Reconciliation and the Legacy Act: A Human Rights Perspective
Professor Anna Bryson and Professor Louise Mallinder
In February 2024, the High Court in Belfast declared in Dillon and others that fundamental aspects of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 are unlawful and should be disapplied. Most notably, it ruled that provisions for immunity from prosecution for serious violations are incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.
We are focusing on an aspect of the ruling that has received much less attention, namely the extent to which this Act can deliver on its principle objective which is to ‘promote reconciliation’. Although the High Court concluded, rightly in our view, that ‘there is no evidence that the granting of immunity under the 2023 Act will in any way contribute to reconciliation in Northern Ireland’ and that ‘indeed, the evidence is to the contrary’ [187], it did not address the extent to which other aspects of the Act are likely to do so. In this article, we draw on academic and judicial writings to argue that the legal, political and institutional processes underpinning the Northern Ireland Legacy Act are not founded on a transparent and human rights-based understanding of reconciliation. In particular, we note that: the weakness of the truth recovery functions of the Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery inhibits its ability to contribute to reconciliation; the Legacy Act is opposed by almost all key stakeholders, including victims; and the proposed memorialisation work is deliberately designed to privilege a particular narrative of the conflict.
How do Academics Understand Reconciliation?
Reconciliation is commonly understood by scholars from multiple disciplines as a process that is intended to improve relationships between specific actors (such as individual victims and perpetrators, antagonistic communities, people and the state or opposing states). For some, reconciliation simply connotes the absence of physical violence but most favour ‘thicker’ conceptualizations that emphasize (re-)building peaceful relationships based on mutual respect, co-operation, and trust. This generally involves creating spaces where individuals, communities and institutions can listen to and respect the narratives of others. This dialogue is backward- and forward-looking - identifying how and why relationships have broken down and the steps necessary to redress harms and prevent repetition. Such processes will ideally help to: reduce stereotyping and prejudice; increase political tolerance and support for human rights principles; and extend the legitimacy of democratic institutions.
How do International Courts Understand Reconciliation?
Reconciliation has frequently been referenced by international human rights courts and criminal tribunals. Indeed, the International Criminal Court has repeatedly cited the promotion of reconciliation as one of its objectives. The European Court of Human Rights mentioned reconciliation when considering the legality of amnesties in its Margus and Ould Dah cases but did not define the term. Reviewing the case law of international criminal tribunals and the Inter-American Court and Commission, it is nonetheless possible to pinpoint key elements of a human rights compliant approach to reconciliation. These closely align with core transitional justice principles concerning victim-centricity; inclusivity and gender sensitivity; and the need to address the root causes of mass violence.
International courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of truth and acknowledgment for reconciliation. The Inter-American Commission has argued that ‘truth is a precondition to reconciliation’ [136]. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia when mitigating sentences after guilty pleas argued that ‘truth cleanses ethnic and religious hatreds’ [21] and ‘provides closure to victims’ [111]. It also contended that the revelation of truth by offenders publicly condemns the crimes [76] and reduces the possibility of revisionist denial narratives [260].
They have also emphasized that reconciliation should entail victim-centred approaches that seek to remedy the harm experienced by victims and to ‘rebuild trust among citizens and between citizens and public institutions’ [182]. Thus, for international courts, reconciliation is associated with repairing harms experienced by victims and rebuilding relationships between antagonistic groups and between citizens and the state.
Several of these decisions indicate the importance of symbolic and material reparations to reconciliation. For example, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights argued that an amnesty law ‘disregards the legitimate rights of the victims’ next-of-kin to reparation. Such a measure will do nothing to further reconciliation’ [215].
These decisions indicate that human rights centred approaches to reconciliation must seek to encourage offenders to disclose the truth about their actions and acknowledge their wrongdoing and provide reparations to individuals and communities to repair the harm and prevent repetition.
Minimum Standards for Reconciliation
With respect to reparations, the International Criminal Court argued that they should be ‘culturally and locally relevant’ [182], should have community involvement [188], address the root causes of the violence [218], and be gender sensitive [188]. They should also refrain from favouring one side of the conflict over another [183]. In addition, the Inter-American Commission observed that: ‘No state policy on ... reconciliation can omit the victims, without seriously violating their international human rights obligations’. These decisions emphasize that measures to promote reconciliation should be developed and implemented with the involvement of victims and affected communities, including women, and that they should be oriented to addressing the needs of the affected society rather than serving other political or policy objectives.
The fact that many judicial discussions of reconciliation have come from sentencing judgments following criminal convictions indicates that prosecutions are not viewed as inherently in tension with reconciliation, as suggested by the UK government. In addition, these sentencing decisions follow guilty pleas based on public, often televised, Court proceedings. Disclosures of truth and acknowledgement of guilt were not given anonymously or confidentially. Nor was the substance of the truth they disclosed kept secret. Furthermore, offenders’ disclosures were not taken at their word. Instead, the ICTY expressly connected reconciliation to facts being proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the capacity of offenders’ public admissions to establish socially accepted truths about past violence.
