#that to refer to the ira is to refer to a terrorist organisation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

xhxhxhx · 3 years

Text

Alan Allport’s Britain at Bay (Knopf, 2020) is great on all the ways the United Kingdom was an only imperfectly free country at the beginning of the Second World War.

On the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act:

Police power in Northern Ireland was very different in character from elsewhere in the UK, owing to the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, or SPA. The SPA was originally passed in the emergency conditions of 1922 at the end of the Irish War of Independence. Its powers had only been supposed to last one year, but it was found to be so useful that it was annually renewed by Stormont up to 1933, and made permanent thereafter.

Using the authority granted to it by the SPA, Northern Ireland’s government could impose curfews, prohibit public gatherings and protest marches, ban newspapers, arrest members of the public wearing uniforms or bearing items associated with proscribed organisations, search for and seize contraband goods, indefinitely detain those suspected of ‘subversive activity’ or exclude them from entering Northern Ireland, punish anyone making a report ‘intended or likely to cause disaffection to His Majesty’ and, in broad terms, ‘take all such steps and issue all such orders as may be necessary for preserving the peace and maintaining order’. In December 1938 the SPA was used to introduce internment without trial for suspected IRA men. Some of these detainees were taken to a prison hulk called the Al Rawdah, moored off Killyleagh, into which they were packed in bronchitic squalor for five months. The SPA granted Craigavon’s executive virtually unlimited domestic powers of control and surveillance, which were directed specifically at an ethno-religious minority regarded as a parasitical and disloyal enemy within. The SPA formed, in the words of a National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) report in 1936, ‘the basis for a legal dictatorship’. W. J. Stewart, a progressive Unionist critical of the UUP, described Northern Ireland’s government in the 1930s as ‘more completely in control of the six counties than either Hitler or Mussolini in their own countries’.

[...]

The police responded to the [IRA’s 1939] bombing campaign in different ways, some constabularies taking great pains to distinguish IRA terrorists from the Irish community at large, some less so. Newspaper stories from the Spanish Civil War had been full of reports about seditious ‘Fifth Columnists’, and the possibility that Irish migrants might be providing sanctuaries for IRA men did not seem completely fantastical. In London the Metropolitan Police asked hotel and boarding-house staff to provide details about any new visitors with Irish addresses or accents. The public was encouraged to report sightings of Irishmen ‘idling’ during daylight hours on the streets of the capital. S-Plan attacks provoked panicky and legally dubious police work. After the Piccadilly bombing constables ‘dashed through the crowd haphazardly’, as one witness later put it, rounding up dozens of men with Irish brogues. The whole operation was conducted with such a lack of basic procedure that all of the detained men had to be released later in the day for want of evidence – including a couple of suspects who, it turned out later, really had been involved in planting the bomb.

On the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act:

Earlier in 1939, the S-Plan terrorist campaign had provoked a similar kind of test, on a smaller scale, of how far the British were willing to compromise their traditional civil liberties in the name of public safety. In July 1939 the home secretary had introduced the Prevention of Violence (Temporary Provisions) Act to the Commons, a remarkable piece of legislation rushed through Parliament at breakneck speed, largely forgotten in the subsequent hubbub of war but something that ought to be better remembered than it is. The Prevention of Violence Act granted the home secretary the authority to prohibit anyone who had been resident in Great Britain for less than twenty years from entering or re-entering the country if it was believed that they were ‘concerned in the preparation or instigation […] of acts of violence designed to influence public opinion or Government policy with respect to Irish affairs’. He could expel such persons from the United Kingdom and detain them for up to five days prior to that expulsion. The Act allowed, for the first time in history, a political appointee to imprison, deport and exile British subjects without reference to the courts. It also empowered the police, under certain circumstances, to conduct searches and seizures of suspects’ property without obtaining a judicial warrant first. British subjects – as all Irishmen and -women still legally were in 1939, even those living in the Free State – had never been subject to such peacetime restrictions before.

Hoare insisted to Parliament that the new Act was a ‘temporary measure to meet a passing emergency’ which would remain on the statute books for no longer than two years. Some MPs were not convinced. They saw it as an attack on Britain’s culture of democracy. ‘We are proud that this is a free country,’ argued William Wedgwood Benn (father of Tony and grandfather of Hilary). ‘Our people hold their heads a little higher because they believe they enjoy a measure of freedom […] I do not think public opinion will be assisted by giving the Home Secretary power to turn us all into ticket-of-leave men, if he so wishes.’ In return, supporters of the Act regarded these objections as a sop to terrorists. ‘What about King’s Cross?’ demanded Sir Joseph Nall, Tory MP for Manchester Hulme. ‘What about the people who are being maimed and killed?’ It was much better, he argued, ‘to deport a dozen innocent persons than to allow one innocent person to be killed’. The Prevention of Violence Act passed into law.

Even before the Second World War broke out, then, fears of terrorism had already caused the government drastically to revise traditional assumptions about the freedoms of the individual British citizen. The Prevention of Violence Act was a first step in the creeping Hibernicisation of British law during the twentieth century, a process in which restrictions on civil liberty originally applied in ‘troubled’ Ireland were progressively transferred to the rest of the United Kingdom as well. In time, an indefinite state of emergency would become the new normal.

