Oliver Kamm argues Why Tebbit is right not to forgive the ex-terrorist. I beg to differ. Lord Tebbit should forgive Roy Walsh. Nobody is asking him to forget. I don't know Lord Tebbit, but what I saw of him when the Tory Party was in power I didn't like. Whether it is him that has mellowed with old age, or myself, or both of us, I don't know. However, when I saw him recently on 18doughtystreet.com, the internet TV station, in a pub in London talking and listening to taxi drivers, and the like, I still did not agree with everything he had to say, although I did note that he has a human side to his character. He was no longer the hate character. Nor for that matter is Margaret Thatcher, anymore, who was the intended target for assassination by the Brighton bomber.
Patrick Joseph Magee was born in Belfast in 1951, and moved with his family to live in Norwich in 1953. During his teenage years he became known to the Norfolk police as a bit of a tearaway and a thief. He identified himself with Roy Walsh the lead character in Cosh, which was the first British film to receive the X certificate by the British Board of Film Censors. In 1969, at the age of 18, he returned to Belfast as he was troubled by the Troubles and wanted to be part of the struggle. So, he enlisted as a volunteer in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). During the height of the Troubles in the 1970s he became so adept with explosive devices that the PIRA promoted him to being their Chief Explosives Officer. In 1973 he was sentenced to two years imprisonment after admitting to being a member of the IRA. When he was released he then moved back to Britain and attempted other bombings, evading police by escaping to Amsterdam and Dublin, before returning once again to England. By this time Roy had risen through the ranks to become Commander in Chief of all the units operating in mainland Britain.
The plot to bomb the Grand Hotel in Brighton had started in 1981 as an act of revenge for the hard-line stance Margaret Thatcher had taken over the death of Bobby Sands and other IRA hunger strikers that were fighting for political status in prison. Patrick Joseph Magee had booked into the hotel using the name of Roy Walsh three weeks previously, and planted the bomb, with a long-delay timer, in the bathroom wall of his room, number 629. The bomb exploded at 2:54 am on 12 October 1984, killing five people and injuring 34. Following the bombing, he escaped to Holland, but later returned to England. He was arrested in Glasgow on 24 June 1985 while planning other bombings and at his trial in September 1986 he received eight life sentences, and the trial judge recommended that he serve a minimum 35 years tariff, with the judge branding him "a man of exceptional cruelty and inhumanity". While in prison, in spite of being constantly moved around the Dispersal System, he gained a PhD BA (first class hons) in 'Troubles fiction'.
I didn't find Roy Walsh to be either exceptionally cruel or lacking in humanity. I came to have the greatest respect for him. He had a soft spot for all of those who suffered miscarriages of justice, the Birmingham 6; Guildford 4; and Maguire 7. Each time he passed Hughie Callaghan who the media had miss-labelled "The Colonel", he would give a mock salute and address him by "rank". Although the two sides of the conflict had a truce in English prisons, the Troubles still existed with the prison authorities, and prison officers many of whom were ex-service men, and some were members of the National Front (BNP). The IRA retaliated with attacks upon off duty prison officers, in response to any of their members being attacked by on duty prison officers. Then because peace talks were underway in Ireland a calm descended on the English prisons. High ranking politicians, including John Major, visited Roy Walsh and he was very much a part of the secret talks which led to the Good Friday peace agreement.
Jo Berry, the daughter of Sir Anthony Berry MP, who died as a result of the Brighton bomb, entered into a process of reconciliation with Roy Walsh. He has publicly stated that he regretted the loss of innocent lives. Initially the contact was via letters, but they were later to meet face to face with the assistance of the Forgiveness Project which is an organisation working to promote conflict resolution, reconciliation and victim support. It is not an easy process to go through. It requires examining one's own feelings and thought processes, and taking into account the perspectives of others. I remember my foster father once saying to me that he could forgive me but not forget the hurt I had caused. It's a two-way process. All I do know is that holding onto the notion of unforgiveness only serves to hurt the bearer of those thoughts and it is not the original source to blame. This is self-inflicted. And, this is why I say that Tebbit is wrong not to forgive Roy Walsh.
UPDATE: Iain Dale has posted an opposite view to mine.
9 comments:
A PhD in "Troubles Fiction"? The only Troubles fiction this IRA scumbag and his ilk are acquainted with are their occasional, faint and politically expedient nods in the direction of sorrow, decency, regret and apology.
In your detailed and moving account of his academic achievements in jail, and his identifying with film characters you seem to have neglected his cold-blooded willingness to murder civilians. This blog is pretty good at going out of its way to back the guilty over the innocent victim, but this is a new low.
"neave": Whoever you really are, don't you think it is a bit sick to take Airey Neave's name in vain? As far as I am concerned, Roy Walsh has more than proved himself. As I understand it, the IRA has disbanded and the war is over (even the UDA has not come to realise), it is time to move on. Roy Walsh is a human being. He certainly is not a "scumbag", and it is not something you would call him to his face, which makes you a coward. I can understand someone being cynical, however, the sincerity has been prolonged and is in my view genuine.
I am pleased that you found my account both detailed and moving, I tried to do my best. However, I have not neglected anything in the telling of my story. Other people will have and still do cover other aspects, particularly the collateral damage. I don't think that Roy was cold-blooded in the first place. He was a professional soldier. It is a fact of war that some civilians get killed or injured in the crossfire. This does not mean that he does not feel regret at this loss of life or injury suffered.
I am glad that you think this blog is pretty good. However, you are wrong to say that I go out of my way to back the guilty over the innocent victim. This is more down to your lack of understanding.
On the contrary, my stats are good and my ranking is high and Technorati rates me as an authority.