Why the Legacy Act will not contribute to Reconciliation
Weakness of the Truth Recovery Functions
The Legacy Act will permanently close existing police and judge-led investigations into offences connected to the armed conflict in Northern Ireland from 1966 to 1998 (including criminal investigations, civil litigation, coroners’ inquests, Police Ombudsman Investigations, and public inquiries). In their place, a new Independent Commission on Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) has been established to review Troubles related-violence that resulted in deaths or serious physical and mental injuries. The reviews are primarily geared towards producing reports for bereaved families. As reviews are a lighter-touch process than criminal investigations, the Council of Europe Human Rights Commissioner and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission have raised concerns that they do not equate to thorough and effective investigations.
The ICRIR is also controversially tasked with granting immunity to persons who have committed serious Troubles-related crimes, including killings and torture. This immunity is conditional on the offender disclosing information that is ‘true to the best’ of the person’s ‘knowledge and belief’. This is a very low and subjective bar, particularly since the disclosed information can be details that the person has previously disclosed. The ICRIR has discretion over whether to conduct a review relating to the disclosed information. If there is no review, it seems unlikely that the disclosed information will contribute to the type of societal truth that the international courts associate with reconciliation.
Opposition of Victims and Wider Society
In Dillon and others, the Court observed that there is ‘widespread opposition to these proposals’ and ‘the measures are not supported by groups who represent victims’ [501]. They have indeed been opposed in the strongest possible terms by victims and survivors groups, all of the Northern Ireland political parties, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Irish government, the Council of Europe, the United Nations and leading members of the US Congress. This resounding local and international opposition and the fact that the legislation was introduced unilaterally make it impossible to see how the Legacy Act can be framed as resulting from the type of dialogic and victim-centred process that international courts argue is essential for reconciliation.
Rewriting History
Criticism of the government’s motivation in bringing forward this legislation has focused on the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s pledge that: ‘no longer will our veterans be hounded and hauled in for questioning about events that happened decades ago.’ What has attracted less attention is the desire to ‘halt the rewriting of history’. Writing in Conservative Home, Brandon Lewis explained that this was the objective behind Part IV of the Act which provides for a ‘Troubles-related work programme’ (to include a major new oral history initiative, a memorialization strategy and academic research into ‘themes and patterns’). The government will also commission an ‘official history’ of the Troubles.
The Act does not define reconciliation but Government amendments emphasized that the ‘Troubles-related work programme’ should promote ‘reconciliation, anti-sectarianism and non-recurrence of political and sectarian hostility between people in Northern Ireland’. This coupling of reconciliation and anti-sectarianism was highlighted by Cillian McGrattan as a victory for the Malone House Group – who ‘pushed for the inclusion of anti-sectarianism as a robust way of promoting the recalibration of the story told about the past, which republicans have long dominated.’ We agree that these amendments speak to a desire to resurrect a ‘two sectarian tribes’ version of the Troubles that shifts public attention away from state culpability. It is difficult to square such an approach with the international case law that underlines that reconciliation requires all narratives to be heard and respected – including those that are critical of the state.
Reconciling History and Impunity
The final point we wish to consider is the danger of a distorted ‘reconciliation process’ serving to conceal the more sinister aspects of the legislation. The UN recently reported that ‘the obligation to adopt memorialization processes in societies that have suffered gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law derives from both primary and secondary sources of international human rights law’. The Special Rapporteur was careful to note, however, that ‘memory processes complement but do not replace mechanisms for truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence’ and that ‘Memory mechanisms should never serve as a pretext for granting de jure or de facto impunity to the perpetrators of gross violations of human rights or serious violations of international humanitarian law’. In the Northern Ireland context, we have grave concerns that the provisions for oral history, memorialisation and academic research are designed to promote a flawed conception of reconciliation in a cynical attempt to whitewash impunity and control the narrative of the past.
Notes for Publication
Both authors have contributed equally to this article.
This article was previously published as two-part blog on the Oxford Human Rights Hub [insert links when available]
Bios
Anna Bryson is a Professor in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast and a Fellow at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice. Since 2020 she has served as Chair of the Committee on the Administration of Justice. Her most recent research has developed at the intersection of socio-legal studies, transitional justice and oral history.
Louise Mallinder is a Professor in the School of Law at Queen’s University Belfast and Deputy Director of the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice. She is member of the CAJ Executive Committee. Her research interests relate to the intersections of law and peace and she is an internationally recognised expert in amnesty laws.
I never thought I'd much in common with Gerry Adams.
Sam McBride, Sunday Independent and Sunday Life, June 22nd, 2025
Yes, we're both bearded, come from Belfast, and are male. But I've never defended murder, been on the run, or run for public office. Yet we're both, it turns out, victims of artificial intelligence.
If AI sounds suspiciously in favour of Irish unity, blame Adams; if it has a low view of the competence of Arlene Foster and the Northern Ireland Civil Service, blame me.
What's happened here is surreal, but it's ultimately coming for more of you. In fact, as I discovered, it may have done so without you even knowing.
A few weeks ago, I got an email from the Authors' Licensing and Collecting Society. Normally, these messages inform me of a few pounds being sent my way for photocopying or other uses of my book. The sums involved are tiny; the principles are important.
behemoth
The book — Burned: The Inside Story of the 'Cash-for-Ash' Scandal and Northern Ireland's Secretive New Elite — was published in 2019 and involved so much work that it's only recently that I've been persuaded to write a second book.