On the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act and Treachery Act:

All of this [invasion scare] seemed to suggest that the democracy itself could not be trusted in a crisis. Only by abandoning the ‘present rather easy-going methods’ of national life and adopting a set of restrictions ‘which would approach the totalitarian’ could Britain survive a Nazi onslaught, the Cabinet was warned by Chamberlain on 18 May. The legal apparatus for such a siege dictatorship was established four days later, when a new Emergency Powers (Defence) Act was passed by the Commons in its entirety in just two hours. This was an extension of the existing emergency legislation passed at the outbreak of war which now gave the government almost unlimited authority to regulate people, property and capital without the need for parliamentary scrutiny. As the new minister for labour later observed, it made him ‘a kind of Führer with powers to order anybody anywhere’. A Treachery Act passed the same day made it a capital offence to assist the enemy’s military operations or to hamper Britain’s own.

As the Times put it, the Emergency Powers Act ‘comes near to suspending the very essence of the Constitution as it has been built up in a thousand years. Our ancient liberties are placed in pawn for victory.’ A slew of regulations soon circumscribed even the most quotidian features of the British citizen’s life. It was unlawful to ‘endeavour to influence […] public opinion in a manner likely to be prejudicial’ to the war effort, to take part in a strike, to withhold information about an invention or patent if the state demanded it, to hold an unauthorised procession, to put out flags, to operate a car radio or to put icing on a cake (wickedly wasteful of sugar). Chamberlain hoped that public opinion would back these restrictions; but if not, recalcitrant non-cooperators could be drafted into a compulsory labour corps under prison discipline.

The creation in mid-May 1940 of the Local Defence Volunteers (LDV), later renamed the Home Guard, ought to be seen in this context of government nervousness. Private citizens had responded to news of the German parachute landings in the Netherlands and Belgium by announcing the formation of ad hoc militia companies to defend their homeland. Whitehall felt it had to act quickly to control the process. One quarter of a million men aged between seventeen and sixty-five registered to join the new auxiliary force within the first week of its announcement, and by July 1940 its nominal strength stood at 1.5 million.

On Regulations 39BA and 18B:

Sir John Simon’s 1938 prophecy that rearmament and war would turn Britain into ‘a different kind of nation’ seemed to have come true. Moreover, it had happened with a remarkable lack of discussion or opposition. ‘A united nation feels no hesitation or misgiving’ about the abandonment of its personal freedoms, insisted the Times when the Emergency Powers Act was rushed through Parliament: ‘the temporary surrender [of liberties] is made with a glad heart and a confident spirit.’ That was not altogether true. There would be resistance to some of the more controversial powers the government had acquired for itself. That said, the assault on other values, particularly the presumption of innocence in law and the protection of minorities, inspired rather less sympathy.

The very British right to grumble out loud produced an early skirmish in this conflict over liberties. Regulation 39BA, introduced in June 1940, made it a criminal offence, punishable by up to a month in prison, to circulate ‘any report or statement relating to matters connected with the war which is likely to cause alarm and despondency’. It was announced at the same moment the Ministry of Information launched a ‘Silent Column’ campaign that condemned spreading rumours and gossiping about the war effort. The government was not shy about using its new power. By late July there had been over seventy prosecutions. A tradesman in Yeovil was jailed for thirty days for saying ‘Hitler will be here in a month’. A Bristol septuagenarian earned himself a week in prison for claiming that the Swastika would soon fly over Parliament.

As the summer wore on, however, a press backlash caused the government to retreat. Churchill admitted to the Commons on 23 July that, however ‘well-meant’ it had been, Regulation 39BA had had the unfortunate effect of criminalising ‘silly vapourings which are best dealt with on the spur of the moment by verbal responses’. The Silent Column was put into what he called ‘innocuous desuetude’, and the Home Secretary was asked to review all ‘alarm and despondency’ convictions. To what extent the Order’s continued existence had a chilling effect on free expression is unknowable. (‘Best to pass no opinion these days,’ as one Briton was reported saying by Home Intelligence. ‘You might get hung.’) Could anyone be certain that that innocuous pollster or Mass Observer asking them questions about the war was not a government provocateur?

A more ominous issue came up in August, when the government sought to create special regulations to deal with a crisis in which heavy bombing or invasion had halted normal legal procedures in some parts of the country. It proposed the creation of regional ‘War Zone courts’, presided over by experienced judges and appointed by the lord chancellor. Although these would not be military tribunals or courts-martial, they would nonetheless have the power to impose death sentences without appeal. ‘If we are not shot by the Germans we are evidently going to be shot by our own people,’ one Briton commented on hearing the news. The proposal was attacked in the Commons as far too vague, considering its life-and-death stakes. The Home Secretary’s reassurance that such courts would only operate with the greatest restraint was condemned as feeble by the barrister and Liberal MP Frank Kingsley Griffith: ‘it is all very well for anybody to come before this House and say, “I have a Bill which entitles me to cut off your head, but I can assure you that I am only going to cut your toe nails.” ’ In the end, the government retreated and promised that all War Court sentences would be subject to appeal. They were, in the end, never used anyway.

The Home Office received enough popular pushback against both Regulation 39BA and the War Zone courts for it to moderate its plans on the grounds of civil liberty. There was much less public concern provoked by the mass incarceration without trial of British citizens, which began on the morning of 23 May with the arrest of Sir Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Union of Fascists (BUF). Under Defence Regulation 18B, the Home Secretary could detain indefinitely anyone of ‘hostile origin or associations’ or who had recently committed ‘acts prejudicial to the public safety’. Anyone so interned had a right of appeal to an advisory committee, but they were not allowed to know who had recommended their arrest, or why.

Regulation 18B had existed since the outbreak of war but was only now applied with any seriousness. By July 1940 over 700 BUF members and fellow-travellers of the far right had been swept up, most to Brixton Prison (only a single Communist Party member, a Yorkshire shop steward accused of sabotaging workplace production, joined them).

Not great!

24 notes · View notes

seachranaidhe · 6 years

Text

Seams McGrane jailed for 11.5 years on directing IRA activities charge.

