siblings in this union of misery, which both vary rates of income tax.

To be fair, gaining new powers seems a stretch when the Executive can barely pass its own legislation as it is.

There are about 70 sitting days between now and the next election.

Increasing their own wages

In the two years they’ve been back in the big house, they’ve passed 12 bills, including five budget bills and fast-tracking legislation to increase their own wage from £53,000 to £67,200.

Too busy arguing in the chamber to get anything done other than increase their own pay, apparently.

Different departments are seeking to introduce 21 pieces of legislation before elections next year, in addition to the 15 Executive-sponsored bills currently being considered by MLAs.

I am not a fortune teller, but I am certain these will not all be passed.

Now the world is trying to reckon with a new war in the Middle East, driven by a babbling pensioner found liable of sexually abusing a journalist, who bombed Iran to distract from his presence in the Epstein files, Stormont’s ineptitude is further laid bare, with very little help available from Belfast to support those struggling with fuel costs.

We all know the words to this one, it’s one of our greatest hits: The glorified city council on a hill, with no fiscal power, ruled over by a number of privately-educated individuals who wouldn’t be able to pick our ministers out of a crowd of 10.

Stormont doesn’t work. For housing, health, poverty, domestic violence. It doesn’t help teachers or pensioners or children in care.

It’s probably detrimental to cross-community solidarity and for the mental health of those who have to work there.

This isn’t new, we all know it. You have to ask why those employed there are so dedicated to keeping it?

Sinn Féin and the DUP have balked at the notion of reform in Stormont in different ways.

It can’t be good for anyone to consistently come to work and be told you’re failing at every level. They seem to be managing all right though.

If unity is a no-go for now, as long as ‘Fianna Gael’ remain in power in Dublin, something has to change.

Any politician who campaigns on Stormont’s wins or continuing the status quo in the next election should be laughed out of their job.

Every party should lay out their actionable plan to reform the institution, get bills passed and do whatever they can with the little they have.

They probably won’t though. They’ll still be elected.

And as sure as night follows day, their pay will still go up.

COMMENT, Irish News Letters: Why being most popular leader isn’t enough in Northern Ireland politics

THE latest polling from Lucid-Talk produced a result that, on the face of it, should matter more than it appears to. Claire Hanna emerged as the most popular political leader.

In most political systems that would be read as momentum. It would suggest a party on the rise, or at least one beginning to shift the dial in its favour. But that is not what is happening here.

I know Claire. I like her. I rate her, both as a politician and as a person. She is thoughtful, credible and serious about public service. Her polling numbers reflect that. They tell us that a significant proportion of the public see her as capable, reasonable and worth listening to.

And yet, that personal approval has not translated into increased support for the Social Democratic and Labour Party.

That gap tells us something important about how politics works in Northern Ireland.

Voters are not simply choosing between personalities. They are making judgments about influence and about who they believe will actually shape outcomes.

In that context, personal regard can be outweighed by harder calculations. A voter may rate Claire Hanna highly and still conclude that their vote is better placed elsewhere – not out of hostility to the SDLP, but out of a sense that other parties are more likely to carry weight.

Within nationalism, that dynamic continues to favour Sinn Féin. It is seen, for better or worse, as the party with momentum and a credible claim to leadership. For some voters, that matters more than alignment on every issue.

At the same time, the space the SDLP once occupied has become less clearly defined. The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland has established itself as a home for voters drawn to a more cross-community and pragmatic approach, leaving the SDLP squeezed between competing pulls.

Overlay all of that with the way the Northern Ireland Executive operates, and the challenge becomes clearer. This is not a system that rewards individual leadership in the way a conventional parliamentary model might. It reinforces blocs, prioritises numbers and encourages voters to think in terms of who will be in the room when decisions are made, rather than who they would most like to see there.

In that environment, it is entirely possible for a leader to be widely respected without their party gaining ground. Respect, in effect, becomes a ceiling. The SDLP can be seen as constructive and principled, but not decisive in shaping outcomes. That is a difficult position to occupy and it raises questions that go beyond any individual leader. If the party’s leader is viewed positively, but that sentiment is not converting into electoral support, then the issue lies in how the party is perceived in terms of purpose and impact.

Northern Ireland politics has never been simply about who people like. It is about who they believe will matter.