No one who writes such work gets rich. Most people lose a small fortune but are driven either by a belief that what they have to say is important, or by personal conceit, or both.
When it was published, Burned took off in a way I wasn't expecting; it became the best-selling title for my publisher — not because it was their best book, but, as is invariably the case with books, because it happened to tap into a public mood which existed at that time.
Yet even in such an unusually successful venture, the figures involved are modest. When I worked out what I'd earned and set it against the time involved, I'd have got as much from spending that time doing extra shifts for modest reward from my then employer.
If we want to incentivise such work — whether artistic, journalistic, historical or any of the myriad forms which writing takes — then authors deserve to be rewarded.
The email I got informed me that many authors' work had been secretly used by Meta — Mark Zuckerberg's corporate behemoth, which owns Facebook and Instagram — to train its new AI 'brain'. I went to the pirated library used for the task and searched for Burned. Lo and behold, there it was, as were several works by Adams.
I didn't feel the sense of loss as when my eBike was stolen two years ago. The digital age has numbed us to piracy; it is a fact of life to be managed rather than eradicated, it seems. But generally, piracy is the work of disreputable and often anonymous outfits.
Here was one of the biggest companies in the world, whose boss sat pride of place at Donald Trump's inauguration, stealing something without the slightest consequence.
In the grand scale of global injustice, this is but a trifle. Yet it's indefensible that millions of books have, without permission or recompense, been used to build a sort of artificial brain which Mark Zuckerberg hopes will make him even richer.
The stampede towards AI has at its heart the theft of creative work, whether from authors, newspapers, photographers, musicians or ordinary members of the public. What is presented as progress is founded on a profoundly unethical model.
One Meta employee emailed colleagues to say that “using pirated material should be beyond our ethical threshold”. Another senior Meta figure said that “in no case would we disclose publicly” what they'd done. Meta denies it stole these books, claiming that it handled them under “fair use”. But the behaviour of its employees, who were careful to keep the material off Facebook's servers, demonstrated that they knew this was something shameful to be hidden.
errors
These works had value; if not, Meta wouldn't have stolen them. They're valuable because AI works not by 'thinking' as we understand it, but by mimicking. That's how it gets so much wrong; it learns to confidently present itself because that's what we do. But this leads to unnerving errors which the technology is reluctant to admit.
Last year, Microsoft's CoPilot AI insisted to me that I'd written a book on the DUP in 2021. I'd done no such thing, yet it even made up an ISBN number and other details which might have convinced someone who wasn't me that such a book had been published quietly. When it eventually admitted the error, it refused to explain why it had done this, saying: “Sorry, I can't chat about this.”
There is dishonesty at the heart of this technology. It blurs truth and fiction, teaching us to accept that if it mostly tells us the truth, that's a good deal.
Whatever we think of that, this technology can now no more be uninvented than can the atom bomb. We will have to learn to live with it and control it.
Far too often, governments behave like servants before Big Tech. In a democracy, we elect governments to legislate, and to enforce the law.
If someone walked into a bookshop in Belfast and took a single book without paying, the police would be called and the thief would be brought to court.
Yet here the theft of millions of books by a wealthy company which easily could have paid for them is not just being shrugged at, but far too many people in society are marvelling at the capabilities of AI tools built on such unethical foundations.
If this is progress, then I'm Gerry Adams.
How would Facebook like it if someone unilaterally decided that its code or its database or its customer lists or some other material it had spent time and effort compiling could be taken and used commercially without payment in return?
Ultimately, this anarchic world which is being unleashed by the AI arms race is going to devour some of those now at its forefront. If we dispense with ideas of property, of theft and of copyright, then ultimately those who lose will include some of those now doing the thieving.
That pirated library from which Meta took my book contains another book which contains these words: For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
Palace to prison: NI race riots accused got award from the King for 'turning his life around'
Exclusive John Toner, Sunday Life, June 22nd, 2025
LARNE MAN CHARGED OVER SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT HOTEL WORKER BEHIND BARS A YEAR AFTER BEING FETED FOR TURNING HIS LIFE AROUND
A hotel worker who met the King after winning an award for turning his life around has been charged over the race riots.
Paul Laverty received a Prince's Trust Award and met King Charles at Buckingham Palace last summer at a star-studded event alongside Martin Freeman and Penny Lancaster.
However, just over one year later, the 25-year-old — also known as Paul White — is on remand behind bars, charged with perverting the course of justice.
He allegedly tried to delete “incriminating evidence” on a Facebook page which posted the suspected addresses of members of the Roma community during widespread disorder earlier this month.
The defendant, with an address on Fairway in Larne, was refused bail during a hearing at Antrim Magistrates Court last week.
He is accused of attempting to log in to the Larne Anti-Immigration Protests page on Facebook to remove material after one of his friends was arrested, according to Court News NI.
The PSNI said it had seized Laverty's phone and uncovered evidence indicating he had tried to access the account to remove or delete “incriminating evidence... under police investigation”.
In text messages the defendant received, the court heard, he was told his friend was being arrested and he should “remove that group quick”, but he allegedly failed to gain access to the page in time.
There were also suggestions a mobile phone should be reported stolen because the provider would then “wipe it clean”, and that if enough complaints were made to Facebook, the page in question would be taken down.