A Republican leader convicted of directing the activities of a terrorist organisation which plotted an explosion during the State visit of Britain’s Prince Charles two years ago has been jailed for eleven and a half years. Seamus McGrane (63), of Little Road, Dromiskin, County Louth, was convicted in October by the non-jury Special Criminal Court of directing the activities of an unlawful…

View On WordPress

#2010 and a bomb on a railway line #2010 and May 13th #2015. He had denied both charges. He was sentenced this morning to six and a half years in prison for IRA membership #2015. McGrane #A Republican leader convicted of directing the activities of a terrorist organisation which plotted an explosion during the State visit of B #between the dates of April 19th and May 13th #County Louth #Detonators were found in the fields adjoining McGrane’s property #Dromiskin #During the trial the court heard evidence from two audio recordings #from April and May 2015 #He had also described in the recordings an attack on Palace Barracks – the MI5 Headquarters in Northern Ireland – on April 12th #He had also made statements about providing bomb-making material for others #is only the second person to be convicted of directing terrorism in the State. His ally Michael McKevitt was jailed for 20 years in 2003 for #leader of a dissident group formed in 2008 and known as Oglaigh na hEireann #McGrane had issued instructions to Mr O’Coisdealbha to contact a person he referred to as the “motorbike man” to collect ingredients require #McGrane instructed Mr O’Coisdealbha that the operation should not be an “embarrassment”#McGrane mentioned experimenting with the development of explosives and discussed strategy and his involvement in training people in the IRA #McGrane was arrested six days before the planned attack and searches were conducted at his home in Dromiskin and an adjoining property at th #of Little Road #of McGrane and Donal O’Coisdealbha in conversation in the snug of The Coachman’s Inn on the Airport Road in Dublin – a pub that had been bug #otherwise Oglaigh na hEireann #otherwise the IRA #presiding judge Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said that it was “a most serious offence”#Seams McGrane jailed for 11.5 years on directing IRA activities charge #Seamus McGrane (63)#Sentencing McGrane #styling itself the Irish Republican Army #the court found that McGrane discussed an operation involving explosives in the run-up to the State visit of Prince Charles two years ago. H #the date Prince Charles was due to carry out a State visit

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years

Text

Real IRA founder who plotted bombing while Prince Charles was in Ireland dies in prison | UK news

One of the founders of the Real IRA, who planned a bomb attack during Prince Charles’s visit to Ireland in 2015, has died in prison.

Seamus McGrane died from a suspected heart attack while serving an 11½-year sentence for directing terrorism, the Irish Times has reported.

McGrane (64) from Co Louth in the Irish Republic, was recorded discussing Real IRA activities including the attack planned for Prince Charles’s trip to Ireland.

The Prince’s tour included a visit to the spot in Co Sligo where the Provisional IRA murdered Lord Louis Mountbatten and three others in 1979.

McGrane was only the second person to be convicted of directing terrorism in the Irish Republic. The first was Michael McKevitt, who was jailed for 20 years in 2003.

McGrane was one of the dissident republicans in the Provisional IRA who led a walkout from the organisation’s “army convention” in October 1997. Alongside McKevitt – the brother-in-law of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands – McGrane founded the hardline anti-ceasefire Real IRA.

His trial in 2017 heard that McGrane held discussions in a pub called The Coachman’s Inn early in 2015 with an IRA operative, Donal Ó Coisdealbha. Irish police had installed listening devices that secretly recorded McGrane talking about terrorist strategies.

McGrane told Ó Coisdealbha the target was to have “military significance” and referred to someone “coming on the 19th” – the same day Prince Charles arrived in Ireland.

McGrane was arrested six days before the planned attack.

When McGrane’s home and land linked to him in counties Louth and Wexford were searched, police found what the judge described as “a veritable arsenal of weapons and explosives”, including detonators, ammunition and mortars.

Sahred From Source link World News

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2HCdGyc via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

gyrlversion · 5 years

Text

IRA bomber names four men he says were behind Birmingham pub bombings

Four men were today named in court as the IRA terrorists behind the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings.

Inquests are currently being held into the deaths of twenty-one people who were killed in two explosions at the city’s Mulberry Bush and Tavern in the Town pubs in November 1974.

An ex-IRA member today gave evidence in which he named four of those behind the attacks and gave the nicknames of two others, apparently with the blessing of IRA leaders.

Following the revelations, family members of some of those killed in the attacks demanded police take action.

Julie Hambleton, whose sister Maxine was killed in the Tavern in the Town, said: ‘[We expect] information as a matter of urgency now as to what is going to happen, what, where and when.’

The witness, himself a convicted bomber who was named in court only as ‘Witness O’, said Seamus McLoughlan was the commander of the Birmingham IRA at the time and selected the targets, while Mick Murray and Michael Hayes were part of the bombing team and another man, James Gavin, was involved.

Murray, McLoughlan and Gavin have all since died and Witness O claims that Hayes has protection from prosecution following the peace process.

West Midlands police said today that ‘where new facts come to light, they are scrutinised to see if people can be brought to justice’.

In 1975, six men – the Birmingham Six – were convicted over the blasts but acquitted 16 years later. The attacks remain Britain’s largest unsolved terror crime.

Michael Hayes has been named as one of four IRA terrorists behind the 1974 Birmingham bombing at the inquests today. He is the only one of the four still alive. He apologised for his role in the attack on TV in 2017, but is reportedly protected by the Good Friday Agreement

A convicted IRA bomber, who was not identified, told the inquests into the victims’ deaths that Mick Murray (left) and James Gavin (right) were also involved

The men allegedly behind the bombings were named at inquests into the deaths today. Pictured: A body is carried from the Mulberry Bush

As the names of the alleged bombers were given in court, many of the bereaved family members broke down in tears.

