RELIGIOUS LEADERS HIT OUT AT REMARKS MADE BY FORMER SF MP AND LOYALIST ACTIVIST

MARK BAIN, Belfast Telegraph, October 11th, 2025

Northern Ireland's church leaders have condemned “any attempt” to “justify or legitimise the murder of others”.

The Church Leaders Group hit out at comments made by former Sinn Fein MP Michelle Gildernew and loyalist activist Jamie Bryson in a new BBC podcast, 'Borderland — UK or a United Ireland'.

During the debate, Ms Gildernew and Mr Bryson were directly asked, “do you think murder was justified?” Both agreed that in some situations, it was.

Their responses have already been heavily criticised by victims' groups.

Now senior religious figures have added their condemnation.

A statement signed by the leaders of the four main churches here said: “As people of faith, as Christian leaders, and as individuals made in the image of God, we believe that human life is a divine and sacred gift to be cherished, nurtured and protected.

"Murder, which is the intentional and unlawful killing of another human, can therefore never be justified or legitimised.

“We unequivocally condemn any attempt by individuals, or sections of the community, to justify or legitimise the murder of others.”

It continued: “Such comments underline, and make it very clear, that the work of reconciliation is more important than ever and that we still have a long way to travel.

“As we, and our predecessors, have said before, when we reflect on our past in Northern Ireland, 'we all have a moral responsibility to acknowledge the corrosive impact of violence' and alongside that also 'a duty of care to those still living with the trauma of its aftermath'.

“We offer our continued support to all victims of violence and pray for healing and peace, for individuals, for this community where we live, and for all in the world today living under the shadow of conflict.

Renewed emphasis needed for ‘complex but essential work of reconciliation’

“May there be a renewed emphasis on the complex but essential work of reconciliation, so that we re-commit ourselves to working for a future of common understanding, respect and peace in this land, and for all peoples everywhere.”

The signatories include Archbishop Eamon Martin, the leader of the Catholic church in Ireland; Church of Ireland Archbishop John McDowell; and Presbyterian Moderator Revd Trevor Gribben.

Also signing the letter were Methodist President Revd Alan Wardlow and Revd Sarah Groves, President of the Irish Council of Churches.

During the BBC podcast, Ms Gildernew, a former MP for Fermanagh-South Tyrone, said the Army had helped to spark violence.

“I wish it had been avoided, but I think the British Army brought a war to our streets and the repercussions of that were as a result of what happened,” she said.

Mr Bryson, who previously claimed the UVF was a counter-terrorist organisation, interrupted to say Ms Gildernew had not answered the question.

He pressed the former MP, saying he'd be honest too.

In response, she said: “Yes, I do (think murder was justified).” Mr Bryson responded: “That's fine, at least we can be honest with each other. I believe loyalists had a right to do the same the other way. That's fair enough, at least we're honest.”

Mr Bryson later said: “I stand over every word of my contribution on BBC Borderland podcast. Unlike 'no alternative' Sinn Fein and Ms Gildernew, I made clear that there was never any justification for the murder of innocent civilians, regardless of background.

“I say it explicitly for the avoidance of any ambiguity: it was not justified to murder innocent Catholics or nationalists. But let me be very clear lest my remarks be misunderstood: yes, it was absolutely justified for both loyalists and the security forces to kill IRA terrorists. It is regrettable that loyalists or the security forces didn't get more of them.

“And no I won't be clarifying, apologising or retracting and if nationalists and republicans are offended, I really don't care.”

Ms Gildernew also described Northern Ireland in a negative way.

On Thursday First Minister Michelle O'Neill said: "Michelle's views are her own and certainly not mine".

Bloody Sunday trial hears account of witness who saw soldier firing his gun

REBECCA BLACK, Irish News, October 11th, 2025

THE trial of a former paratrooper accused of killing two civilians during Bloody Sunday has heard an account of a witness seeing a soldier firing their weapon on the day.

Soldier F, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is accused of the murder of James Wray and William McKinney during disorder following a civil rights parade in Derry on January 30 1972.

Denis McLaughlin, who was 16 on the day of the shootings, said he was hit by a rubber bullet during the day.

In evidence read to the court, he said he witnessed a man he later realised was William Nash, one of those who died, being injured and falling, and said that he himself was in a “terrible state”.

In the Glenfada Park North courtyard, he recalled seeing a soldier shouting “stop or I’ll shoot”, before lifting his rifle and firing either a self-loading rifle (SLR) or a submachine gun, and said he saw a man falling in the wake of that fire.

Earlier this week, the trial heard statements by soldiers G and H that they, as well as soldier F, had opened fired at Glenfada Park North.

Some 13 people were shot dead by the Parachute Regiment on the day.

Soldier F is also accused of attempting to murder Michael Quinn, Patrick O’Donnell, Joseph Friel, Joe Mahon and an unknown person.

He has pleaded not guilty to the seven counts.

Soldier F sits in the court room at Belfast Crown Court behind a curtain during each day of the trial which began last month.

Yesterday’s hearing also heard a series of facts that have been agreed by the prosecution and the defence.

Soldier F interviewed under caution

These included that Soldier F was interviewed voluntarily under caution across two days from March 8-9 2016 by officers from the Police Service of Northern Ireland over the offences he has been charged with.

“At the outset of the interview, Soldier F’s solicitor read on to the record the following prepared statement: ‘I understand that you wish to interview me about the events that took place over a short space of time on January 31 1972, over 44 years ago’,” a prosecution lawyer read to the court.

“While I am sure I properly discharged my duties as a soldier on that day, I no longer have any reliable recollection of those events. I am not therefore able to answer your questions and will not be drawn into speculating or guessing. For that reason, I will not be answering any questions put to me’.

“Thereafter, Soldier F made no comment to all questions put to him.”

The agreed facts also included medical and forensic evidence that Mr McKinney died after being hit by a single bullet which entered the right side of his back, and that Mr Wray was struck by two bullets, most likely from the same gun.

Neither man tested positive for lead or explosives residue on their hands or clothes, which would have indicated they had been using a firearm.

The defence is set to start their response on Monday.