And until that changes, being the most popular leader may say a great deal about the individual but not nearly enough about the party they lead.

EUGENE REID Ballymena, Co Antrim, Irish News, April 21st, 2026

Minister’s vow of 'no construction of A5 road before 2027' over landowners concerns

BRETT CAMPBELL, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2026

Stormont's Infrastructure Minister has promised not to proceed with construction of the new A5 road before 2027 during a meeting with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), regardless of the outcome of an ongoing legal battle.

Liz Kimmins met with the union's deputy president John McLenaghan and its policy officer Daniel Toft yesterday, when they raised ongoing concerns with the £1.7bn project — including issues relating to compulsory land purchases.

More than 50 people have been killed on the road since a dual carriageway scheme was first announced in 2007 before encountering a series of obstacles, including challenges by a group of residents, landowners and farmers.

In a statement issued following their ministerial meeting, the UFU welcomed Ms Kimmins' commitment that no work on the A5 Western Transport Corridor will begin before January 1 “in any event” which it said provides “much needed certainty for affected landowners”.

Mr McLenaghan hailed the “positive and important step forward” which comes amid an ongoing case in the Court of Appeal which he claimed has “created real difficulty in planning and managing farm businesses”.

He said the promise provides a degree of certainty that the union has been lobbying for and will allow members “to make informed decisions, including in relation to their farm support applications”.

“The UFU has been actively campaigning on the issue of the A5, highlighting the mental impact of the prolonged uncertainty on farm businesses, concerns around land valuation, and the need for a fair and transparent approach to compensation,” Mr McLenaghan continued.

“The union raised these issues directly with the minister during the meeting, stressing that while the commitment on timing is welcome, significant concerns remain.

“While a date in the calendar is welcomed, it does not resolve the wider issues facing landowners.

“Concerns around land values, compensation and the overall project remain, and these must be addressed as a matter of urgency. The UFU continues to lobby the Minister and DfI officials on the urgent matter of land values.”

The union officials also met with DUP MLA Deborah Erskine and her party colleague Tom Buchanan to press for “coordinated political support” and vesting reform.

The UFU reiterated its view that the legal process which allows the Government to acquire land for projects deemed to be in the public interest “does not work for farmers and requires meaningful change”.

Earlier this year Mr McLenaghan warned farmers are being “left in the lurch” and unfairly compensated when land is seized, and demanded a major overhaul of the system.

He stressed that farmers do not oppose major infrastructure projects in principle, but want fairness and respect adding that compensation must reflect “the real loss and value of the land and ability to replace land”.

Conflicting messages

DfI is currently appealing a judgment which blocked the upgrade of the 58-mile major arterial route originally approved by Stormont ministers in October 2024.

Last year a High Court judge ruled that the plans failed to comply with climate change targets. Campaigners backing the road have been frustrated by multiple setbacks. The head of the A5 Enough is Enough group said activists had already accepted there would “be no diggers on the ground this year”.

But Niall McKenna said they do anticipate a positive legal outcome by the autumn and the commencement of construction work in early 2027.

“We encourage DfI to engage with the UFU,” he said.

“There is a feeling that they weren't listened to and they need certainty — we hope this gives them a little bit of comfort.

“We were devastated by the High Court judgment, but we are optimistic and hopeful about the appeal.

“In that case we expect work to commence early next year.” 

A DfI spokesperson said Ms Kimmins welcomed the opportunity to meet with the UFU to discuss concerns and pressures facing the farming industry, including issues relating to the ongoing A5 legal process.

“The minister has agreed that, regardless of whether the department wins or loses the current appeal, the Department will not enter the vested lands for the purposes of major construction activities before 1 January 2027.

“This timescale recognises the duration of the legal proceedings and the further governance and contractual steps that would be required before construction could properly commence in the event of a successful outcome.

“This commitment is intended to provide landowners with greater clarity and reassurance during this period of uncertainty and a letter informing all landowners is being issued.

“Vesting reform is a wider policy issue outside the responsibility of the department.”

DfI orders end to night-time dredging at Lough Neagh

TOMMY GREENE, Belfast Telegraph, April 21st, 2026

CONCERNS PRACTICE IS HAVING A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY AND HABITATS

A Stormont department is attempting to clamp down after an alleged past breach of planning law linked to Lough Neagh sand dredging.