Outside court, victim’s sister Ms Hambleton reacted to the news, and said: ‘Witness O has today named the bombers involved in the Birmingham pub bombings.

‘I have a letter from David Thompson chief constable of West Midlands Police that says this is an on-going live investigation… as such we expect action.’

A West Midlands Police spokesman said: ‘The pub bombing investigation has never closed.

‘Our approach is, where new facts come to light, they are scrutinised to see if people can be brought to justice.

‘The force will never lose sight of the tragic fact that 21 people lost their lives in the atrocities that took place in Birmingham in 1974.

‘It’s not appropriate to make further comment at this stage while we’re in the middle of the coroner’s inquests.’

Two years ago, Hayes issued a public apology for the bombings, telling the BBC he was part of the group responsible, but refusing to say if he planted the bombs.

He remains a free man living in Ireland despite having been questioned over the pub attacks.

Witness O’s testimony today suggests he was promised he would not be pursued following the Good Friday Agreement, signed by the Irish and UK governments in 1998.

In his evidence today, Witness O said of Hayes: ‘He can’t be arrested. There is nobody going to be charged with this atrocity. The British Government have signed an agreement with the IRA.’

Murray died in 1999, Gavin in 2002 and McLoughlin in 2014. McLoughlin was given full paramilitary-style ‘honours’ at his funeral, with masked men firing shots over his coffin.

Speaking after today’s hearing, Julie Hambleton, whose sister Maxine was killed in the bombings, called for action from the police following the disclosures

Maxine Hambleton was one of 11 people killed in the Tavern in the Town pub

Witness O – who is himself a convicted bomber – said that he had been given permission to name the men by the current head of the IRA in Dublin.

Asked by the victims’ families’ QC, Lesley Thomas, who that man was, Witness O replied: ‘Well, I’m not telling you his name.’

Asked why not, the former IRA man said: ‘Because he’s the head of the IRA. He could be shot dead.’

The witness said he had never heard of another suspect, Michael Patrick Reilly (pictured), who a barrister for the victims referred to as ‘the young planter’

Witness O was accused of protecting another man previously linked to the bombings, Michael Patrick Reilly, who is also still alive.

When asked about him by barrister Mr Thomas, Witness O replied: ‘No, I don’t remember him at all. Reilly? I would remember that.’

The barrister then told him Mr Reilly was known as ‘The Young Planter’.

Mr Thomas said: ‘You know who he is, don’t you? He’s the one you’re protecting, isn’t he?’

The witness replied: ‘Who? Protecting who? No.’

Witness O also claimed he had given McLoughlan’s name to two police detectives while in HMP Winson Green just days after the bombings, but heard nothing more.

He said to the four men he named: ‘The police already know who they are, and they haven’t done anything.’

He added that two other men, who he identified as ‘Dublin Dave’ and ‘Socks’ had also been involved, but that he did not know either man’s name.

The blasts at the Mulberry Bush (shown) in the base of the city’s iconic Rotunda and the basement Tavern in the Town killed 21 people and injured 220 more

The Memorial Stone remembers the 21 victims outside the city’s St Phillips Cathedral

Unionists demand answers over ‘current IRA’ claims

Witness O today said he had been given permission to speak to the inquests, including giving the bombers’ names.

When coroner Sir Peter Thornton QC asked him who had given that authorisation, he replied ‘The head of the IRA’, adding that he had approached the organisation’s chief in Dublin six months ago.

Following his evidence DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson demanded answers from Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald.

He said: ‘Mary Lou McDonald needs to explain how the head of the IRA in Dublin can give ‘permission’ for an individual to be named, when she tells us the IRA doesn’t exist.’

Ulster Unionist Assembly member Doug Beattie said: ‘Given that numerous Sinn Fein politicians have claimed that there is no IRA, you wonder just who is sitting in Dublin, claiming to be the head of it?

‘The PSNI and the Garda need to give an assessment of this claim as a matter of urgency.’

Witness O, who was in jail at the time of the bomb attacks, described the bombings as ‘an atrocity’.

He added that the Birmingham IRA active service unit responsible was ‘stood down’ by the organisation’s Army Council following the blasts.

All the men have been named before in connection with the bombings, but never in a formal setting.

Six men, known as the Birmingham Six, were jailed in 1975 for the double bomb attacks, but their convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal in 1991.

Their case remains one of the most infamous miscarriages of justice in English legal history.

Witness O, who also told the coroner he was no longer an IRA member, voluntarily agreed to give evidence to the inquests on condition of anonymity.

The disclosure of the alleged bombers’ names was an unexpected twist, as the issue of who carried out the bombers was not within the scope of the inquests.

Today’s testimony comes after the former IRA intelligence boss Kieran Conway yesterday asserted that the attacks were the work of an autonomous cell of volunteers, done without the authority of leaders in Ireland.

Conway insisted that the pubs were not legitimate targets because they were not frequented by soldiers. And warnings designed to give police a chance to clear the buildings failed because phone boxes had been vandalised.

Firemen at work following the bomb attacks in Birmingham city centre that targeted the Mulberry Bush pub and the Tavern in the Town

Why are IRA suspects protected from prosecution?

Scores of IRA fugitives were granted an amnesty in a secret deal between Tony Blair’s Labour government and Sinn Fein around the time of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

So-called ‘comfort letters’ assured 187 Republican terror suspects they were no longer being hunted by the police.

At least 95 recipients were linked to almost 300 murders.

The letters – sent to the so-called ‘on the runs’ after pressure from Sinn Fein – only came to light during the trial of John Downey, the man accused of the Hyde Park bombing in 1982.