A police officer told the court the Facebook group was used to organise protests at Housing Executive offices in Larne and the town's leisure centre, which was later set on fire.
During an interview with the PSNI, the defendant said he had gone to a “peaceful protest” on June 11, the same day as the arson attack on Larne Leisure Centre, involving around 200 people, before leaving once a police evidence-gathering truck arrived.
Laverty denied being involved in the riot.
He told police he had wanted to delete any posts he had made on the Facebook group because he no longer “wanted to be involved because he was not a violent man in any way”.
A defence barrister said his client “panicked” after a co-accused friend was arrested.
Refusing bail, District Judge Nigel Broderick said: “It is quite clear the alleged offending is linked to the rioting that went on in Ballymena and other locations.
“Courts have already expressed their concern about such widespread civil disorder, the effect it has had on innocent members of the community and police officers who are doing their level best to protect everyone in society.
“Participation in civil disorder can take many formats.
“Being in a public place and throwing objects at homes of people and police officers is one very obvious example, but equally, those who engage in online activities can contribute to civil disorder, and I am satisfied that you fall into that category.”
Laverty was remanded into custody and the case was adjourned to July 10.
His family declined to discuss the case when approached by Sunday Life.
Last May, he won a Rising Star Award at a glamorous event for the Prince's Trust, having been informed of the honour by boxing legend Carl Frampton.
Laverty received the honour, which recognises a young person who has overcome difficulties to secure employment or training, despite having been convicted of theft two years prior.
Sitting in a police cell on the same day as his partner was going for the first baby scan on their son marked a low point in Laverty's life.
Thanking the Prince's Trust for getting him back on his feet and landing him a job at Ballygally Castle Hotel in Larne, he said last year he was “so proud” of himself and was glad to be a role model for his son.
He added he was “totally starstruck” when he found out about the award from retired champion Frampton.
“I couldn't believe it. I didn't think I was going to win the overall award,” Laverty said.
“I didn't think people would believe in me, but now I can see how far I have come.
“I hope I can show other young people who've had a difficult start in life that anything is possible, no matter where you're from or what barriers you face.”
The ceremony at the Drury Lane Theatre in London was hosted by Ant and Dec. Other celebrities in attendance included Roman Kemp, who presented Laverty with his award.
King Charles
He was also one of the winners who met King Charles at Buckingham Palace the following day.
“I felt like I was famous for a few hours,” Laverty said at the time.
“King Charles was just so down-to-earth and knew everyone's names and stories personally. It was an honour to meet him.”
Starting with a difficult childhood, Laverty said he “got involved with a bad crowd” after leaving school.
Aged 22, he was arrested and charged with theft when his partner was pregnant.
He said last year: “The day I was in police custody was the day of my baby's first scan.
“That's when I said to myself, 'I need to change for the better'.”
After signing up to a hospitality placement programme sponsored by the Prince's Trust, he got a placement at Ballygally Castle and was later offered a full-time job.
“It's given me a second chance,” he said.
“I now have a house, I'm getting married and I've been invited back to my old school to talk about my journey.”
Republicans should be secretly praying Farage ends up in Number 10
Suzanne Breen, Sunday Life, June 22nd, 2025
Nigel Farage is well known for his love of a tipple, and there'll be no shortage of republicans raising a glass if he becomes prime minister.
Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar is right. The Reform UK leader moving into Number 10 would significantly increase support for Irish unity among those in the middle ground. A Reform government would be like the Tory 'bad boys of Brexit' on speed.
By seeking to move Britain and Northern Ireland further away from the EU, it would reopen old wounds here.
Pursuing a hard Brexit is understandable from the position of English nationalists like Farage and his party: they loathe the EU more than they love the Union. But, from an intelligent unionist viewpoint, it's madness.
With changing demographics, why on earth would you choose to unsettle those whose support you need to maintain the constitutional status quo?
There was more good news for nationalism this week when Reform confirmed it was considering the possibility of organising here.
It already has more than 1,000 members. It said it was now “gauging interest” in setting up branches and contesting elections.
That could spell trouble for the TUV, which would be competing for the same anti-establishment, right-wing vote, but it's hardly a welcome development for the DUP either. Reform would appeal to a section of their supporters too.
And a three-way split in the unionist vote is challenging enough without another electoral option on the ballot paper.
Wealthy donors
Farage's party has no shortage of wealthy donors. The DUP, TUV or UUP would struggle to compete with it resource-wise.
There's a razzmatazz around Reform that the DUP and the UUP lack. Both their annual conferences last autumn were deadly dull.
Farage's party is branded very differently to the TUV. On the first night of its September conference in Birmingham, the Reform leader took to the stage to sing and dance to Frankie Valli's Can't Take My Eyes Off You.
“I was asked what should we do on the evening of the conference,” he told delegates. “Should we do what everybody else does and have a big, formal sit-down dinner? I said 'No, we want singing, dancing, drinking, laughter, fun'.”
Jim Allister is consistently popular with unionist grassroots, but it's impossible to imagine him dad-dancing in front of a boozy crowd.
I interviewed Farage in Belfast's Europa Hotel in 2014 when he was UKIP leader. I asked him what he thought of our politicians. He said the two that had most made their mark on him were Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness.
He described McGuinness, “like him or loathe him”, as a “huge character in politics”.
