*This letter was published in today’s Co.Down spectator 

The recent debate on collusion has once again provided Sinn Fein, and the wider republican movement, with the opportunity to stand on their carefully contrived soap box and perpetuate their own self-serving version of the truth as part of their relentless attempt to demonise the RUC, UDR and British Army. 

The irony of those who crept up behind off duty RUC officers and UDR soldiers, and shot them in the back of the head, demanding ‘accountability’ is obviously lost on Sinn Fein. 

One of the key speakers in the debate was Gerry Kelly, a former IRA terrorist, who was convicted of bombing the Old Bailey. The Sinn Fein benches in Stormont are littered with those who continue to justify the IRA terrorist campaign and yet they have the audacity to pontificate about the role of the State in the past. 

With every step forward in this peace ‘process’, the RUC, UDR and British Army are further sacrificed on the altar of political expediency in an attempt to pacify and appease Sinn Fein, the same Sinn Fein who demand all those involved in the conflict are held accountable, remarkably however, it appears they do not include the IRA in this accountability demand. 

Let’s remind ourselves of the words of former IRA prisoner Bobby Storey, speaking at a Sinn Fein rally following the arrest of Gerry Adams- “how dare they touch our leader”. The implied threat was clear and it shows that Sinn Fein want everyone held accountable- except the IRA. 

Sinn Fein are happy for British soldiers and former RUC officers to be brought before the courts on historic charges- yet when, in the pursuit of justice, any former IRA member is arrested- they cry foul and tell us how, in their opinion, a ‘dark cabal’ within policing is trying to drag us back and undermine the peace process. 

This is all the more ironic given many of their members have already received comfort letters and Royal Pardons as part of the perverse on the runs administrative scheme. 

It is imperative that this generation of Unionists do not allow Sinn Fein to re-write history. The UDR, British Army and RUC stood in defence of our country in the face of an unrelenting republican terrorist campaign- we must amplify this truth, not bury it for the sake of political convenience or to protect the ‘process’. 

The peace process for many of us within the Unionist community is nothing more than a piece by peace process, of which the ultimate trajectory is to eradicate every vestige of Protestant, Unionist, Loyalist and British culture from this part of the United Kingdom. 

There are also very real concerns amongst the Unionist community that some within the system are seeking to justify and assist the ongoing cultural war, by demonising and criminalising every expression of Protestant culture and furthermore far too many people seem quite happy to be complicit, by their silence, in the Sinn Fein project of re-writing of the past, which seeks to paint IRA terrorists, who crept about in the dead of the night planting bombs and shooting people in the back of the head, as some kind of oppressed freedom fighters. 

  *This piece is written in the context of security force targeting Republican terrorists, it does not seek to justify the killing of any civilians. 

Collusion’ has once again been at the forefront of political debate in recent weeks and months. It is a one sided debate that is weighted heavily against the RUC, UDR and British Army. The spin doctors of Republicanism trot out hashtag after hashtag and cliché after cliché demanding their ‘right to truth’. That sounds reasonable enough, until you look beyond the honeyed words and realise what they really want is to re-write history with their own self-serving version of the truth. 
Republicans demand that all participants in the conflict are held accountable- except of course themselves, who do not want to be held accountable for their actions. When the IRA is held accountable they tell us all about the ‘dark cabal with policing’ and speak of the continuing influence of veteran Special Branch officers, who they say are out to ‘destabilise the peace process’. They tell us there must be no light shone into the dark corners of IRA, because we must ‘protect the process’. 

Let us not forget the attitude of a former Senior IRA leader, Bobby Storey, following the arrest of Gerry Adams- “how dare they”. You could be forgiven for asking Mr Storey just what he was intimating may happen if the current forces of law and order ‘dared’ to pursue IRA members turned peace process supporters. There was of course no outcry from Sinn Fein following the arrest of Ivor Bell for historical crimes- and why? Because it was and is a politically convenient charge against Ivor Bell, who stepped out of the shadows to support an anti-agreement republican candidate in the election just prior to his arrest. 