The trial collapsed in February last year when it emerged the 63-year-old had been told he would not face prosecution for the blast that killed four soldiers and seven horses in London.

Astonishingly, Conway also claimed that the deaths were not murders, arguing that the victims were killed ‘accidentally’ during a war against the British state.

He said that in the aftermath of the blasts, an ‘OC’ – officer commanding – and his second-in-com-mand were hauled before a so-called IRA court which cleared them after hearing of the problems with the phones. They could have been expelled or even executed, he said.

Conway said yesterday: ‘The bombings had been careless, if not downright incompetent.’

Asked if the victims had been murdered, he declared: ‘It was an IRA operation that went tragically wrong. It should not have happened.

It was outside the range of permissible targets but in my opinion it was not murder.’

The families of the victims have waited 44 years for new inquests, which finally began last month.

Who are the men named as Birmingham bombers today?

Mick Murray

Mick Murray has previously been said to be second-in-command of the Birmingham IRA unit.

After the attacks he was questioned alongside the Birmingham Six but was never charged with murder.

He was convicted of possessing explosives and later sentenced to 12 years for separate terrorist offences.

Throughout his trial he refused to say a single word because he refused to acknowledge the court.

On his release, he was welcomed back into the IRA and remained a member until his death in 1999.

James Gavin

James Gavin, also known as Jimmy Kelly, was found guilty of possessing explosives after the original Birmingham bombings trials.

He was given one year in jail, but because of time on remand he walked free.

Gavin was said to be from County Armagh in 1963 and joined the British Army.

He deserted in 1964 in West Germany. After the Birmingham bombings he was jailed for the murder of another Republican in 1975. He died in 2002, a free man.

Michael Hayes

Michael Hayes is a a married father of two in his 70s still living free in Dublin.

In 2017, he told a BBC interview that he accepted ‘collective responsibility’ for the Birmingham bombing but did not know who planted the devices.

He was questioned by police following the interview but has not faced action.

Today’s evidence in the inquests suggests he may have been granted immunity during the peace process.

Seamus McLoughlin

Seamus McLoughlin was known as ‘Belfast Jimmy’ in 1970s.

On the day of the Birmingham blasts he was on an Aer Lingus flight from Birmingham to Dublin with the remains of James McDade, the IRA man who had blown himself up with a bomb in Coventry.

When he died in Ireland in 2014 masked men fired shot over his coffin, which was covered in the Irish flag outside a relative’s home in the Ardoyne district of North Belfast.

An IRA atrocity and 44 years of heartbreak for victims’ families

Thursday, November 21, 1974: Bombings in two Birmingham pubs leave 21 dead and 220 injured. They are said to be revenge for the death of IRA member James McDade, who blew himself up trying to plant explosives in Coventry. Hours later, five men are arrested in Heysham, Lancashire, and a sixth is arrested in Birmingham.

November 24: Patrick Hill, Hugh Callaghan, John Walker, Richard McIlkenny, Gerard Hunter and Billy Power are charged with murder.

June/August 1975: Trial at Lancaster Crown Court. ‘The Six’ are sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Birmingham Six outside the Old Bailey in London, after their convictions were quashed. Left-right: John Walker, Paddy Hill. Hugh Callaghan, Chris Mullen MP, Richard McIlkenny, Gerry Hunter and William Power.

October 1985: TV’s World In Action questions forensic tests. A book is then published claiming three unnamed men were behind the bombings.

January 1987: The home secretary refers case to the Court of Appeal. The appeal is later dismissed. A 1990 TV drama then names four ‘real’ bombers.

March 14, 1991: The Six are freed by the Court of Appeal after 16 years in prison.

October 1993: Perjury case against three former West Midlands police involved in the charging of the Birmingham Six is dismissed.

June 1, 2016: Senior coroner for Birmingham rules to resume the inquests. The original hearings were not continued after jailing of The Six.

September 29, 2018: Families lose their legal battle to name those responsible for the bombings in the inquests

February 25, 2019: The inquest into the 21 deaths opens in Birmingham.

Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.

The post IRA bomber names four men he says were behind Birmingham pub bombings appeared first on Gyrlversion.

from WordPress https://www.gyrlversion.net/ira-bomber-names-four-men-he-says-were-behind-birmingham-pub-bombings/

#Entertainment News

0 notes

nathanitatspectrum · 6 years

Text

Prevent and safeguarding

Introduction

The Safeguarding and Prevent Policies of Aspire Advance Achieve Ltd (3aaa) reflects the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children (those under the age of 18) and vulnerable adults. Our Policy is based on the guidance issued by the Department of Education – Working Together to Safeguard Children and Young People (2015) WT. 3aaa also complies with the statutory guidance on children who run away or go missing from home or care (January 2014) and The Prevent Duty (The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act June 2015) and Social Media for Online Radicalisation (July 2015) and this Policy should be read in conjunction with these procedures and guidance – a copy of these are available from the Academy Manager. The Prevent Duty (The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015)

Responsibilities of Apprentices and Staff All apprentices and staff have a responsibility to:

o Undertake training o Be aware of when it is appropriate to refer concerns to the Designated Safeguarding Lead o Exemplify British values of: • Democracy • The rule of law • Individual liberty and mutual respect • Tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs

What is CONTEST? CONTEST is the Government's Counter Terrorism Strategy, published in July 2006 and refreshed in March 2009. The aim of the strategy is 'to reduce the risk from international terrorism, so that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence.'