He was even more complimentary of Paisley whom he knew from the European Parliament.
“I was anticipating a lot of 'Never, never, never' and demonic rantings. I found him very charming,” Farage said.
“He'd sit in the members' bar in Strasbourg late at night, when there was nowhere else to go. I'd be drinking pints and he'd be reading the Bible. I never tried to convince him of the merits of the devil's buttermilk, and he never tried to convince me of its evils.”
Farage shares many characteristics with the late DUP leader. Reform is built on his everyman image. He's the bloke who speaks in plain words compared to the robotic, professional politicians with their carefully crafted statements.
Like Paisley, he's disliked by many in mainstream media, but he uses that to his advantage. And he provides good copy, so he's always in the news.
But the Union was fundamental to Paisley. It remains a cornerstone for his party, despite its errors, as it does to the UUP and TUV. The same cannot be said for Reform.
Let's remember that two years ago Farage said Irish unity wasn't “on the horizon immediately” for “practical reasons”, but it would happen one day. In terms of predicting our constitutional future, that's not a million miles away from Leo Varadkar.
Speaking of whom…
Now he has all the answers, does Leo plan to run for President?
Eilis O’Hanlon, Sunday Independent, June 22nd, 2025
Weighing in on Irish unity is not the mark of a man who has had his fill of public life
Stepping down as taoiseach last year, Leo Varadkar said he had no "definite personal or political plans”, but was "looking forward to having the time to think about them”.
Having since considered all his options, the former Fine Gael leader seems to have decided that the best use of his talents as a communicator is to become a full-time pub bore on the issue of Irish unity, like Christy Moore without the guitar, or Colm Meaney without the Starship Enterprise uniform.
He duly popped up on BBC Northern Ireland's The View on Thursday evening to declare once again that Irish unity would not happen "by osmosis or by accident”, but is something that "we have to work towards”.
This evident fixation on preparing urgently for unity does rather invite the question of why he didn't put such grand designs into action when he was taoiseach, rather than waiting until now when he has no power to turn his fantasies into reality.
The same thought occurs when reading Boris Johnson's column in the Daily Mail each week, in which he shamelessly offers unsolicited advice to his successor as British prime minister on how best to run the country.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?
Varadkar's excuse for not following his own advice when he was actually in office is that he was too busy trying to get a trade deal between the EU and UK following Brexit.
Now that he has more time on his hands, he, too, seems to have all the answers that evaded him in office, demanding of parties before the last election that Irish unity must be an "objective” rather than just an aspiration; and more recently taking to the boards at an Ireland's Future event in Philadelphia to call on Irish America to join the "great cause” of unity.
His involvement with Ireland's Future says it all. This is an organisation that has turned droning on about reunification into a bustling cottage industry, putting on more shows than Beyoncé, though she has much less difficulty selling tickets.
Leo's latest brainwave is to tell the BBC that the election of a "right-wing nationalist government” in London, led by Nigel Farage, "might make [people in Northern Ireland] more likely to vote yes to unification”.
Here we go again.
It is not unthinkable that the Reform UK leader might win the next general election. His party currently heads the polls, propelled by a deep disaffection with the status quo.
Whether this would have a decisive effect on support for Irish unity is more doubtful. It was a given among the chattering classes in Ireland that Brexit would supercharge the drive to unity. Many a giddy discussion was had on the airwaves predicting that Britain's exit from the EU would change everything in the North.
Before the vote even took place in 2016, Sinn Féin's Matt Carthy — then an MEP, now TD for Cavan-Monaghan — warned that a border poll would soon be "democratically imperative”.
Three years later, with no border poll in sight, and with Leo and Boris meeting in Dublin to thrash out the dreaded backstop, Carthy again declared that a united Ireland was the only way out of the "mess”.
The following year, Sinn Féin vice-president Michelle O'Neill asserted that "before the end of this decade, we will have voted for a united Ireland”.
As it happened, detailed analysis tends to the conclusion that Brexit had a far less significant impact on voting intentions in the North than over-excited separatists hoped — and anyone who wonders why for more than three seconds could hardly fail to reach an obvious conclusion.
Support either for the union or a 32-county republic is not dependent on any passing political circumstance. It's ingrained in the cultural, historical identity of both sides in the North.
Even if Ireland was to become a fascist dictatorship, nationalists would continue to want Irish unity. They're nationalists. The clue is in the name.
Northern unionists would, likewise, not suddenly cease to feel British because a government in London was not to their liking. Supporting the union is what makes them unionists, and it's their consent that is needed.
Varadkar himself demonstrated this phenomenon by stating in Thursday's interview that he would "be willing to forgo two years of economic growth for the unification of my island”.
His principles are so resolute that he would willingly see the country suffer hardship to bring a new Ireland into being. But still he believes that Farage becoming prime minister "would change the picture in terms of attitudes” among supporters of the union. Please, make it make sense.
Of course, it's insultingly easy for Varadkar to say such things, since he has a pension for life as a former taoiseach, a presumably hefty advance from Penguin for his forthcoming memoir, as well as a new job on the global advisory board of a Washington-based public relations firm. Two years of lost economic growth would not hurt him in the slightest. It is only the little people who would lose their livelihoods and homes or be forced to emigrate.