It's after new research led by Dr Neil Reid of Queen's University Belfast found commercial dredging is “likely negatively affecting water quality, habitats, and biodiversity”.

The Department for Infrastructure (DfI) ordered that, as of April 10, extraction of the lough bed past daylight hours and outside two designated zones would cease. It, however, told the Belfast Telegraph the alleged breach was “historical”, amid a long-running row over the lough bed sand extraction.

The 12th Earl of Shaftesbury, whose company the Shaftesbury Estate authorises a handful of companies to extract sand from the bed of Lough Neagh, told the Belfast Telegraph that the DfI's notices “do not relate to those authorised activities”.

DfI officials have sent a letter to interested parties in an ongoing dispute over the dredging.

It explains that the department is serving five licensed firms with an Enforcement Notice “because it appears that there has been a breach of planning control”.

The Enforcement Notice took effect on April 10, although campaigners argue a more stringent measure — a planning intervention known as a Stop Notice — would be needed to curb any alleged breaches.

The DfI regulates this industrial-scale suction dredging of sand from the lough bed. Prior to 2021, the extraction lacked key consents, including planning permission.

In 2020, a handful of companies were permitted to extract up to 1.5 million tonnes of glacial lough bed sand annually within two zones totalling 3.1 sq km in surface area.

Five companies comprising the Lough Neagh Sand Traders (LNST) collective sought to relax their first ever planning regulations — restrictions on barge size and extraction outside of daylight hours — just 10 months after they were introduced.

This effort was challenged by Mid-Ulster Council in September of that year.

The bid was referred by councillors to a regional planning inquiry, but has yet to be heard. Pádraig Mac Niocaill, a campaigner with the Save Lough Neagh pressure group, is demanding the extraction be halted temporarily so as to fully assess impacts and to allow the lough's ecosystem to recover.

“At a time when Lough Neagh is in crisis, eel fishing brought to a halt, and fish habitats devastated, to have any mining of the lough bed at this time is irresponsible,” he said.

“We reiterate our campaign demands for an immediate moratorium on sand extraction. The only adequate further enforcement at this time of environmental crisis would be a complete stop to the dredging of our finite glacial Lough Neagh sand.”

The extraction and concrete production companies, meanwhile, say their commercial activity is causing no harm to the lough's delicate ecology.

Conor Jordan, a key figure within the LNST and a senior member of the Lough Neagh Partnership, was contacted for comment.

Mr Jordan did not respond, but lawyers acting for the LNST said the DfI's notices do “not relate to any alleged new breach of planning control”.

It emerged in 2023 that there were suspected or alleged breaches thought to be occurring regularly — with around 50 recorded over the first two years of planning controls.

The DfI said that in 2023, no sanctions had been brought against the licensed firms as a result of alleged breaches of their conditions.

It did not respond to queries from the Belfast Telegraph as to whether that has changed since then.

Unauthorised extraction continues

Legal proceedings are, separately, being brought against individuals who have not sought authorisation from the earl's company for sand extraction at Lough Neagh.

In summer 2024, Agriculture and Environment Minister Andrew Muir ordered a review of the environmental impacts this extraction activity is believed to cause. A report on the first phase of this exercise, part of the Executive's Lough Neagh Action Plan, is currently being awaited.

A DfI spokesperson said: “Current operations associated with the commercial dredging of sand on Lough Neagh by the Lough Neagh Sand Traders (LNST) benefit from planning permission, granted in January 2021.

“The activities subject to the enforcement notice served on February 4, 2026 are historical in nature.”

The Earl of Shaftesbury, Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, whose estate company receives royalty payments from the dredging firms, echoed the DfI's comment.

He said: “There is an extant planning permission in place for the extraction of minerals from specific areas of the lough, subject to planning conditions and a planning agreement that governs the nature of the operations and the locations where material may be extracted and processed.

“That permission was granted following consideration of an environmental impact assessment through a public inquiry process.

“The notices served by the department do not relate to those authorised activities.”

According to the DfI's letter, these alleged breaches concern the “unauthorised working of materials... carried out without the grant of planning permission required” across “land at Lough Neagh, Co Antrim, Co Armagh, Co Down, Co Tyrone and Co Londonderry”.