State must stand by soldiers who served in the Troubles

Ministers who sent young soldiers to Northern Ireland aren’t around to defend their actions, but somebody must

Nick Parker, The Times, October 09 2025,

The British government’s new UK-Ireland joint framework on legacy and reconciliation risks betraying the very people who upheld peace in Northern Ireland. Reopening inquests into decades-old incidents from the Troubles exposes veterans to renewed legal jeopardy while the politicians who authorised those operations remain shielded.

The Good Friday agreement was an extraordinary achievement but it left open wounds that still shape our politics today. The latest framework is a product of that unresolved tension. It seeks to address the past through joint co-operation with Dublin and providing six veteran protections, promising closure for victims and accountability for wrongdoers. Yet it misunderstands the problem. No amount of procedural innovation can reconcile a state’s duty to the rule of law with its parallel duty to those who served it faithfully in good conscience.

I speak with the perspective of someone who served on Operation Banner — first as a young officer, later as a battalion commander, and finally as the last General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland. My first tour, in West Belfast in 1974, was quiet. Even so, women and children banged dustbin lids and spat at us as we passed, warning others of our approach. Every soldier carried what was known as the Yellow Card, a small laminated sheet spelling out when we could open fire. It reminded us that we were soldiers operating under policing rules, permitted to use lethal force only as a last resort and to save life. We were directed to behave like policemen but enforce order without consent.

I was 19 years old, enlisted under rules written for a different kind of war, and hastily retrained to operate under the constraints of the Yellow Card. It demanded extraordinary discipline and faith — in our commanders, our government and the state whose authority we represented. That was 51 years ago, the same gap between the Somme and Suez. My company commander and my commanding officer are both gone. If I were summoned before a coroner’s court today, there would be no one left to speak for me, no one to share responsibility for decisions made under pressure in the fog of violence. No minister of the day would be present. That is the reality of legacy: individuals are left exposed while institutions move on.

Those who served acted within a chain of command and under the lawful authority of the Crown. Their moral contract with the state is simple: those prepared to risk their lives on its behalf should be able to rely on its protection when they are vulnerable. States must be accountable — but accountability cannot mean leaving soldiers to face history alone.

General Sir Nick Parker was commander-in-chief, land forces, 2010-12

European Union and Ireland take advantage of Labour Govt’s weakness

Belfast News Letter, October 11th, 2025

Almost every week there is fresh evidence of the scale of the Irish Sea border.

​The frontier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is complex, and has been emerging in stages, so it has taken time for most observers to understand its big impact. But this is not good enough for the EU, which is blackmailing the UK government by refusing to hold detailed talks about an SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) deal, on animal and plant life, until the internal UK barrier is enforced to its standards.

If we set aside the constitutional outrage of the UK have lost control of swathes of its economy in part of its own territory, relating not just to movements of materials but also to rules that have influence in spheres beyond physical goods, there is another point to make about intransigence in Brussels: who can blame it for taking a robust approach to Labour leaders so bad at negotiation?

A UK government that somehow failed to understand that signalling an enthusiastic desire to ‘reset’ relations with the EU would embolden it? Labour seemed not to see that you can be friendly with negotiating opponents but tough too.

The same point – that weakness will be exploited – was not understood with regard to Ireland too. Labour held a summit in March in which leading members of the government gushed about an Ireland that is not merely suing Britain, but doing so on hypocritical grounds (it objected to the former UK government’s conditional amnesty legacy plan, despite Ireland operating a flagrant amnesty for the IRA).

And guess where such weakness towards Ireland led? As the Tory Lord Caine told this newspaper from the Conservative conference, Ireland felt it could continue to sue the UK while jointly launching a legacy plan with it. Thus Dublin is keeping its legal threat alive until it is sure that legacy is focused on claims against UK state forces.

UUP's peace deal veterans anger at Irish language plan

ABDULLAH SABRI, Belfast Telegraph, October 11th, 2025

UNIONIST NEGOTIATORS CLAIM COUNCIL POLICY MAY THREATEN GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT

UUP peace deal talks team slams Irish language policy, warning 'anger across unionism should not be underestimated'

Unionist negotiators of the Good Friday Agreement have warned that the anger across unionism against a new Irish language policy “should not be underestimated.”

A letter signed by several members of the UUP talks team from 1998 criticised what they said were “serious breaches” of the agreement.

Signatories of the statement include Lord Dennis Rogan, Lord John Kilclooney, Michael McGimpsey, David McNarry and David Campbell. The latter, who has since left the UUP, is now chair of the Loyalist Communities Council which is linked to groups including the UDA, UVF and Red Hand Commando.

Last week, Belfast City Council voted in favour of a policy which will see a wider use of Irish across the capital.

It pledges to use a bilingual logo on council uniforms and vehicles in what Sinn Fein councillor Tomás Ó Néill called a “historic moment”.

However, the move has drawn criticism, and yesterday a statement from key unionist mediators of the agreement cited concerns that the policy could threaten the peace deal.

The joint statement said: “In particular, we implemented and fully funded the language provisions of the agreement contained in Article 4; rights, safeguards, and equality; always mindful of the over-riding requirement of the agreement to do so 'where appropriate and where people so desire it'.

Spirit of Agreement not ‘reciprocated’

“It is a matter of deep regret that our honouring of the word and spirit of the Belfast Agreement has not been reciprocated by republicans who constantly attempt to usurp the settlement that was convincingly approved by the electorate in referenda.”

Around £1.9m has been earmarked to pay for the policy's changes, which would also include the rollout of a bilingual council website.

But in closing remarks prior to the council vote, unionists also expressed alarm around subsequent funding.

The letter also scrutinised future implications of the strategy resulting in the removal of “any vestige of Britishness from our country”.

“Unionism needs to wake up to the fact that this is just the thin end of the wedge,” yesterday's statement continues.

It added that “the extent of unease and anger right across unionism should not be underestimated.”

A request was also made for the UK and Irish governments, the legal guarantors of the 1998 agreement, to condemn the “serious breaches” of the peace deal.

A 'call-in' was put forward in the aftermath of the council vote signed by councillors from the TUV, DUP and UUP.

DUP leader Gavin Robinson slammed the policy as “wholly disproportionate” adding that it would lead to the “squandering” of nearly £2m of public money.

Last weekend the Sunday Life reported that loyalist paramilitaries were threatening an arson campaign to prevent Irish language signage being displayed on council property. Representatives from the UDA and UVF said they would make the policy “unworkable.”

