Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A SENIOR BRITISH politician who stated in 1989 that some solicitors in Northern Ireland were “unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA” was reflecting “a precise official briefing” and was not making “spontaneous outburst”, newly released State papers show.
Douglas Hogg, then a Home Office minister, was criticised for remarks he made in the House of Commons in January 1989.
Three weeks later, on 12 February, human rights solicitor Pat Finucane was shot dead by loyalists, who acted in collusion with British security forces, in front of his wife and three children at his home in Belfast.
Hogg’s comments were seen by some as an incitement to violence. State papers from that time confirm that the Home Office and “senior people in No 10″ at the time gave “a fairly clear indication that there will be no retraction and no public censure of Hogg”.
An official Irish government document notes: “While (like his father) Hogg wins few marks for political judgement and sensitivity, he is reckoned to be ‘safe’ in this instance because he acted on official advice. He prefaced his remarks to the Select Committee on 17 January with an indication to this effect.”
The document adds that Hogg had privately said “he had carefully repeated his claim in the same terms several times in order to indicate that this was not a spontaneous outburst on his part but reflected, rather, a precise official briefing”.
He also stated that he “had contemplated ‘naming names’ (which had been provided to him) but had decided not to do so as this would be an abuse of parliamentary privilege”.
The document notes that the Irish government believed Hogg’s advice had come from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office.
There is reportedly a list which names three nationalist solicitors (Pat Finucane, Oliver Kelly and Paddy McGrory) and two solicitors with Loyalist sympathies (Jonathan Taylor, believed to have UDA connections, and one other).
The Finucane family has always maintained that he was not a member of the IRA, something which authorities and the government also believe.
The document states that Hogg indicated on 17 January 1989 that “he had to intervene as he did in order to dispose of an amendment sought by Labour (and also Bill Cash) which aimed to protect the confidential relationship between solicitor and client”.
However, the document adds: “Hogg had been under fire from Seamus Mallon and Labour on earlier matters (notably house searches) and, being naturally combative, had been looking out for an issue on which he could ‘fight back’.”
A separate official document tells Brian Lenihan Senior, who was the Tanáiste at the time, that he “might like to say in the tete-a-tete that he is concerned about the recent remarks of the Home Office Minister, Douglas Hogg, in the House of Commons that some Northern solicitors are ‘unduly sympathetic to the cause of the IRA’”.
“This was all the more unfortunate because of rumours circulating that Mr Paddy McCrory and certain other solicitors may be targeted by loyalist paramilitaries. We could repeat (very privately) our view that Mr Paddy McGrory is certainly not a solicitor we would regard as being “unduly sympathetic” towards the IRA. We see his relationship with IRA clients as entirely professional.”
McGrory represented the families of the Gibraltar Three – three unarmed IRA members were shot dead by British SAS officers on Gibraltar on 6 March 1988.
Finucane’s best-known client was the IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands.
‘Compromised’
In 2001, Hogg was interviewed by detectives who were investigating claims that the British Army colluded with loyalist paramilitary assassins to murder Finucane.
In 2003, a major report into collaboration between security forces and loyalist paramilitaries found that Hogg was “compromised” by information fed to him by RUC officers. Sir John Stevens, the report’s author, said at the time that Hogg’s comments had not been justified.
A separate report which was released in 2012 concluded that British army agent handlers “deliberately” helped loyalist gunmen select their targets in Northern Ireland in the 1980s. However, the De Silva report said British ministers may have been unaware that Finucane was being lined up for assassination.
Launching the report in London seven years ago, then-British Prime Minister David Cameron agreed that there were “shocking levels of collusion” between the State, police officers and soldiers and the UDA members who killed Finucane.
Addressing the British parliament, Cameron apologised and said that “on the balance of probability”, an officer or officers from the RUC did propose Finucane as a target to loyalist terrorists.