Let me be very honest, do I find it outrageous that the UDR, RUC and British Army at times passed information to loyalists to assist them in targeting republican terrorists that were shooting members of the security forces in the back of the head, no I do not. If I am brutally honest the part that annoys me the most is that members of the security forces felt they had to pass information to loyalists. If the UDR, RUC and British Army didn’t have their hands tied behind their backs then there would never have been the need for loyalist organisations. The security forces could have destroyed the IRA, but instead they had to observe rules and regulations, they had to fight within a legal framework whilst those who tried to kill them crawled about in the dead of the night and creeped up behind them- when an IRA man creeped up behind an off duty UDR soldier or a policeman, they did not give three warnings, they just brutally shot them in the back of the head. Yet we have the very same IRA men who cry ‘shoot to kill’. If you were an IRA man, using terrorism to destroy the Country, then it is not the height of hypocrisy to complain about your ‘enemy’ using the very same tactics you deployed, against you? 

We hear complaints of torture of IRA suspects by the RUC- I don’t believe anyone should be tortured, but I find it hard to have any sympathy for IRA men who complain about torture when they regularly tortured and brutally murdered suspected informers, on many occasions disappearing their bodies. 

Sinn Fein regularly extoll the idea of a ‘truth commission’. Let’s look at how much truth the IRA provided to Judge Smithwick- none! They provided their own self serving version of the truth designed to re-write history. And yet they expect the Unionist people and ordinary victims to place their trust in Republicans to look into the past and provide closure? 

One of the main issues we have is that many within the political sphere are playing the game, because they feel it is what they must do rather than risk isolation by expressing how they really feel. Do republicans really care about Soldiers, RUC or UDR men they murdered, do they really want the families of those members of the security forces to find out the truth and receive closure? No, of course they don’t. Do republicans care about the innocent victims of their terrorist campaign? No, of course they don’t. The truth is they care about getting to the truth where they think it fits into their carefully crafted narrative of the past. They want a self serving half baked version of the truth that will feed into their attempts to re-write history. They want the British and the security forces to be painted as the terrorists whilst they, the IRA, go down in history as freedom fighters. In fact it is quite the opposite. The IRA were the aggressors, they were the terrorists and the British security apparatus and loyalists, who never needed the security forces to take on the IRA, effectively took on the role of terrorising the terrorists. 

The problem with this narrative of collusion is that the IRA operated as a guerrilla terrorist organisation, they have no accountability. The security forces have accountability, hence why republicans are trying to shift the political battle onto this landscape. It suits them and it is weighted in their favour, not because they are in the right, but because it is too politically unpopular in this generation of political correctness to simply tell the truth, and that is that the IRA started a war and in the context of that war the security forces used all means at their disposal to terrorise the terrorists. That’s the truth and how many people really have a problem with that? 

The past is riddled with hypocrisy. The IRA who claimed to be fighting the British, had one in four of their members, at least, working as British agents. This is when we really get into the depths of collusion- far more shocking than the running of counter insurgency against those seeking to destroy the state, was the policy of running agents within the IRA who murdered, bombed and maimed those who were loyal to the Crown. 

Those who should feel most betrayed by collusion are those who were loyal to the Crown, yet at times elements of the British state allowed their loyal subjects to be murdered as part of a strategy to build a ‘peace process’. That is the real scandal. 

Republican terrorists or those who supported them and gave them refuge have no moral right to complain about the British terrorising the terrorists, on the other hand those who were loyal to Crown and were murdered as a result of the British state colluding with, and running agents within the IRA in an attempt to bring the conflict to an end, are those who have the real right to truth and justice!

I am regularly shouted down and berated by those who oppose, dislike or just outright despise me, people who shout ‘don’t listen, he only got 167 votes in the Council election ‘. 
It’s important to place that vote in context. It was 2011 and I was relatively unknown- besides a few fantasy tales being carried by the Sunday world- and I ran in the most affluent ward in the ‘Gold coast’. It included the Millionaires of Helens Bay and Crawfordsburn with only the loyalist area of Kilcooley sandwiched inbetween. It is by far the most affluent Council ward in North Down and here I was, an anti agreement loyalist, swimming against the tide of the glory days of the peace process- when the money was flowing and all was rosy in the garden. 

I ran alongside a fellow community worker- and together we took 5.1% of the vote. The vote share percentage rose considerably in the loyalist area of Kilcooley and unsurprisingly votes from Helens Bay- the area of Policemen and Judges- were close to non existent. 
167 votes may sound like a good argument to throw at me to shout me down- but when you peel away the attractive & easy nature of such an argument put forward by my opponents- you will see things aren’t so simplistic under the surface. 
With thirteen candidates and 7,151 votes cast – 167 for a first time candidate, who was relatively unknown, swimming against the tide of the peace process and standing in the most affluent area if the Gold Coast- isn’t quite as demeaning a total as some would like to portray. 
It’s worth noting that we took a higher vote percentage than the Green Party and a UUP candidate got elected with just over 100 votes me than me. 