CONTEST has four strands, often known as the four Ps. The aims of the 4 Ps are: o PREVENT - to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism o PURSUE - to stop terrorist attacks through disruption, investigation and detection o PREPARE - where an attack cannot be stopped, to mitigate its impact o PROTECT - to strengthen against terrorist attack, including borders, utilities, transport infrastructure and crowded places

What is Extremism? The Government has defined extremism as "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs". This also includes calls for the death of members of the British armed forces.

What is Terrorism? An action that endangers or causes serious violence to a person/people, causes serious damage to property or seriously interferes or disrupts an electronic system. The use of threat must be designed to influence the Government or to intimidate the public and is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.

What is Radicalisation? The process by which a person comes to support terrorism and forms of extremism leading to terrorism.

What are British Values? British values are defined as "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance for those with different faiths and beliefs".

What is Prevent? Prevent is about stopping people becoming terrorists or supporting violent extremism. The long-term solution to the threat faced by the UK from domestic or international terrorism is not just about more effective policing. It is about tackling the factors that can cause people to become drawn into violent extremism and empowering individuals and communities to stand up to violent extremists.

Prevent is not about singling out a particular group. It is about addressing the real threat to the security of this country.

Today if we think of extremism or terrorism we think about one group ISIS, however 30 years ago it would have been the IRA, there are many different violent extremist groups that can cause potential harm and conflict. Below are a few examples from the proscribed Government list of 71 separate groups.

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) Proscribed June 2014 PFLP-GC is a left wing nationalist Palestinian militant organisation formed in 1968. It is based in Syria and was involved in the Palestine intifada during the 1970s and 1980s. The group is separate from the similarly named Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). 16 From its outset, the group has been a Syrian proxy. PFLP-GC has been fighting in the Syrian war in support of Assad, including in Yarmouk Refugee Camp in July 2013. The group also issued statements in support of the Syrian government, Hizballah, and Iran.

National Action Proscribed December 2016, National Action is a racist neo-Nazi group that was established in 2013. It has a number of branches across the UK, which conduct provocative street demonstrations and stunts aimed at intimidating local communities. Its activities and propaganda materials are particularly aimed at recruiting young people. The group is virulently racist, anti-Semitic and homophobic. Its ideology promotes the idea that Britain will inevitably see a violent ‘race war’, which the group claims it will be an active part of. The group rejects democracy, is hostile to the British state and seeks to divide society by implicitly endorsing violence against ethnic minorities and perceived ‘race traitors’ National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes tweets posted by the group in 2016, in connection with the murder of Jo Cox(which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act), stating “Only 649 MPs to go” and a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption “don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain” and ”Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”, as well as an image condoning and celebrating the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit. The images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism.

Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) Formed in November 1999, SHAC is perhaps the leading ARE group in the UK. Its stated aim is to force the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences. After beginning with actions against HLS, including loud and sometimes violent demonstrations outside HLS sites, infiltrations, harassment of employees (including visits to their homes to vandalise cars or other property), and a physical attack on HLS' managing director, SHAC moved on to target HLS' suppliers. SHAC would identify suppliers of virtually any service to HLS (laboratory equipment, catering, childcare, etc), and contact them to request they sever all relations with HLS ‘or face the consequences.' SHAC has a history of aggressive and reputation-damaging campaigns.

There are many other such groups can you think of any more extremist organisations?

Think about other groups such as environmental extremists as well as religious, left wing or right wing extremism.

Copy and paste the links below into your browser, look at three different extremist organisations from around the world and describe what each group stands for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups

http://scribol.com/news-and-politics/politics/top-4-environmental-extremist-groups/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_left-wing_rebel_groups

Prevent is delivered in partnership by a wide range of organisations including the police service, education providers and local government. Together we recognise that the best long term solution to preventing terrorism is to stop people becoming terrorists in the first place.

Violent extremists are motivated by an ideology, which wrongly uses religion or beliefs to justify violence. Working closely with other organisations, our aim is to support local communities and institutions to challenge and reject the message of extremism. The Prevent strategy also aims to support vulnerable members of our communities by helping to divert them away from violent extremism.

This is a challenging and complex area that requires a whole community approach' between national and local organisations and embraces the experience, energy and ideas of our local communities, as well as police officers, local authorities and staff. Prevent is a long-term endeavour for us all and together we need to challenge those who support violence regardless of faith, race or background.

Violent extremists seek to exploit vulnerabilities in individuals and drive a wedge between them, their families and their communities. Working with other local and national organisations, it is the aim of the police service to support those who are being targeted and create stronger and more empowered communities who have the ability to reject violent extremism in all its forms.

How does someone first start to become involved in extremist activity? They may have previously shown no signs at all of having sympathy to, or identifying with, an extremist or terrorist cause. Clue: the answer lies in a person’s vulnerability – certain factors, whether emotional or something external, which can prompt someone to set out on the journey. The following are examples of a person’s needs, susceptibilities and motivations.

Emotional External o Confusion o Upset o Loss of identity or belonging o Sense of injustice o Bereavement o Family breakdown o Lack of role model o Anger o Lack of confidence o Isolation o Disappointment o Adolescent feelings o Peer pressure o A need for adventure or excitement o Desire to feel important o Media (especially social) o Desire for political or moral change through extremist activities o Low academic achievement o Substance misuse or mental health issues o Period of transition (move home/school) o Government/establishment policies and conventions o Religion – can be misinterpreted intentionally as it has a strong pull on people o Family or friends’ involvement in extremism

Channel What is Channel? Channel is an early intervention multi-agency process designed to safeguard vulnerable people from being drawn into violent extremist or terrorist behaviour. Channel works in a similar way to existing safeguarding partnerships aimed at protecting vulnerable people.