In 2017 a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues concluded that public bodies cannot require majority support for a minority language.

It noted that the threshold “where it is reasonable and practical to provide such signs varies between 5% and 20% of the local population”.

New policy proposals were developed at City Hall whereby a resident, a developer or a councillor could request a dual-language sign in their District Electoral Area. A survey would then be carried out to gauge support, with non-replies no longer considered as an objection. The threshold was set at 15%.

But Incoming Irish language commissioner says Belfast not doing enough for Irish language

British 's media comments are a 'revealing insight' into attitudes to freedom of expression - MLA

By David Thompson, Belfast News Letter, October 11th, 2025

TUV MLA Timothy Gaston says comments by the incoming Irish language commissioner offer "a revealing insight” into his attitude to freedom of expression.

Criticism of media coverage of Belfast City Council’s controversial Irish policy by the incoming Irish language commissioner “offers a revealing insight” into his attitude to freedom of expression, an MLA has said.

​Pol Deeds, the deputy chief executive of Foras na Gaeilge, accused the BBC of “platforming bigotry” in its coverage of the council’s decision to put Irish alongside English across the capital – linking that to an alleged threat by loyalist paramilitaries to burn council facilities.

The national broadcaster had allowed a range of views on the matter on its programme, including elected representatives and commentators on both sides of the argument.

Citing media reports on the disputed alleged threats, Mr Deeds posted on social media: “The result of the media - especially the BBC - platforming bigotry in the wake of [Belfast City Council’s] policy announcement. By failing to come out and defend their own policy - and UK law - TEO [the Executive Office] are failing in their duty of care to the new Commissioner before he has even taken up his post”.

TUV MLA Timothy Gaston has hit out at Mr Deeds’ comments, as well as Foras na Gaeilge’s approach to a commitment in the Stormont legislation which underpins the post. He highlighted the cross-border body’s concerns about a commitment in the Act which requires “the sensitivities of those with different national and cultural identities” are taken into account.

“In December last year, Pol Deeds was part of the Foras na Gaeilge group which gave evidence to the Executive Office Committee. They openly stated that they believed the legislation did not go far enough”, Mr Gaston said.

He cited evidence presented by the group which stated: “In practice, this second principle could mean that people who wish to speak or see Irish must take into account the views of people who may not want this. This restriction represents a departure from best practice.”

Mr Gaston told the News Letter: “It is telling that someone who was prepared to put his name to such a document is reportedly thought suitable by the deputy first minister to serve as commissioner. It also offers a revealing insight into how he believes freedom of expression should operate.

“Mr Deeds tells us that his aggressive agenda on Irish should not have to take account of anyone who has issues with the language — and now he complains about people who object to it even being granted a hearing on the national broadcaster. Let us not forget, that broadcaster is funded by everyone”, the North Antrim MLA said.

He called on Mr Deeds to clarify “whether he believes all forms of culture should enjoy similar free rein, regardless of the views of local communities”.

“The reality is that Irish is associated with one community, and for some, their height of Irish is an IRA slogan, with zero desire to learn any more.

“Does Mr Deeds believe that society as a whole would benefit from the rich band culture within loyalism — a tradition which produced world-class talent such as James Galway OBE?

“Or does he not see the contradiction in seeking to suppress all opposition to his preferred cultural expression, while others are regulated and constrained in a divided society?”, the TUV man said.

Foras na Gaeilge has been contacted for comment.

 
Racist attack on House in Shankill

HANNAH PATTERSON, Irish News, October 11th, 2025

Graffiti is clearly visible after an arson attack on a house on Upper Glenfarne Street in the Shankill area of Belfast on Thursday evening

THE front door of a house was set on fire alongside ‘local only’ graffiti in Belfast on Thursday evening.

Police are investigating it as a possible racially motivated attack in the Shankill area.

Emergency services attended the scene of the small fire at the house, while police are treating the blaze as deliberate.

The property on Upper Glenfarne Street was also smeared with graffiti that said ‘local only.’

Police said no one was inside when the incident happened.

Sergeant Arthurs said: “We received a report at around 8.45pm on Thursday, 9th October of a small fire at a property in the Upper Glenfarne Street area.

“Officers attended along with colleagues from the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, who extinguished the fire. The front door was damaged, with graffiti also identified on the front window of the property, which was vacant at the time of the incident.

“The fire is being treated as deliberate and our enquiries are ongoing.”

Fake news: Far-right groups producing ‘BBC’ reports

CONOR COYLE, Irish News, October 11th, October, 2025

FAR-RIGHT and anti-immigration groups have been creating and sharing fake news reports which mimic BBC NI coverage in a practice which has been described as “dangerous” by an expert.

Earlier this week, the office of Sinn Féin politicians Liz Kimmins and Daire Hughes was targeted in a pipe bomb alert in Newry, suspected to be linked to anti-immigrant groups in the area.

The city has been the subject of a campaign by a number of individuals who have taken issue with plans by the local council to engage with the City of Sanctuary programme, which commits local authorities to provide a welcoming space for migrants already housed in their council area.

A rally was held in the city last month where protesters took to the streets to hit out at the council’s engagement with the City of Sanctuary network.

A number of videos shared by far-right groups and individuals since the rally closely align with the graphics and voiceovers used online by the BBC, however, they contain multiple inaccuracies, including that joining the network “could shape housing, schooling and healthcare policy” in the area.

In one video, the voiceover says “residents were left with no choice but to take to the streets” and “locals say this is about capacity and fairness”.

In another less subtle video, which also contained graphics and a voiceover which closely mimicked BBC output, the speaker talked about “far-left snowflakes” and the “woke brigade”.

The video also saw comments from speakers at the rally and the voiceover directed at local councillors calling on them to “fix GP services, fix our roads and fix our schools” – none of which are under the responsibility of local councils.

Fakers posing as specific news source very rare, says lecturer

One of the videos has been viewed more than 90,000 times online.

BBC Northern Ireland was contacted for comment, but declined to do so. However, BBC sources confirmed the videos were not created by the corporation or any of its journalists.