Whether with 167 votes or 167,000, I don’t believe that changes the truth- a truth I will continue to articulate no matter how many people agree with me or not. 

The most recent decision taken by the unelected quango, the parades commission, serves once again as evidence of their one sided and biased approach to the decision making process. 

The commission serves as a blunt instrument in the cultural war against all things Protestant. Their hatred for our community is clear and their open distain for our culture and traditions shines through every determination. 
This is all part of the agenda to criminalise Protestant culture. Nationalist residents groups will never be satisfied. They will find offence no matter what. 

Our band, the Bangor Protestant Boys, have been blamed by the fascist quango because we played Sloop John B within ‘earshot’ of St Patricks. There is no mention of the fact that this was totally lawfully and did not breach any of the commissions laughable and ludicrous conditions. 

Some may believe the best way forward is to continue to offer up concession after concession to try and ‘expose’ the naked hatred of Nationalists. This will not work. It was tried and tested in 2012 with the decision to send a token return parade up the Crumlin Road. Was that good enough? No, it only lead to the complete banning of the parade the following year. 

The quote ‘appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive ‘ has never been more apt than when applied to the parading situation in Northern Ireland. They are offended by our music, our hymns, our uniforms, our flags and our traditions. 
The truth is that they are offended by Protestants and they won’t stop until there isn’t any expression of Protestant culture. 

Continuing to pander and try and find some common ground is a bit like expecting a lion not to eat you because you didn’t eat it. 

It is appeasement and concessions that has brought us to the place we are now. Piece by peace. 

It seems like Barra McGrory, and the Public Prosecution Service, are rarely out of the news recently. As they stumble from one shambles to the next, it appears that even the DUP- who of course conspired with Sinn Fein to agree to the appointments of John Larkin and Barra McGrory during the Hillsborough Agreement- is beginning to find themselves in the position of having to publicly challenge the continued role of Barra McGrory as DPP. 

The DUP use phrases like ‘there is a perception of bias’ and other passive language. There is no perception, there is only reality, and in this shameful situation the reality is blatantly obvious. The bias from the PPS is obvious and the message they send is clear- if you are a pro peace process republican you will be protected- if you stray from the Sinn Fein party line then you will be pursued. That is why Ivor Bell meets the evidential threshold and Gerry Adams does not. The PPS have already made a prosecutorial decision on Gerry Adams in relation the disappearance of Jean McConville. There is insufficient evidence. 

Contrast the refusal to pursue republicans and the issuing of ‘comfort letters’, of which the DPP played his part in conspiring in his role acting corporately on behalf of the IRA, to the relentless pursuit of veteran loyalists. Look how loyalists are thrown in jail for peacefully protesting or ‘provocatively waving the Union flag’, whilst republicans who get caught with semtex in their houses have charges dropped. Look with amazement at how a republican on a bombing ‘operation’ has his charges dropped to cigarette smuggling. All under the watchful eye of the IRA’s former solicitor, Barra McGrory, the man who coincidently began a remarkably quick rise through the legal ranks just in time for the devolution of policing and justice. This remarkable rise began in 2007, just as the devolved Assembly was in its infancy. Oh what a tangled web we weave… 

Look at the recent shambles of the Mairia Cahill case, the collapse of the IRA membership trial against former Belfast Brigade commander Padraig Wilson and senior South Armagh IRA man Sean Hughes and the farcical cases brought against Union flag protestors and bandsmen. If only Barra McGrory pursued republican terrorists with the same vigour as he pursues those playing a flute or waving the flag, then perhaps there could be even the slightest confidence in the PPS. Perhaps Barra McGrory could make an effort to at the very least play the game and pretend that the levers of justice are still impartial- it seems however that we are now even past the stage of pretending. Barra McGrory and his cohorts in the PPS just blatantly and without recourse persecute the Protestant community; they do not care how obvious it is, because there is no one to challenge them. After all it is the DUP who give the nod and the wink for Sinn Fein to select a republican placeman to take up the senior prosecutorial role. 

Of course we also had the farcical nature of Gerry Adams former solicitor, Barra McGrory, requesting Gerry Adams other former solicitor, John Larkin to review the decision by the PPS- of which Barra McGrory is DPP- not to prosecute their former client, Gerry Adams. Where else in any civilised democracy would such a farcical system be allowed to continue unimpeded. Could anyone imagine America elevating Bin Laden’s legal advocate to Attorney General. I should think not. 