Who does Channel work with? Channel is designed to work with individuals of any age who are at risk of being exploited by extremist or terrorist ideologues. The process is shaped around the circumstances of each person and can provide support for any form of radicalisation or personal vulnerabilities.

How does Channel work? Each Channel Panel is chaired by a local authority and brings together a range of multi-agency partners to collectively assess the risk and can decide whether a support package is needed. The group may include statutory and non-statutory partners, as well as lead safeguarding professionals. If the group feels the person would be suitable for Channel, it will look to develop a package of support that is bespoke to the person. The partnership approach ensures those with specific knowledge and expertise around the vulnerabilities of those at risk are able to work together to provide the best support.

What does Channel support look like? Channel interventions are delivered through local partners and specialist agencies. The support may focus on a person’s vulnerabilities around health, education, employment or housing, as well as specialist mentoring or faith guidance and broader diversionary activities such as sport. Each support package is tailored to the person and their particular circumstances.

How will the person be involved in this process? A person will always be informed first if it’s felt that they would benefit from Channel support. The process is voluntary and their consent would be needed before taking part in the process. This process is managed carefully by the Channel Panel.

Who can make a referral? Anyone can make a referral. Referrals come from a wide range of partners including education, health, youth offending teams, police and social services.

What happens with the referral? Referrals are first screened for suitability through a preliminary assessment by the Channel Coordinator and the local authority. If suitable, the case is then discussed at a Channel panel of relevant partners to decide if support is necessary. Raising a concern If you believe that someone is vulnerable to being exploited or radicalised, please use the established safeguarding or duty of care procedures within your organisation to escalate your concerns to the appropriate leads, who can raise concerns to Channel if appropriate

Safeguarding 3aaa Have a duty to safeguard and promote the well-being of children and young people. This includes the need to ensure that all adults who work with children and young people are competent, confident and safe to do so. Safeguarding means “recognising that the needs, wellbeing, and safety of all apprentices and staff and that actions relating to this are in line with legislation, recommendations and guidelines. All adults who work with children and young people are accountable for the way in which they exercise authority, manage risk, use resources and safeguard children and young people

Local authorities have overarching responsibility for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children and young people in their area. This includes specific duties in relation to children in need and children suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, regardless of where they are found under sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act 1989.

Whilst local authorities play a lead role, safeguarding children and young people and protecting them from harm is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and families has a role to play.

Safeguarding is the action that is taken to promote the welfare of children and protect them from harm. Safeguarding means: protecting children from abuse and maltreatment. preventing harm to children’s health or development. ensuring children grow up with the provision of safe and effective care.

There are many forms of abuse some examples are listed below

Child Sexual Exploitation Child sexual abuse and exploitation includes touching and non-touching activity.

Some examples of touching activity include:

o Touching a child's genitals or private parts for sexual pleasure o Making a child touch someone else's genitals, play sexual games or have sex putting objects or body parts (like fingers, tongue or penis) inside the vagina, in the mouth or in the anus of a child for sexual pleasure

Some examples of non-touching activity include:

o Showing pornography to a child o Deliberately exposing an adult's genitals to a child o Photographing a child in sexual poses o Encouraging a child to watch or hear sexual acts o Inappropriately watching a child undress or use the bathroom

As well as the activities described above, there is also the serious and growing problem of people making and downloading sexual images of children on the Internet (also referred to as child pornography). To view child abuse images is to participate in the abuse of a child. Those who do so may also be abusing children they know. People who look at this material need help to prevent their behaviour from becoming even more serious.

Neglect Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse. A child may be left hungry or dirty, without adequate clothing, shelter, supervision, medical or health care. A child may be put in danger or not protected from physical or emotional harm. They may not get the love, care and attention they need from their parents. A child who's neglected will often suffer from other abuse as well. Neglect is dangerous and can cause serious, long-term damage - even death. Neglect can be really difficult to identify, making it hard for professionals to take early action to protect a child. Having one of the signs or symptoms below doesn't necessarily mean that a child is being neglected. But if you notice multiple, or persistent, signs then it could indicate there’s a serious problem.

Children who are neglected may have:

o Poor appearance and hygiene o Health and development problems o Housing and family issues

Domestic abuse Is any type of controlling, bullying, threatening or violent behaviour between people in a relationship. But it isn’t just physical violence – domestic abuse includes emotional, physical, sexual, financial or psychological abuse.

Abusive behaviour can occur in any relationship. It can continue even after the relationship has ended. Both men and women can be abused or abusers. Domestic abuse can seriously harm children and young people. Witnessing domestic abuse is child abuse, and teenagers can suffer domestic abuse in their relationships

Forced marriage Is a marriage in which one or more of the parties is married without his or her consent or against his or her will. A forced marriage differs from an arranged marriage, in which both parties consent to the assistance of their parents or a third party (such as a matchmaker) in identifying a spouse. This is illegal in the UK under the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007 and can lead to up to 5 years in prison, forced marriages are often abusive relationships.

FGM Female Circumcision, and Cutting Female Genital Mutilation- also called FGM, Female circumcision, cutting or sunna – Across the world, it is estimated that 125 million girls and women are survivors of FGM. Most of these live in just 29 African and Middle Eastern Countries. FGM can also be found in other regions such as SE Asia and across Europe including the UK. FGM is mainly carried out on young girls between the ages of 8-15.

In the UK FGM has been a Criminal offence since 1985 with the introduction of the Female Circumcision Act. In 2003 the law was updates and renamed the Female Genital Mutilation ACT. This means that anyone found to be involved in FGM including sending girls abroad for FGM can be prosecuted and sent to prison for 14 years. Under UK law FGM is regarded as a human rights issues. When it involves a girl under 18 years it is regarded as child abuse, and when it involves a woman over the age of 18 it is treated as violence against women.