Finucane’s widow, Geraldine, at the time described the report as “a sham”, “a whitewash” and “not the truth”. In October of this year, a BBC Spotlight programme reported that MI5 destroyed secret information from computer hard drives being held by an inquiry examining Finucane’s murder.
Geraldine told the programme: “I was told that papers marked ‘cabinet eyes only’ involved the collusion and the killing of my husband. There is something there that needs to be exposed.”
In February of this year, the UK Supreme Court ruled there has been no valid inquiry into the killing. At the time, the Finucane family’s solicitor said the decision “vindicated” their “relentless campaign” for justice.
Finucane’s son John was elected a Sinn Féin MP for North Belfast, unseating DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds, earlier this month.
Unfortunately, this University is really dropping standards, the quality of new lecturing staff is very low, they seem to be hiring people who have qualified with PhDs but no experience. Incredible campus though!
@Joe Conlon: That’s not true the standard of lecturing is excellent. There are new PHD lecturers in most universities but that doesn’t mean they are poor in any way. It’s a fantastic place and it’s a shame to see former staff claiming money they were not supposed to get. That’s if the allegations prove true. The University under its new leadership has done the right thing in looking for a review. It’s a big place with many departments and many qualifications offered and all are of the highest calibre.
@Joe Conlon: That sounds like a very broad assessment and I doubt it’s true. Mind narrowing it down to the department you have experience with because it certainly isn’t true for mine.
@Catherine Sims: we will have to disagree on that, I suppose it does depend on discipline but there has been a significant drop in standards, education is a commodity now and is being reflected as such in this unit.
@Joe Conlon: It has the 2nd highest employability in the country after Trinity and is in the top 150 globally, I’m not sure what you’re using to measure this standard drop.
http://www.ul.ie/international/ul-ranks-highly-qs-global-employability-ranking
@Rochelle: perhaps Joe didn’t do well and wants to blame the lecturers ???
@Catherine Sims: Perhaps he didn’t even get in!
@Rochelle: My own experience, I studied there as an undergrad and got my master’s there back in the day and it was truly excellent, I decided to study further on a part time basis recently and simply found the people over the programme did not know their material at all. By the way, if you have the time read Ellen Hazelkorns books on rankings and that will make it clear on why these rankings that you just referenced mean nothing.
@Catherine Sims: I have done very well thank you, I even lectured there myself for 5 years but am now working in the private sector. However, with your negative response I suspect that it’s you that has ended up in a dead-end job?
@Chef, you don’t even have a qualify to get into University, once you are 23 you can apply for any course in any college that you wish, and if you have enough money, universities service the elites even better. Another individual with a chip on your shoulder I suspect?
@Joe Conlon: In which department? My objection is why you’re tarnishing an entire University for what seems to be an observation you’ve made in your own department.
@Catherine Sims: Catherine if the lecturing staff are confined primarily people with PHD’s and not enough people with experience would he have a point?
@Catherine Sims: if the above point is valid (which it is), why would you try and suggest a possible slander and ridicule to his character based of a journal comment and having no knowledge? Would that make you a petulant child? Asking for a friend
All universities are certainly guilty of a particular problem: making certain that people don’t get employed long enough to give permanency.
Now, there’s a few fair arguments on that: Lecturers fresh from PhD or within a few years from their research tend to be more up to date and permanence can facilitate complacency.
But there are certainly counterpoints on that too: PhDs are very specific and with a narrow focus, if you’re in a place and proving yourself for a decade then it’s hard to argue someone is complacent.
As with all jobs, minimum expectations should be met. During my time at UL I had only 2 lecturers I had a problem with – one a complete waster (anyone who studied to be a tech teacher in UL will know EXACTLY who this is) and the other someone I just fundementally disagreed with but can recognise that they were certainly fit for the job.
The same goes for the TA’s who were IMO nothing less than excellent.
As for excessive expenses – I would be surprised if questions shouldn’t be asked of a lot of universities on that.