That this is a sacrifice he is happy for the less fortunate to make on his behalf hardly says much for his assertion on first becoming a minister that he would "bring the empathy” to politics.
While Varadkar might give the impression of making up his post-retirement life as he goes along, putting himself centre stage on such an emotive issue does not speak of a man who is stepping back from public life.
In recent weeks, he also weighed in on the situation in Gaza, urging the EU to "grow a backbone” and stand up to Israel. Then there's that memoir, timed for release in September — an interesting month politically this year.
He even popped up on TV a few weeks ago, climbing mountains and sleeping in caves with soldier-turned-adventurer Ray Goggins.
It almost feels as if he is ticking off items on a checklist, but to what end?
Fine Gael has famously never won a presidential election, and Paddy Power has him as a 100/1 outsider, lagging well behind Linda Martin and Joes Duffy and Brolly; but it's not as if anyone else seems to want the job.
Race ‘wide open’
The race is wide open. Could Leo really be plotting to run for president?
As a mixed-race gay man who played key roles in the same sex marriage and abortion referendums, he has many of the superficially sought-after qualities to slip seamlessly into the shoes of the equally liberal Michael D Higgins as the president comes to the end of the second term of what he pledged would be a single term in the Áras.
Play his cards right and the Shinners might even step aside for Varadkar, since there is little discernible difference in their positions on Irish unity.
And if he does lose, as he probably would, what of it? He could always resume his seat on the proverbial bar stool and pick up where he left off, telling everyone else how to get the job done, even if he himself didn't when he had the chance.
£10k bounty to burn bonfire before 11th
Sunday Life, June 22nd, 2025
LARNE UDA BOSS TELLS OF PLOTS AGAINST RECORD PLAN
The UDA boss behind the 'world's biggest bonfire' has claimed a bounty of up to £10,000 was on offer to burn it before the Eleventh Night.
David Murray makes the claim in a new documentary called Castle in the Sky, which interviews the people behind the Craigyhill bonfire in Larne.
He is captioned as 'Dave' and joined by an associate called 'Bob' to talk about an apparent threat that was made online to ruin their bid to get into the Guinness World Records.
Bob says: “We had a threat come through on social media. Basically, it started... I think it was £1,000 or £2,000. It started small.”
Murray continues: “Obviously, it didn't gather that much momentum. Then they put it up to £5,000, and I think at the end it was £10,000.
threats
“When you think that somebody is willing to pay £10,000 to get it burnt, it shows you how much the bonfire's annoying (some people) or how much hatred people are showing towards it.”
Bob adds: “It's not nationalists that would think about burning it. You've got your local hoods that would think about burning it, your two-bob tout that would maybe look to make a couple of pound.”
Murray (52), who police named in court as the South East Antrim UDA's Larne boss, tells the documentary how he has faced down threats, including some made via Facebook.
The loyalist, who pocketed more than £250,000 in two years from cleaning windows, says: “We'll be out (at the bonfire site) every night now.
“Even the (Facebook) page today, I mean I've had to ban another 60 people.
“It's just the usual nonsense they come off with, the bigotry and all, stuff like that.
“They're labelling it before they even know what it's all about. They're just seeing a bonfire.
“They probably think of loyalist music and (think) we're singing about the Catholics and all, but that's not what it is.
“That bonfire is more than just a bonfire. That bonfire... it's hard to put into words.
“It brings us all together. It's bringing the community together.
“The messages of support (we've had)... people saying how we've made everybody feel welcome.
“People come down, and we don't ask them 'Are you a Protestant or are you a Catholic?'
“There's Australians, there's Canadians, all different types of people who are just amazed at the work.
supercar
“We get flak left, right and centre, everybody saying it's a beacon of hatred, which its not.
“That's why we've gone in the other direction of no flags and putting on the cultural event, which is going now two days.”
Castle in the Sky follows Craigyhill's bid to top their 202ft record.
It was made available on Amazon three weeks ago for £5.99 to rent or £9.99 to buy.
In the documentary, Murray, who drives a £150,000 McLaren supercar and who Sunday Life previously exposed as a loan shark, discusses the bonfire organisers' finances.
He says they were aiming for £45,000 last year but raised £40,000.
He continues: “I'm involved with the Craigyhill bonfire community group. Obviously, they look at me as if I'm the leader of it, but we all chip in — there's about 20 of us in the committee.
“They look at me, obviously, to take care of the finances and what we need to do to raise the money because, obviously, it takes a full year and you have to be on the ball from day one.”
Police probe under way after viable device thrown into Belfast Islamic Centre
By Grainne Ni Aodha, Belfast Telegraph, June 21st, 2025
Police are investigating whether an attack on the Belfast Islamic Centre was a hate crime after a viable device was thrown through a window during evening prayer.
The scene was cordoned off overnight and members of the public were asked to avoid the area.
Local politicians have condemned the "cowardly" attack and said people should feel safe in their place of worship.
Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn said he was "deeply concerned by the shameful attack".
"Hatred of this sort has no place in Northern Ireland . If anyone has any information about this, please contact the PSNI," he said.
Police said they attended a security alert on University Road in south Belfast on Friday night after receiving a report at around 10.10pm .
A 34-year-old man was arrested under the Terrorism Act and is being held in custody.