Hard to tell difference between fake ‘BBC’ reports and real ones

Dr Sarah Zarmsky, a lecturer on misinformation at Queen’s University Belfast who has previously advised social media firms on the topic, described the videos as “dangerous”.

“I have never seen something like this before where someone has posed as a specific news source,” Dr Zarmsky said.

“In some of these examples, it would be hard for an average member of the public to tell that this wasn’t a BBC-produced video.

“A lot of people look online for news and don’t really evaluate the source and take it at face value. People aren’t always watching this with the same critical eye.

“It’s very dangerous in the sense that this can lead to direct physical violence, people can take that information as real and that can fuel hatred towards a particular set of people.”

Councillors in the Newry, Mourne and Down area say they have been subject to harassment and threats over the City of Sanctuary issue.

One councillor spoken to by The Irish News was unwilling to go on the record, saying they were fearful of their personal safety and that of their family after the attack on Sinn Féin offices this week, as well as an incident in which a mob of around 40 people, including masked men, turned up to the home of Justice minister Naomi Long.

SDLP councillor Pete Byrne says disinformation being spread online goes hand-in-hand with intimidation of politicians, and described the fake news reports as “dangerous and reckless”.

“The videos being circulated by those opposed to the Council of Sanctuary are not only misleading but dangerously reckless,” Cllr Byrne said.

“These videos, which falsely portray events surrounding the public rally in Newry, are formatted and voiced over to deceive viewers by mimicking the style of reputable news outlets.

“This deliberate spread of false information undermines the integrity of Newry, Mourne, and Down Council and distorts the efforts of councillors working to support refugees and asylum seekers.

“The videos in question are stoking fear and division, leading to real-world consequences, including the vile online threats and abuse directed at our councillors.

“It is vital that discussions around such a sensitive issue are grounded in truth, empathy, and facts. I urge those behind these videos to cease their dangerous disinformation campaign and engage honestly with the public, rather than manipulating social media to incite anger and division.”

West Belfast social club hosts weapons display from Troubles

JOHN BRESLIN, Irish News, October 11th, 2025

A HUGE array of weaponry, including high-powered rifles, packets marked Semtex and even a crate of petrol bombs has been on display in what was described as the Conflict Museum.

The weapons, including an Armalite, M-16 and Barrett sniper rifle, a rocket launcher and a range of handguns, made up a large proportion of the exhibits at the museum, which was open for four days inside a west Belfast social club.

Other items on display inside the West Belfast Sports and Social Club on the Falls Road included uniforms, posters and paintings.

There were also gun lapels and even a bucket of bullets.

One section was set aside for exhibits linked to the ‘Crown Forces’, including a number of uniforms and head gear, mostly riot helmets.

The organiser, Aontacht Unity, was contacted for comment on the exhibition.

While there was no immediate response, the Falls Road-based Aontacht describes itself on social media as an “Irish Republican historical group dedicated to remembering all who gave their lives in the cause of Irish freedom”.

On posters promoting the popup museum, the group is described as an Irish cultural and historical re-enactment society. The club, also known as the West Club, was contacted for comment.

The museum, open from September 30 to October 3, contained items covering different eras of the 20th century, from the 1916 Rising on. There was even an artillery gun from the earlier period on display.

A rocket launcher on display at the Conflict Museum; below, packets of Semtex and the barrel of a rocket launcher

However, most of the weaponry positioned on multiple tables appeared to be linked to the Troubles.

It is known Aontacht has previously displayed its range of exhibits, including three years ago, again at the West Club. This was the 1916 Museum which opened for three days in September 2022.

The exhibit included weapons from the rising, uniforms, documents, backdrops, prison art and a life-size prison cell, according to a report from the time.

Aontacht said then it is “not connected with anyone or any other group and expressed their gratitude to the West Club’s Committee for hosting the museum at their venue”.

It was reported the group was formed in 2016.

 ‘Official history' of Troubles needed but risks Govt meddling

SAM MCBRIDE, NORTHERN IRELAND EDITOR, Belfast Telegraph, October 11th, 2025

WHITEHALL SAYS IT HAS NEVER INTERFERED IN WHAT OFFICIAL HISTORIANS HAVE WRITTEN - BUT DOCUMENT WE'VE FOUND DISPROVES THAT, SHOWING IT 'NEGOTIATED' WITH FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OVER WHAT COULD BE SAID COMMENT

In The Steel Shutter, a remarkable Troubles film made more than half a century ago, nine people from Belfast were taken to Philadelphia to sit in a circle and talk while being filmed by the celebrated psychologist Carl Rogers.

What emerged is one of the rawest and most revelatory insights into the nature and extent of Northern Ireland's divisions.

At one point as the group frankly discussed the Troubles raging back at home, 20-year-old Protestant shipyard worker George held forth that the only way to resolve the problems was for people to forget the past.

Young Catholic teacher Sean interjected to say that “human nature being what it is, some people can't forget the past”.

More than 50 years later, the same division exists between those who optimistically believe that 'drawing a line under the past' would allow us to 'move on', and those who believe we can only truly reconcile by confronting the ugliness of what really happened.

The Government has now decided that the past cannot be ignored either. Last year, it announced the commissioning of an 'official history' of British policy during the Troubles.

If this goes ahead, it could drastically reshape our understanding of the 30 years of slaughter.

Propaganda masquerading as ‘history’

'Official History' is a deeply problematic phrase. As Professor Rodney Lowe, author of the official history of the Civil Service, once said, many historians' first response to the term is “contempt on the grounds that it is mere propaganda — 'official but not history'”.

On paper, the project promises something astonishing: That five historians working for five years will be allowed access to everything — literally everything — held by the British state. Given the acute sensitivity of what the intelligence services hold, this involves breathtaking trust.

Even Government ministers would not have expected to be told the names of top-level informants within the IRA. For good reason, such information was, and remains, kept on a strictly need-to-know basis. Is it really credible that wholly independent historians are going to be able to wade through what they like in the files of MI5, MI6 and Army intelligence?

Much of the criticism of this project from academics is understandable, because academics, like journalists, prize independence. They are rightly suspicious that government funding will inevitably mean government interference.

Yet the far greater vulnerability here is to the Government; it appears to have embarked on something so gargantuan that if it keeps its promises there are insurmountable risks for it — and opportunities for far greater openness than critics fear possible.