What gets me about things like that are that in a static way, it should be pretty obvious where there should be questions asked. Things aren’t static of course – blips in funding and workload occur. But over a period of years it should be pretty reasonable to look at ratios and be readily able to explain any deviation from what you would expect to be a pretty reasonable cycle.
And the whistle blowers who exposed the financial malpractice within UL have been treated disgracefully ever since. Smear campaigns have been carried out by certain individuals.
@Colm O’Sullivan: it wouldnt be Ireland if it were any different
Great University and great Campus.
Unfortunately he mentioned ‘stakeholders’ – that’s when I glaze over.
@eastsmer #IRExit: You do know that isn’t the same thing as “stockholders”?
Everyone working and attanding and studying at UL are stakeholders.
It is interesting to note that UL point blank refused to alert or inform former aeronautical engineering students, who had work experience placements in the Irish Army Air Corps, that they were unnecessarily & dangerously exposed to highly toxic chemicals during the placement.
Over approximately 20 years scores of UL students were exposed with some now suffering illnesses common to exposed Air Corps & civillian airbase personnel.
Toxic chemicals they were exposed to without PPE include Benzene, Cresylic Acid, Dichloromethane, Hydrofluoric Acid, Isocyanates, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, nHexane, Toluene, Trichloroethylene and Xylene as well as many different Hexavalent Chromium compounds.
See http://www.accas.info for more.
@Chemical Brothers: is it long term or short term exposure that causes these health issues? For example, alcohol and fags in the long term can causes cancer. In the short term the body can heal and eliminate the toxins.
@Bairéid Rísteard: Very long term. For example Dichloromethane, with an allowable TWA of 50ppm, was measured in ERF in August 1995 at 175ppm. After this was discovered staff were left to rot in this small building resulting in the deaths of at least 5 personnel. 2 x Non Hodgkins 1 x Brain Tumour, 1 x Crohns, 1 x Brain Tumour, 1 x Heart Failure. There was a further non fatal heart attack and a non fatal Hodgkins. All except 2x Non Hodgkins were suffered by young men in their 20s / early 30s. No one was issued with any PPE.
http://www.accas.info/?page_id=142
Note the State Claims Agency (aka NTMA/NAMA) claims personnel were not exposed to dangerous chemicals whatsoever.
@Bairéid Rísteard: Sorry meant to say staff we left to rot in this location for a further 12 years.
Air Quality reports from 1995 & 1997 were ordered destroyed by Air Corps Health & Safety management in 2006 when a stsff member went yellow with a liver injury. Similar liver injuries (Toxic Hepatitis) occurred in Jan/Feb of this year through lack of chemical & PPE training.
@Chemical Brothers: that’s shocking, and very sad for those men and their families. I was recently in a paint hangar (not as a painter), and the ppe standards were abysmal. Seems like history is repeating itself.
@Bairéid Rísteard: Unfortunately this gets a lot worse.
Adult body count has recently reached 20 for serving & former personnel whilst 5 children of personnel are also dead through a combination of cancer & congenital defects.
In recent weeks we have also learned of at least 7 cases of autism/autism spectrum disorder amongst personnel’s children as well as 1 x Cri-Du-Chat syndrome, 2 x trisomy 21 and 1 x XYY syndrome.
Exposed chemicals were carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenic and are doing exactly as they said on the tin
Irish Army Air Corps only started to attempt to comply with 1989 chemical legislation in 2016 but it appears to be only a box ticking exercise with little extra resources on the ground and little effort to enforce a safety culture change.
White Collar Crime is rampant all over the place…..bring in CAB….
A great time to release all this bad news to the media, will get lost in a few hours in Garda Scandals ,brexit and Endexit.
Be interesting to see what former president Dr Ed Walsh will say. He surely will be on Newstalk and will blame the secondary school teachers!!
Second big fire in two days in Limerick . This time in the Raheen industrial estate. Do we have an arsonist on the loose I wonder ?
@Catherine Sims: No we don`t , two seperate unrelated incidents
@Tony O Dwyer: And a completely seperate story.
have your say