"Police received a report at approximately 10.10pm on Friday 20th June that an object had been thrown through a window at a property in the University Road area of the city," Assistant Chief Constable Anthony McNally said.
"Officers attended and carried out a search of the building where a suspicious device was discovered.
"Ammunition technical officers attended and examined the object which was determined as viable and has since been removed for forensic examination.
Arrest
"A 34-year-old man was arrested under the Terrorism Act at the scene and remains in police custody at this time. It is important to stress that, while the suspect has been arrested under the Terrorism Act, the motive for the attack has not yet been established.
"Detectives from serious crime branch are currently working at pace and are exploring a number of potential motivating factors including the possibility that this is a hate crime.
"At this time, no other persons are being sought in connection with the attack."
Alliance MLA for South Belfast Paula Bradshaw condemned the attack, which she said did "not reflect the diversity of south Belfast in 2025".
"This attack was again designed to cause fear among people inside the centre, who were at prayer at the time.
"Nevertheless, I am thankful for the intervention of a nearby passer-by and for the work of the police. Those were much more reflective of the true spirit of Belfast , where most people rejoice in diversity.
"I would like to express my solidarity with all those who were evacuated and my thanks to all those who worked to ensure their safety."
Sinn Fein MLA Deirdre Hargey said "no-one should ever feel unsafe in their place of worship".
"Acts like these, fuelled by hate, spread fear and division, and target people who have come to our communities to build a life and call this place home.
"It's vital that all political leaders speak out and stand united against this disgusting behaviour."
Green Party councillor Aine Groogan condemned the attack as a "cowardly and vicious act".
"I am horrified to hear about the attack on the Islamic Centre during evening prayers," she said.
"I want to pay tribute to the courageous passer-by who intervened and prevented what could have been a far more tragic outcome.
"It is terrifying to consider what might have happened and I sincerely hope that all those present are recovering from this traumatic ordeal."
She added: "This attack is yet another reminder of the very real danger faced by our Islamic community. The recent rise in racist hate and violence on our streets is a shameful stain on our society.
"We must all take responsibility for actively challenging racism, misinformation and bigotry wherever it appears before someone is seriously hurt.
"I urge those politicians who continue to hide behind the notion of so-called 'legitimate concerns' around migration to reflect on the consequences of their words.
"Such narratives are as disingenuous as they are dangerous. They help foster a culture in which hate can thrive. Frankly, they should know better."
Anyone who was in the area at the time or who may have information is being asked to contact authorities on 101, quoting reference number 1808 20/06/25.
A report can also be submitted online using the non-emergency reporting form on the PSNI website, or people can contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 or online.
Armed Forces Day: Newtownards gridlocked as twice population arrives for event
By Iain Gray, Belfast News Letter, June 21st, 2025
Armed Forces Day proved to be the victim of its own success on Saturday (21st), at least as far as thousands stuck in gridlocked traffic were concerned.
An estimated 60,000 people came to Newtownards for the day, twice the population of the Co Down town. Despite shuttle buses laid on, warnings of traffic disruption and exhortations to use public transport, it’s fair to say the area wasn’t able to cope with the demand on its roads.
Huge tailbacks were seen throughout the town, especially around its roundabout junction with a main dual carriageway linking it with Belfast. That area also contains the large Ards Shopping Centre and a route to the MOT testing centre for much of the top half of Co Down, and traffic at that roundabout was heavily delayed in all directions on one of the hottest days of the year so far.
Whether people wanted to get into Newtownards or leave the town for Belfast, they weren’t going anywhere fast. Cars were looped around the roundabout unmoving, clogging one of the main routes into and out of the town.
Tailbacks stretched all the way along the town’s outer ring dual carriageway, and the seven-mile trip from Belfast to Ards Airfield took the News Letter well over an hour – and that’s with some local knowledge finding a detour down a much less direct but far less vehicle-heavy route.
Although shuttle buses were laid on from Bangor and Dundonald, traffic was so bad that they were as trapped as the average driver as the sun beat down.
For Newtownards residents, the good weather allowed them the chance to walk to the airfield; not usually their preferred method of travelling there, as it’s on the outskirts of the town along a main road, but with cars at a standstill foot power was the better option.
Traffic trouble was even the talk of VIPs, with DUP leader Gavin Robinson MP telling the News Letter: “The crowds have been phenomenal today, though I know some have had some difficulty accessing the site. But the sun’s out and everyone’s in great form.”
It’s understood the police intervened in the gridlock around lunchtime, substantially improving roads by early afternoon, though for many getting home was still surprisingly sluggish.
Chief Inspector 'will not apologise' for comments on racism
By Adam Kula, Belfast News Letter, June 21st, 2025
A prominent race activist and police officer has said he "will not apologise" when asked about his commentary on the 'Sean' sectarianism saga.
Andy George, a serving chief inspector in the PSNI who is also president of the UK National Black Police Association (NBPA), said that Sean's bogus set of allegations "resonated deeply because it reflected lived experiences that many recognise".
Chief inspector is a high rank; there are only 95 of them in the roughly 6,200-strong PSNI.
Mr George has previously taken the chief constable to an employment tribunal over alleged racial discrimination, but in 2018 it ruled the case was marked by claims that were "unsubstantiated and lacking evidence", concluding: “The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that all claims are dismissed.”