The expert panel of historians to advise on this project includes many academics with stellar credentials, among them Prof Ian McBride from Oxford, Emeritus Prof Henry Patterson from Ulster University, and Prof Caoimhe Nic Dháibhéid from the University of Sheffield.

The credibility of the careers of the historians they select to do the work rests on them doing a professional job.

Emphasis on policy not operations

It is now emphasised that this is an official history of British policy rather than of Operation Banner or more detailed elements of the Troubles. That could be used to drastically curtail what's involved.

Yet to properly understand policy, individual incidents need examined in detail. Understanding allegations of the alleged shoot to kill policy would for instance require examination of all records relating to the killing of IRA members in Gibraltar and Loughgall.

If even one of the academics resigns in protest at being thwarted, the value of the entire project —fairly or unfairly — will for many people be destroyed.

Government cannot make these people unsee what they have seen in the files. Signing terrifying legal waivers is in this area unlikely to work. Such assurances would not prevent an academic giving evidence to a parliamentary committee, or an MP telling the Commons what the Government had sought to keep hidden.

Even if the Government could ensure that it thought every historian was unlikely to do this, it cannot know — and those people cannot know — how they will react to what they see.

What is clear is that something is now holding up this process.

The last document published on the project website is more than a year old. It is the minutes of the third meeting of the expert panel and records that civil servants gave the academics “new ministers' early views” on the project.

The minutes themselves are exceptionally thorough — vastly more detailed than the deliberately secretive records now made across government.

The minutes are recorded by the NIO, which appears to be providing administrative support. However, the openness of the minutes gives a small indication that the historians are having some impact. There is no way the NIO on its own would be so forthcoming. The minutes of the first meeting of the panel 18 months ago show that the Cabinet Office official in charge of official histories referred to “restrictions” on accessing material on “reputational grounds”.

If there really is to be censorship of material to protect reputations, that would be indefensible.

At that point, the panel believed it would be “unrealistic” for the historians to start work by the end of 2024 but felt “January 2025 to be more practical”.

In fact, the advertisements didn't go out until the spring with applications to be in by the end of May and interviews by mid-June.

The panel was then to make recommendations to the Secretary of State who would “decide based on merit” who should go to the Prime Minister for approval.

Vigorous vetting

To be given access to Top Secret material, each candidate must undergo Developed Vetting — the most rigorous background checks.

That may be what's delaying things; it's likely to take months and it would be difficult to announce names before knowing if they would pass vetting.

Prof Nic Dháibhéid, who co-chairs the expert panel, said there were “a very high number and calibre of applications” to undertake the work and that the names of those historians should be announced “in the coming months”.

She freely acknowledged that it would be hard to think of “a more inauspicious time” in which to begin a project of this nature, citing the continued debate about the legacy of the Troubles, the coarsening of public discourse driven by social media, and the hostility in British-Irish relations in the post-Brexit period.

The Cork-born historian accepted that the project “has attracted some vocal criticisms, including from inside the academy”, but said that this had been considered rather than dismissed.

She said the aim was to produce “an objective and independent account of British policy and its implementation in Northern Ireland over the course of the Troubles. To do so, the historians appointed will have full access to state archives, including closed archives. This is a great privilege, and it brings with it great responsibility.”

She added: “It also requires honest reflection on what this official history can and cannot do. It cannot provide justice in the strictly legal sense. There are other, far more appropriate forums in which justice can be pursued. But it will, I hope, contribute to truth, albeit to a truth that is mediated through the project team's professional lenses.”

Prof Nic Dháibhéid said that those involved “are not naïve and we do not anticipate that this will be necessarily straightforward” but stressed that “historians are used to working with incomplete or partial archives, of reading into the silences and the omissions…to join the dots”.

She said it would not be “the final word” and in the future other historians would be able to “add to, advance, reject or disprove the analyses of this project”, something they welcome.

Even if the historians only see 80% of material, they could drastically change our understanding of the Troubles.

However, I have found evidence which substantiates some of the wider concerns about how these official histories can be interfered with by government.

Falklands War - Placating US

While searching through files at The National Archives, I recently stumbled upon a newly-declassified file from 2004 which records disputes about the publication of Sir Lawrence Freedman's official history of the Falklands War.

Minutes of the meetings of a civil service committee overseeing the project reveal discussions about US unhappiness at the draft text.

The Embassy in Washington was asked to present “what they considered to be the US bottom line on some of the material they wanted withheld” and “changes were negotiated on this basis”.

They had then “written to the Americans to ask whether they were happy with the changes which had been made”.

This demonstrates that in this case there were political negotiations with a foreign government over what an independent historian could write.

As time went on, the civil servants became increasingly pedantic. They decided to remove the word “revelations” from the blurb of the book, deciding to replace it with the more bureaucratic “accounts of”.

This had nothing, of course, to do with protecting national security or human life — the sorts of reasons given for government having a say in these histories. It was simply a demonstration of where power lay.

Even though it was being published by an independent publisher, the meeting agreed that the Government should take an interest in who review copies were sent to. The minutes recorded that “the group agreed that it was important to have some control over this process and it might be better to suggest possible reviewers”.

But officials' ability to dictate what was written only went so far.

A frustrated Freedman wrote to the Foreign Office in June 2004 to say: “The problem that has now arisen is not of my making. It has nothing to do with the quality of the history or with any new information which I wish to disclose. It largely relates to speculative assumptions about the possible responses of foreign governments to publication.”

He highlighted that Margaret Thatcher herself had put into the public domain the nature of cooperation from Chile, which secretly helped Britain during the war but whose role made officials uneasy.

Reluctant deletions made

Freedman said: “At the request of officials I reluctantly agreed not to use any new sources to discuss the contentious aspect of this cooperation, and I do not discuss any post-1982 dealings with Chile.”

He then set out an ultimatum: “In the event of a decision not to publish, I will have little choice but to resign as official historian. While I will obviously not refer to the issue under dispute, I will have to explain that non-publication is not the result of any failure to fulfil the task set for me....”

He added: “As I suggested this morning, the time to prevent the official history raising problems of this sort was seven years ago when it might have been strangled at birth. It is now fully grown and eagerly awaited by all those with an interest in the Falklands campaign.”