People are looking without seeing and listening without hearing. I can only conclude that some are purposefully turning a blind eye whilst others are predictably burying their heads in the sand. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Dear Cllr, 

It is my understanding that a motion is to be brought before Council, by the Alliance party, which will ask this Council to lend their support to the campaign for gay marriage. As a resident of the Borough I am writing to ask you not to support this motion. 

The campaign for gay marriage is primarily being promoted and pushed by a coalition of left wing parties, Trade Unions and groups. As they all stand side by side it would almost remind you of the old communist bloc. 

The campaign for gay marriage seeks to label all those who oppose it as ‘homophobic’ or ‘religious fundamentalists’. They demand ‘tolerance’ yet scream that anyone who holds a view opposite to their own is ‘homophobic’ and should be ignored because they are an ‘irrelevance’. Of course anyone at all who supports gay marriage is extolled as ‘relevant’ and should be listened to. The more aggressive left wing fanatics are blinded to their own blatant hypocrisy. I urge you not to be swayed or bullied by these individuals, groups and political parties. 

Marriage has long been an established part of British society; in fact British society was originally founded upon civilised Christian principles and morals. Our monarch is the ‘Defender of the faith’. 

Unionists on the council will hear all sorts of ludicrous arguments such as gay marriage should be legislated for in Northern Ireland because it has been legalised in the rest of the UK, and therefore to refuse to legislate for it in our Assembly is anti British- such nonsense. 

Ask those perpetuating such a theory if they support welfare reform and demand the same welfare system as the rest of the United Kingdom, ask them do they demand the collapse of the assembly because our system of mandatory coalition is different than the rest of the UK. Of course they won’t, as a matter of fact you will find the same people who are perpetuating such an argument, standing shoulder to shoulder with the left wing anti-austerity movement demanding we refuse to implement a welfare system that has been legislated for by the UK parliament. They can’t have their cake and eat it! (There are many issues with welfare reform which will be extremely damaging to many within our society, yet the right to oppose them would vanish of we followed the argument of those who demand we slavishly follow Westminster. Co-incidently these are the same people who so strenuously oppose welfare reform.) 

I have no issue with gay people, I oppose the redefinition of marriage not because I dislike gay people as individuals, but rather because I oppose that lifestyle choice. The person is no better or no worse than me. I have much sin in my life, as I am sure do most of the Cllrs, but this does not mean that I, or you as a Cllr, do not have the right to stand up for the principles and morals you believe in and articulate opposition to what is a live political issue. 

The notion of gay marriage is based upon a fatally flawed concept of ‘equality’. This idea of ‘equality’ really at its core means that anyone should be allowed to do anything that makes them happy, and as a society we should legislate to allow it. It allows a minority as small as one to dictate to the majority. In fact recently the gay rights movement have even sought to urge that there should not be a referendum on the issue because the majority should not decide upon their right to marry. Effectively they now want to bypass the democracy, which they so extolled the success of in the Republic, and just demand that the Government legislates for their demands. 

An elementary child could see the logical trajectory of this irrational argument. What happens when a man wants to marry two women? Should we legislate for that? What happens if a man wants to marry a teenage boy who argues that the legal age for sex and marriage should be lowered, because he is a consenting adult in his own mind and is in love, who would anyone be to object? Sure each to their own is our new motto, anything goes. This notion of equality is illogical. It seeks to use emotional blackmail to usurp the rational thought process. 

The European Court of Human Rights, which has given many ludicrous rulings, has still to rule that same sex marriage is a human right. There is no equality between heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage. 

The purpose of marriage is primarily to create a loving and stable environment for the procreation of children. A same sex couple cannot procreate, so therefore one of the fundamental purposes of marriage is null and void. I myself have a child out of wedlock and I have created a loving environment to raise that child. Many single parents also raise their children better than married heterosexual couples raise theirs, but that still does not take away from the fact of what the purpose of marriage actually is. 

Some churches have waded into the argument proclaiming they will marry same sex couples. That is a most dangerous position to take because those who claim to know God and act contrary to his ways will be judged harsher than those who are unbelievers. Don’t blame me for that, blame the Bible! 

I urge you, Councillor, to oppose this motion which is primarily an attempt to bully society into legislating for gay marriage. Ask yourself a simple question, what next? What if the next campaign you are asked to support is a man marrying two women? And I am sure in your own mind you can keep pushing the boat out until you see just what dangerous waters we could end up entering if we follow this irrational and fatally flawed notion of equality. 