Andy George has tweeted a number of times about the 'Sean' case
Mr George, who has a Northern Irish mother and Malaysian father, frequently tweets about race and allegations of police misconduct.
For example, last week, amid the Ballymena rioting, he called on politicians to pass new laws, tweeting: "We urgently need legislation to tackle race hate and build cohesion before more lives are shattered."
‘Institutionally racist’
Back in 2020, following the explosion of Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Mr George – then an inspector – declared the PSNI itself was "institutionally racist".
The 'Sean' affair involved allegations of anti-Catholic bigotry within the Tactical Support Group (TSG), and were made in March in the Belfast Telegraph by a retired policeman using that pseudonym.
Sean's story was challenged by over 40 of his former colleagues, and then in the News Letter in May he admitted to making the whole thing up.
Shortly after the allegations emerged, Mr George wrote on his Twitter account: "I've been working with @CatholicGuildNi [the Catholic Police Guild] and have heard similar stories.
"Whether it is true or not, I have no doubt it resonates with many Catholic officers! We have to be open to listening to people's experiences rather than trying to discredit those who speak out."
Later, in April, Mr George challenged a former senior police officer Jon Burrows to give a breakdown of the "community background" of the 40-plus ex-colleagues of Sean who were denying his allegations.
"So tell us all on here what the breakdown is?" wrote Mr George. "You've criticised Sean for not being transparent and it might help remove a clear motive to pushback on Sean's account, if the group is as diverse as you say."
Then in May, when challenged again by Mr Burrows about the veracity of Sean's claims (but before Sean recanted them), Mr George wrote: "It's never been about who is right or who is wrong! For me, it's about supporting a single person against over 40 people pushing back on their experiences, real or perceived."
Mr George made similar comments in an interview with the Irish News headlined 'Top officer subjected to racism backs 'PSNI Sean' sectarianism complaints'.
In the course of his tweeting, Mr George has also voiced support for a Casey-style review into "evidence of discrimination" within the PSNI.
The Casey review, published in 2023, found "institutional homophobia, misogyny and racism" within The Met, informed by "over 50 anonymous personal accounts" from officers.
In the May meeting of the Policing Board, the chief constable announced that an anonymous survey of staff would be taking place in autumn.
No regrets
Mr George was asked by the News Letter if he has any regrets about his comments on the 'Sean' case now that his accusations have been found to be bogus.
He replied: "No. The PSNI itself has publicly acknowledged that Catholic officers continue to face unique challenges in the workplace.
"The 'Sean' case, whatever its eventual outcome, resonated deeply because it reflected lived experiences that many recognise, even if they haven't voiced them publicly.
"My concern then, and now, is that the immediate impulse to discredit or dismiss those who share difficult truths risks silencing others who may have legitimate grievances but fear the consequences of speaking out. That is not the mark of a healthy organisation.
"In nearly five years as President of the NBPA, working across almost 50 police services in the UK, I have never seen over 40 officers, most of them retired, publicly unite to denounce a complaint that named no individuals and cited no specific dates, times or locations.
"Such a response suggests not transparency, but cultural defensiveness. Rather than rush to rebuttal, we should be asking why this reaction was so strong, and what it reveals about our internal culture.
"That reflection is not only appropriate, it is necessary if we are serious about learning, accountability, and change."
Does he have any concerns that, as a chief inspector, he seems to be publicly critical of his own police service?
Mandate to speak out
"As President of the NBPA, I have a clear and legitimate mandate to speak on behalf of our members, just as the Police Federation and the Superintendents' Association do," he said.
"Like them, I believe that constructive challenge is not only appropriate but essential when it comes to driving ethical leadership and meaningful reform.
"I am proud to serve in the PSNI. My public commentary is rooted in a desire to see our organisation improve and to earn and maintain the confidence of the communities we serve.
"Internal scrutiny, when done transparently and respectfully, is a cornerstone of a healthy organisation. It is, however, deeply concerning that challenge seems to provoke discomfort only when it comes from voices representing minority communities.
"This double standard must be acknowledged and addressed. The tragic murder of Sarah Everard reinforced the need for all of us to speak out when we witness wrongdoing.
"The PSNI itself has introduced upstander training to promote this very principle. I will not apologise for fulfilling that same responsibility.
"As President of the NBPA, I will continue to speak out on the issues that matter, especially when others cannot."
Silence not an option
He was also asked does he now have any misgivings about the PSNI relying on an anonymous survey, given the 'Sean' case has shown the perils of anonymous, unsupported allegations?
He said: "Anonymous reporting remains a critical tool in any organisation where individuals may fear reprisal for speaking out.
"The lesson from this case should not be to dismiss or undermine all anonymous voices, but to strengthen our systems to ensure they are fair, robust, and trustworthy.
"We must create an environment where complaints, anonymous or otherwise, are assessed on their merit, where individuals acting in good faith are supported, and where any misinformation is corrected without deterring others from coming forward.
"If our response to difficult truths is to silence, rather than understand, we risk reinforcing the very culture of fear and mistrust we claim to want to change.
"My continued support for a Casey-style independent review is rooted in the belief that real progress only comes through honesty, accountability, and a willingness to listen to the experiences of everyone within the service, free from any perception of bias or interference."