On its website, the Northern Ireland official history project states: “The name 'official' history, might suggest that the Government determines the content of the books, including any judgements expressed in them. This was and has never been the case. Past examples of official histories have shown that historians have been free to write about what they found independently.”

What I have discovered in the archives disproves this claim. Clearly, at least in Freedman's case, the Government was seeking to determine the content of his book — to the extent that he felt the need to threaten to resign if officials' behaviour didn't change.

If that happens here, in a far more sensitive area and in an age of far greater public suspicion of government, the results could be calamitous — and unlikely to stay hidden for two decades.

When is a loyalist threat of violence not a threat?

NEWTON EMERSON on the week that was, Irish News, October 11th, 2025

SHOULD you condemn the threat of violence if you believe no threat was made? That was the question facing unionist parties at Belfast City Council.

A newspaper reported UDA and UVF threats to burn council premises and vehicles branded with any new bilingual logo.

Other parties signed a letter of condemnation from Irish language group Conradh na Gaeilge, but the DUP, UUP and TUV declined, saying there was no evidence the threats were real.

Their stance appeared vindicated shortly afterwards, when the PSNI said it had no evidence of a threat.

DUP Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly told the assembly her party had checked this with the PSNI as the letter was circulating, adding that all threats were wrong.

Unionist councillors and MLAs issued similar condemnations of “any threats” and of loyalist paramilitarism in general, so strictly speaking everyone stayed on the side of law and order.

But this does seem like hair-splitting after unionist parties spent last week warning a bilingual logo could lead to council staff and property being attacked.

Experience should also have taught them that a police statement on no evidence of paramilitary activity is often followed by equivocation on whether it was ‘sanctioned at leadership level’.

 Language differences

THERE appears to be a hold-up with the appointment of the Irish language and Ulster British commissioners by the Executive Office – that is, the office of the first and deputy first ministers.

In a possible sign of tensions, Pól Deeds, the designated Irish language commissioner, condemned the Executive Office over the reported loyalist threats to Belfast City Council.

“By failing to come out and defend their own policy – and UK law – [the Executive Office] are failing in their duty of care to the new commissioner before he has even taken up his post,” he wrote on X.

An English language commissioner would point out that the Executive Office is singular, not plural, but that is a minor matter.

More seriously, Deeds also said the threats were “the result of the media – especially the BBC – platforming bigotry in the wake of [Belfast City Council’s] policy announcement”.

Blaming the media for violent threats because it has reported arguments and hosted debates is a highly problematic position on the rights to free expression and freedom of the press, especially from someone due to take up an important role as a cultural regulator.

 Is Alliance regretting its decision?

BELFAST City Council has held a vote on whether to extend the survey period for bilingual street signs by one or two weeks, due to a change in Royal Mail delivery schedules. Alliance voted with the UUP and the DUP, although this was not enough for a majority at the committee in question.

This is the clearest indication yet that Alliance has buyer’s remorse about the council’s 2022 street sign policy, which only passed with its support.

The policy dropped the threshold to approve a sign from two-thirds of residents to 15% but promised flexibility would be shown for “local context”.

After nationalists won three more seats in the 2023 council election, all flexibility ceased.

The local rows this has inevitably caused tend to be in mixed streets, which tend to be Alliance territory. The party has been extremely naive, and nationalists have treated it with remarkable bad faith.

 Is Maiden City a foreign destination?

Plans have been announced for the return of the air route from City of Derry Airport to Dublin

DUBLIN and Stormont have finalised plans announced in June to subsidise the return of the Derry to Dublin air route.

A question cropping up in much social media reaction is how this is possible under the 2022 Climate Change Act, whose emission reduction targets may have just scuppered the A5.

Aviation emissions are counted under the Act but international air travel is excluded – and Derry to Dublin counts as international.

However, a specific section in the Act allows them to be included if Alliance Environment Minister Andrew Muir makes a regulation. Sinn Féin

Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins would then have to make a plan to limit or offset flights.

Everyone seems to be ignoring this, although it looks safe from legal challenge, unlike ignoring the requirements related to the A5.

 Are Americans welcome? 

BANK of America announced last month it will be making its first investment in Northern Ireland, creating 1,000 jobs in a global fraud detection centre.

Sinn Féin has been keeping quiet about this significant development, presumably because Bank of America is involved in the sale of Israeli government bonds.

So are many banks, including until last month the Central Bank of Ireland, but Bank of America has come to the particular attention of activists.

Unionists have now began teasing Sinn Féin about its silence.

In the Assembly on Monday, DUP and UUP members asked the first and deputy first ministers to welcome the investment.

Only Emma Little-Pengelly was present to respond. She agreed it was important for ministers to celebrate the success “regardless of personal views or political opinions”.

A major international investor is far likelier to be upset by being the subject of this obvious political spat than by Sinn Féin’s diplomatic silence.

Bank of America is creating 1,000 jobs in Northern Ireland

If the DUP really has Northern Ireland’s interests at heart, it will keep quiet as well.

Juice FM is not juicy enough

 BELFAST radio station Juice FM is not gay enough, according to broadcasting regulator Ofcom, which gave the station a licence in 2018 to serve the “LGBT community”.

Ofcom first criticised Juice FM’s output three years ago, after receiving a complaint. It has just done so again after receiving another complaint, ruling the station airs “a very limited amount of specialist programming for the LGBT+ community” and effectively sounds like it is simply broadcasting to the general public.

The obvious joke here is that if Juice FM identifies as gay, then it is – but should it really be any more complicated?

Ofcom also found the station meets all its “off-air social gain” targets by being “actively involved with the target community, including involvement in events likely to be of interest to the target community”.

This hardly needs to be supplemented by repeatedly playing ‘It’s Raining Men’, although to be fair to Ofcom, Juice FM brought that expectation on itself. Its original licence application promised to play “gay anthems”.

Second member of GAA ethics committee steps aside from Allianz sponsorship review

CONNLA YOUNG, Irish News, October 11th, 2025

A SECOND member of a newly-established GAA ethics committee has removed herself from a review of the association’s relationship with global insurance firm Allianz.

Confirmation that Meath native and barrister Aoife Farrelly has recused herself from the review comes days after The Irish News revealed that Belfast-based High Court judge Adrian Colton has also stepped aside.