There are many other forms of abuse and as educational providers 3aaa are committed to keeping all our learners safe and can offer professional guidance and support.

E-Safety E-safety is in place for not only staying safe on the internet, but also other electronic form of communication, l such as wireless technology and mobile phones. The purpose of e-safety is to safeguard all activity on electronic devices and the internet, as well as raising awareness of how to stay safe.

3aaa promote the use of the internet and other forms of technology to work and learn, however, doing so in a suitable manner. As technology and the internet are easily accessible, it also unfortunately means that every user could face potential risks and consequences.

The internet is a huge part of learning, mandatory for most workplaces and is used constantly in day-to-day life. There are many advantages of the internet and its uses, however, there are also plenty of risks that result in using it. When visiting websites, it is a possibility that you may come across malicious and/or inappropriate websites with the following risks:

o Viruses & spyware (Malware) o Phishing (Obtaining your personal financial details to possible steal identities) o Fraud o Copyright violation (Illegally copying/downloading protected images, software, documents etc.) o Being exposed to inappropriate content. In addition to the internet, it is extremely important to use email safely and be cautious of sending and receiving mail. There are a few points to consider when using email:

o Never click on link or open attachments from unknown senders or suspected fraudulent senders o Do not respond to, or forward on, emails for unknown senders or suspected hoax senders o Report any scam emails and spam to the IT team who will then take the appropriate action.

As a learner at 3aaa’s, your responsibility is to report any incidents regarding e-safety either to your trainer / assessor who will forward this on, or directly to the safeguarding lead. As a learner or 3aaa’s, you are also responsible for ensuring you use all systems and devises in accordance to our policies and procedures.

General tips for E-Safety o Never enter any personal/financial information into PC’s/laptops/mobile phones o Always ensure the websites you are visiting are secure (the website address should begin with ‘https://’- the ‘s’ stands for ‘secure’. o Use a well-known, safe browser e.g. Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari etc. o Ensure you have effective ant-virus, anti-spyware and firewall software installed. o Report any inappropriate material to your assessor who will then forward it over to the it department. Report any concerns involving Safeguarding, Prevent or personal issues to the 3aaa safeguarding team below. Safeguarding Team email: [email protected], telephone: 07471 357 360 Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead – Kate Whittaker email: [email protected], telephone: 07772 657 501 Safeguarding Officer – Ebony Newton email: [email protected], telephone: 01332 854 045 Safeguarding Officer – Karla Craven email: [email protected], telephone: 01332 854 045 By reading this Prevent Workbook and completing the following questions, you should:

1. Understand what extremism and radicalisation are 2. Know what Prevent and the Government’s CONTEST strategy are 3. Better understand what makes people vulnerable to radicalisation 4. Know your responsibilities and recognise indicators that radicalisation might be taking place 5. Understand what Safeguarding and abuse is. 6. Understand E-Safety. 7. Know what British Values are

British Values

Democracy Democracy can be seen as a state of society characterised by equality of rights and privileges. It can also refer to our nation’s electoral systems. At 3aaa we promote the importance of democracy through such things as:

o Learners being encouraged to consider alternative pathways in lessons. o Learner Voice on key areas of learner satisfaction.

Individual Liberty Individual liberty suggests the free exercise of rights generally seen as outside Government control. At 3aaa we promote the importance of individual liberty through such things as:

o Learners encouraged to voice views in lessons in a formative manner. o Learners offered autonomy over choices regarding academic pathways. o Support to gain meaningful employment in an area you want to work in.

Rule of Law All people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced. At 3aa we promote the importance of the rule of law through such things as:

o There is a shared classroom code of practice. o Marking and feedback, as well as homework, policies set clear boundaries which are explained clearly to Learners o Accountability is stressed to all stakeholders including staff [teacher’s Standards], students [Student Code of Conduct], and company Board of Directors.

Mutual Respect The proper regard for an individual’s dignity, which is reciprocated. At 3aaa we promote the importance of mutual respect through such things as:

o Classroom code of practice. o Company ethos statement o Clear guidance on good behaviour in areas such as the workplace. o The publishing of a dress code for learners o Wellbeing promotes mutual respect through the skills developed in sessions.

Tolerance of Those with Different Faiths and Beliefs A fair, objective, and permissive attitude to those whose faith and beliefs may differ from one’s own. At 3aaa we promote the importance of tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs through such things as:

o Acceptance of faith symbolism. o Respecting different religious festivals and needs.

Questions to be Completed by the Apprentice

What are the 4 Ps of CONTEST? Prevent, Pursue, Protect, and Prepare

Name the 4 British Values democracy. the rule of law. individual liberty. mutual respect for and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs and for those without faith.

Name 3 forms of abuse 1: Domestic 2: Exploitation 3: Sexual

Who can report a Prevent incident? Me

Explain extremism and terrorism Using harmful and extreme ways to get across your views and ideas that will harm others.

Give 3 examples of emotional factors that might lead to extremist activity 1: media

2: peer pressure

3: Political

Explain radicalisation Getting persuaded to change your views through immoral methods.

Who would you report any concerns to? Police

What is the estimated prison sentence for anyone found to be involved in FGM? 14 years

What are 3 risks of websites? 1: Virus

2: Copyright

3: Inappropriate content

Who should you report any incidents regarding e-safety to? Trainer

Whose duty is it to safeguard children and young people? Parent or guardian

What are the definitions of Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people? Safeguarding is the action that is taken to promote the welfare of children and protect them from harm. Safeguarding means: protecting children from abuse and maltreatment. preventing harm to children's health or development. ... taking action to enable all children and young people to have the best outcomes

0 notes