Regards,

Jamie Bryson

If one was to search for an example of the blatant hypocrisy that oozes from every pore of Irish Republicanism, then you could do worse than take a glance at the twitter feed of John Loughran, a Belfast Sinn Fein member who was local council candidate. 

I have encountered John Loughran in the past. Some loyalists- who were fooled by his clichés and honeyed words- agreed for him to work on a bonfire management document for North Down Borough Council. I opposed this at the time, and in light of his more overt involvement with Sinn Fein since, I feel I have been entirely vindicated. Just who in the right mind would ask Sinn Fein to assist in drawing up a bonfire management programme? The very same persons who agreed to that perverse notion then act shocked to find that bonfire management programmes end up riddled with trojan horses designed to eradicate bonfires! 

On twitter you can regularly see John extolling the virtues of the peace ‘process’, but cloaked in fancy clichés- for he is the king of clichés- and smothered in fancy hashtags, the truth is hidden beneath the carefully crafted Sinn Fein veil of peace and reconciliation. 

Recently John challenged me on whether I upheld the rights of the majority of those on this ‘Island’- John is well versed in Sinn Fein lingo and even manages to incorporate it into his clichés and hashtags- who voted for the Belfast Agreement. I do. I oppose the agreement and self-identify as an anti-agreement loyalist, but I uphold the principle of democracy and because of that I have to accept that the majority of the people within Northern Ireland (I still object wholly to the validity of the Republic of Ireland being given any say in Northern Ireland) voted for the Belfast Agreement. I do therefore, however, have the right to seek to change what I see as a perverse and iniquitous agreement by exclusively peaceful and lawful means. 

Following this discussion I decided to present a challenge to John, I asked him if he condemned the IRA terrorist campaign. After all John is a great advocate of the democracy of the Belfast Agreement, so either he is a democrat all the time or he only happens to be a democrat when he gets an agreement that suits him. You see, John Loughran epitomises Sinn Fein- they are democrats as long as democracy is a useful tactic for their ‘struggle’- but if the majority of people wished tomorrow to implement a system of Government that was not to Sinn Fein’s liking, then the logic of their justification of the past is that they would again support the use of terrorism to trump democracy in the future, if it suited their ‘struggle’. John has of yet refused to condemn the IRA, I can only draw from that that he supported the IRA terrorist campaign and therefore is not really a democrat, but rather a supporter of a bastardised democracy that exists with a metaphorical IRA gun to its head! 

John also regularly includes little clichés like ‘right to truth’ and calls for ‘inclusive truth recovery process’- that is of course unless you are Mairia Cahill, a Loyalist or a victim of the IRA- at which point you need to embrace the ‘process’ and move on. When John says ‘right to truth’ what he means is you have the right to accept Sinn Fein’s self-serving version of the truth or else you are just part of a dark cabal trying to drag us back. 

Perhaps I am wrong and John Loughran will confound us all by demanding a right to truth for Mairia Cahill and victims of the IRA and perhaps he will properly extoll the virtues of democracy by denouncing the IRA’s evil terror campaign. I have to say that I doubt he will. 

John Loughran is a day and daily example of Sinn Fein’s idea of the peace ‘process’. He epitomises the trajectory of the process from the republican perspective. It is a right to truth, as long as it is a truth rubber stamped and approved by Sinn Fein. It is a right to equality as long as it fits into the Trojan horse agenda to ‘break the bastards’. 

 John Loughran stands as a prominent example of someone indoctrinated by the Sinn Fein cult. For all the noble virtues he preaches- he cannot bring himself to condemn the most horrific terrorist campaign or to speak out against those within his own party who covered up the sexual abuse of Mairia Cahill and God knows how many others. He simply churns out clichés and hashtags from his Sinn Fein approved dictionary, designed to re-write history and break the bastards. 

If you really want the truth then look beyond the clichés, fancy hashtags and honeyed words. Lurking just beneath the surface is the hypocrisy that shows Sinn Fein is rotten to the core. It is not about peace and reconciliation, it is about re-writing history and ensuring that Sinn Fein win the peace, for if they don’t they reserve the moral right to go back to the ‘bad old days’. What it really means is that we must all swallow the honeyed words of Sinn Fein peacemakers like John Loughran, because if we don’t, then we run the risk of going back to the ‘bad old days’. But who would take us back to those days, I ask? Yes it would be the very same people who currently preach peace and reconciliation but continue to justify the use of terrorism to try and trump democracy- Sinn Fein/IRA!