Both legal figures are members of the GAA’s six-person Ethics and Integrity Committee, which was established earlier this year.

Their recusals mean a third of the committee membership has stepped aside from discussion of the GAA’s arrangements with Allianz.

The insurance giant sponsors the association’s National Football and Hurling leagues and All-Ireland SFC.

Allianz has been accused of investing in companies linked to the two-year Israeli onslaught in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of around 65,000 Palestinians, including thousands of women and children.

Hundreds more have starved to death due to Israeli blockades on food supplies.

Israel launched the current operation after around 1,200 people were killed during a Hamas-led attack inside Israeli territory in October 2023, during which around 200 hostages were taken.

UN Commission of Inquiry

Last month, a UN commission of inquiry said Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

It is not known if a ceasefire deal reached between Hamas and Israel announced on Thursday will have an impact on the GAA’s review.

The association was asked why Ms Farrelly, who has served on its Central Hearings Committee, has recused herself from the Allianz review, but no response was received.

In a statement to The Irish News last week, the office of the Lady Chief Justice (LCJ) confirmed Mr Colton has recused himself from the Allianz matter because it may be “politically controversial”.

A spokesman for the GAA said no other members of the review panel, which includes Teresa Rehill, Liam Keane, Ken Spratt and Con Hogan, have recused themselves.

When asked if any other matters have been referred to the Ethics and Integrity Committee, a GAA spokesman did not provide a direct response.

“Matters referred to the commission are often confidential in nature and not appropriate for public disclosure,” he said.

A Drop Allianz protest will take place at Croke Park today.

Labour has been weak towards EU Ireland, who have taken advantage of that weakness

Belfast News Letter, October 11th, 2025: EDITORIAL

Almost every week there is fresh evidence of the scale of the Irish Sea border.

​The frontier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is complex, and has been emerging in stages, so it has taken time for most observers to understand its big impact. But this is not good enough for the EU, which is blackmailing the UK government by refusing to hold detailed talks about an SPS (Sanitary and Phytosanitary) deal, on animal and plant life, until the internal UK barrier is enforced to its standards.

If we set aside the constitutional outrage of the UK have lost control of swathes of its economy in part of its own territory, relating not just to movements of materials but also to rules that have influence in spheres beyond physical goods, there is another point to make about intransigence in Brussels: who can blame it for taking a robust approach to Labour leaders so bad at negotiation?

A UK government that somehow failed to understand that signalling an enthusiastic desire to ‘reset’ relations with the EU would embolden it? Labour seemed not to see that you can be friendly with negotiating opponents but tough too.

The same point – that weakness will be exploited – was not understood with regard to Ireland too. Labour held a summit in March in which leading members of the government gushed about an Ireland that is not merely suing Britain, but doing so on hypocritical grounds (it objected to the former UK government’s conditional amnesty legacy plan, despite Ireland operating a flagrant amnesty for the IRA).

And guess where such weakness towards Ireland led? As the Tory Lord Caine told this newspaper from the Conservative conference, Ireland felt it could continue to sue the UK while jointly launching a legacy plan with it. Thus Dublin is keeping its legal threat alive until it is sure that legacy is focused on claims against UK state forces

United Ireland could result in unionists holding Dáil’s balance of power, UUP leader says

Freya McClements, Irish Times, October 13th, 2025

“No one is ready for a Border poll” and constitutional change would be “destabilising, confusing and ultimately ... disappointing”, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) leader Mike Nesbitt has told his party conference.

Mr Nesbitt used his speech to outline to delegates why a united Ireland would not be in the interests of people on both sides of the Border and warned it could result in unionists holding the balance of power in the Dáil.

“If there was a new Ireland, there could be maybe 60 new, additional TDs representing what was Northern Ireland in the Irish parliament” with “around half of them” unionist and/or British, the UUP leader said.

“So, unionists could hold the balance of power in Leinster House. Why would a proud Irish person want me, or [DUP leader] Gavin Robinson, or Jim Allister [Traditional Unionist Voice leader] choosing their next taoiseach?”

Addressing several hundred of the party faithful in a south Belfast hotel on Saturday, the MLA for Strangford – who is also his party’s only Minister – rejected the argument that a united Ireland would be “transformational” for the economy, saying “what was transformational was the crash of the Celtic Tiger in 2008, which required a massive bailout.

“Irish finances look good, but one of their biggest sectors is pharmaceuticals, a multibillion-dollar industry that the Republic is heavily involved in, but ... in a manner that deeply displeases Donald Trump. The implications are very clear,” Mr Nesbitt said.

He also argued a United Ireland would not make sense in terms of defence “at a time when geopolitical tensions are so great”.

“The UK is committed to upping our percentage spend on defence; the Republic doesn’t spend half of 1 per cent.

Freeloading on Defence

“With an American administration hostile to Europe and – crudely – the accusation European nations are freeloading on the USA’s military, are we really going to divorce ourselves from our greatest protection?

“No, we should increase the capacity of the Royal Navy and the air force to use Northern Ireland to defend our shores and our international interests,” he said.

Listing a number of “ironies” around the constitutional question, the Ulster Unionist leader said one of these was that “unionists don’t always recognise that one of the people who understands that no one is ready for a Border poll is the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin. Hence his focus on Shared Island [initiative] rather than a referendum.”

Mr Nesbitt warned that the “biggest threat” to Northern Ireland remaining part of the UK was not Irish nationalists, but English nationalism.

Cross of St George

He said he had been struck in Westminster “by the number of MPs sporting lapel badges, not with the flag of the United Kingdom, but the flag of St George ... waving the flag of England has become a campaign for many English people.

“Like Brexit, they see it as another campaign to ‘take back control’,” he said, explaining that the “danger” was that English nationalist MPs would object to the billions paid by the UK treasury to Northern Ireland’s annual subvention, which they would feel could pay for hospitals or schools in their own constituencies.

“That’s the real danger of supporting the sort of right-wing parties other unionists currently find so appealing,” he said.

Hitting out at those who “accuse any unionist in engaging in the debate” around a united Ireland “of being a Lundy [traitor]”, he said it should be dealt with by discussing it “openly, transparently and honestly”.

“The problem with constitutional change like Brexit is that it’s destabilising, confusing and ultimately disappointing,” Mr Nesbitt said. “I think one constitutional leap of faith is enough for any generation to endure.”

Mr Nesbitt, who is also Stormont’s Minister for Health, defended his record, saying he had “made difficult decisions ... difficult and unpopular decisions”.

“I did so because it was the right thing to do.”

The Ulster Unionist leader called on the Northern Ireland Executive to “pay the workforce what they deserve” and, regarding the failure to implement this year’s pay award for nursing staff, said it would be “bad faith” for the Executive “who approved pay parity, not to maintain that position”.

“Let’s stop making nurses and healthcare workers feel they are the only ones, right across the United Kingdom, who have to threaten strike action to get what’s theirs,” he said.

The Firm: a 'cross-community' and expanding drugs gang with more firepower than the paramilitaries

ALLISON MORRIS, Belfast Telegraph, October 11th, 2025

THE JAILING OF TWO MEN FOR MCKEOWN MURDER HAS TURNED THE SPOTLIGHT ON RUTHLESS GROUP

When the crime gang known as The Firm first emerged, few took the idea of a Northern Ireland based 'cross-community' criminal enterprise seriously.

However, now responsible for the supply of the majority of illegal drugs in the Armagh and Down areas, as well as being heavily armed, the group has been linked to three murders.

On Monday, two of its members were jailed for the murder of loyalist Malcolm McKeown in 2019.

McKeown was said to have been targeted over a drug deal gone wrong and was aware for some time that he was under threat.

Both of McKeown's brothers, Trevor and Clifford, are convicted loyalist killers, so he was not a man easily intimidated.

Clifford McKeown (65) received a life sentence for shooting Catholic taxi driver Michael McGoldrick (31) in July 1996.

In July 1997, Trevor McKeown, a member of the LVF, crept into the family home of the teenage boyfriend of Bernadette Martin (18), in Aghalee, shooting her four times in the head at point-blank range. He was jailed for life.

And yet Malcolm McKeown's two killers, who were both half of the loyalist's age at the time, showed no fear in murdering him in a daylight ambush which the judge said was carried out like a “terrorist attack”.

Jake O'Brien, from Rectory Road in Lurgan, will serve at least 26 years of his life sentence for the murder.

Andrew Martin, of Bridge Street in Banbridge, was told he will serve a 24-year minimum tariff — his slightly lighter sentence was the result of entering a late guilty plea.

They were aged 25 and 24 at the time of the attack.

Murder trail

McKeown was hit six times, once in the head and five times to the torso, after the pair used a pistol and a revolver to fire 16 shots. The judge said there had been “an unequivocal intention to kill”.

McKeown was The Firm's first kill, but would not be the last.

They have also been linked to the murder of a petty criminal who was said to have owed them a fairly small sum of money. This murder victim is not being named for legal reasons.

But the victim was also linked to veteran criminal James Carlisle — a close associate of Malcolm McKeown.

Carlisle, who took his own life while in prison, had survived a previous gun attack at the hands of The Firm.

Drug dealer Kevin Conway had been charged in connection with the petty criminal's murder, and was bailed to an address in west Belfast, despite being originally from Lurgan.

The Firm believed Conway was preparing to turn state witness in the killing.

Conway (26) was shot dead at his bail address in the Greenan area of Andersonstown on January 9, 2024.

His killing was linked to members of the group Óglaigh na hÉireann (ONH), despite the dissident organisation being on ceasefire.

Two men — Fergal Kane and Aidan O'Keefe — are charged with the murder. Neither is alleged to be the gunman, but it is the prosecution's case that they are part of a wider joint enterprise.

They were both held on the dissident republican wing of Maghaberry prior to applying for bail.

The Conway killing was linked to a breakaway faction of ONH that sided with those who attacked Republican Network for Unity member Sean O'Reilly in a failed murder attempt in February this year.

At Kane's first bail hearing, a Crown lawyer indicated Kane would have to have been a significant, trusted part of an organised crime grouping.

The Belfast Telegraph understands this grouping to be The Firm. Conway's father had been murdered by the IRA in February 1998.

While the IRA never admitted responsibility, Kevin Conway Snr had been looking after his infant son at his home in the republican Kilwilkie estate in Lurgan when he was abducted.

Two days later, Mr Conway's body was found in a derelict farmhouse in Aghalee. His hands were tied behind his back and he had been shot in the head.

One of those questioned at the time was a close associate of Sam Marshall, who was shot dead by the UVF in 1990 — Lurgan republican Colin Duffy was the intended target of that attack.

So it is all the more extraordinary that an associate of Marshall's is now a leading member of The Firm, which also includes relatives and former members of the LVF.

In April 2019, The Firm shot at the house of Colin Duffy. Family members were in the property at the time, but no one was injured.

The Firm told ONH that Conway was responsible for the attack on Duffy's house, carried out in revenge for the murder of his father, making him a viable target for the dissidents.

When rumours that the breakaway group had been paid by the drug gang to kill Conway first surfaced, the group reacted by issuing a coded warning, claiming they were going to “take on” members of the gang.

One year on and there have been no attacks on any members of The Firm by the dissident group, who are outnumbered in terms of members and firepower by the growing drug gang.

South Armagh drug dealer Brendan O'Callaghan is also said to be involved with the crime gang.

The 37-year-old, on bail awaiting sentencing for drug and money laundering offences, is a known associate of gangster Drew King, who was a piper at the funeral of LVF chief Billy Wright.

King was charged with the 2001 murder of Sunday World journalist Martin O'Hagan, only for the case to collapse. He denies involvement in criminality.

According to multiple sources, King was an associate of O'Callaghan and both would be close to leading members of The Firm.

The gang have recruited dozens of young drug runners, both male and female, and are now said to have over 100 members.

Relatives of murdered former IRA man Kevin McGuigan were also involved with The Firm, helping to supply the gang with weapons, many stolen during burglaries of homes where there were legally held firearms present.

McGuigan was shot dead outside his Short Strand home in 2015 in retaliation for the murder of IRA commander Gerard 'Jock' Davison in the Markets area of south Belfast a few months earlier.

McGuigan had been a hitman for Direct Action Against Drugs, a cover name used by the IRA to claim the murders of drug dealers in the late 1990s when the organi