Sorry, jailhouse, but Roy was not and never can be a professional soldier, under any definition of the word. He was, and is, a convicted murderer. Whether you like the description or not, he cold-bloodedly planned the deaths of civilians. He did not take part in any military engagement.Now, I'm quite willing to recognise any part he might have played in the peace process, but that doesn't later what he meant to Norman Tebbit. I love the glib way you talk about a human side to Tebbit, a politician who to the best of my recollection didn't ever plant any bombs in any hotels, while happily describing Roy Walsh as a bloody saint.
All of which brings me to my real point. Norman Tebbit wakes up every day beside a wife who can't get out of bed, as he describes it. Roy Walsh did that. Roy Walsh, not Norman Tebbit, did that. Roy Walsh gets out of bed every day under his own steam, so that's something for him to be grateful for, eh? Who the Hell are you to pass judgement on Norman Tebbit while so easily finding in it your heart to forgive the man who caused a living Hell for Tebbit and his wife?
By the way, how do you know that 'neave' wouldn't tell Roy Walsh what he thinks to his face? I know I would, given a chance. Don't label people as cowards when you know nothing about them. I don't agree with all of the post by 'neave' but I don't know enough about him to make too many judgements.
jim lewis:
I think you need to study the subject before expressing your opinion as it just makes you look ignorant. It was not called the Irish Republican Army for nothing, and was a well disciplined force and without doubt Roy was indeed a professional soldier.
He was convicted of murder. However, at the end of the war he was released along with all the other prisoners of war. Certainly, he did not kill as many people as, for example, Bomber Harris. He did not cold-bloodedly plan the deaths of civilians. Norman Tebbit was a legitimate target. The act brought the war to an end a lot sooner than would have been the case. It changed how the British looked at things. It brought the war home to them and made them open their eyes.
Norman Tebbit is all about living in the past, whereas Roy Walsh was fighting for the future generations of the Irish. Norman Tebbit needs to move on and this is his problem. He is actually hurting himself more than Roy Walsh hurt him.
Roy doesn't just punch you, he breaks your jaw. He's one tough cookie. If you did not give him the respect he deserves, and insulted him he would very soon teach you a lesson. Like I say, it is one thing to mouth off from a safe distance and quite another to do it face to face.
I think the problem with Oliver Kamm's article is that it conflates the personal question of Lord Tebbit forgiving or not Patrick Magee with the political question of how to bring an end to the NI conflict.
On the personal level, it's surely a matter for him whether he feels able to forgive Patrick Magee or not. Since, as it appears, Magee has never expressed any sympathy or concern -- at least not to Tebbitt -- for the injuries inflicted on both him and his wife, I can see why Tebbitt wants nothing to do with him. Were I in similar circumstances, I doubt I would, either.
But that's a separate question from how you keep the Peace Process on the road. Lord Tebbitt and Patrick Magee don't have to have anything to do with each other if they don't want to, but people in NI do have to find some way of getting along, no matter how much they, with good reason, dislike each other. That has to mean both sides making compromises they don't like because the alternative is even worse.
You describe the process of reconciliation that Jo Berry and Patrick Magee went through. That seems to have been a pretty protracted affair that took some time to achieve -- letters, the Forgiveness Project and so on. That sounds very different from what the BBC appear to have done, which is just invite the two men onto the same programme without even, at least initially, telling Tebbitt that Magee would be there, too, and waiting to see what happened.
"Roy doesn't just punch you, he breaks your jaw. He's one tough cookie. If you did not give him the respect he deserves, and insulted him he would very soon teach you a lesson. Like I say, it is one thing to mouth off from a safe distance and quite another to do it face to face."
So the argument is here that we ought to respect him because otherwise he would deal out a beating? That sounds like a nice logic, but perhaps you are being more honest about his nature now.
"He certainly is not a "scumbag", and it is not something you would call him to his face, which makes you a coward."
I think you'd have to go a long way to find a better example of a scumbag than someone who commits the crimes he did. As it happens, I would gladly say it, and more, to his face. For that matter, if he was to punch me and break my jaw as you promise, it would be a good opportunity to send him back to jail to do some more of the time he deserves.
"I don't think that Roy was cold-blooded in the first place."
So the months of planning and planting a bomb well in advance in a civilian hotel was an act done in the heat of the moment, was it?
"He was a professional soldier."
Nonsense - just because they called it the IRA, as you cite, doesn't make him a professional soldier. He was a terrorist who went out of his to kill civilians. I can call myself the London Anti-Quiche Army this afternoon and start blowing up bakeries but it doesn't make me a professional soldier.
"It is a fact of war that some civilians get killed or injured in the crossfire."
It was a fact of that war that civilians were regularly the IRA's specific target.
"Norman Tebbit is all about living in the past, whereas Roy Walsh was fighting for the future generations of the Irish."
An artificial distinction that shows up your bias pretty well. You could as easily say Tebbit was fighting for the future of the British nation and the Protestant Loyalists in NI and Magee was obsessed with trying to overturn historic facts of Ulster settlement. I wouldn't peg it to one or the other myself but this is just spin.
"He is actually hurting himself more than Roy Walsh hurt him."
Really? This sanctimonious cod-ethics is all very easy to say when you haven't actually been bombed, isn't it? When your wife hasn't actually been crippled and your friends murdered?
Sorry, I've just seen John's last comment about 'legitimate targets,' which I'm afraid I can't let go unchallenged. PIRA may well have regarded British politicians as 'legitimate targets' but that doesn't make them so, and it certainly doesn't make their wives and families also 'legitimate targets'.
Come on, those guys who've just been sentenced in the fertilizer bomb plot case seem to have been convinced that people somehow made themselves 'legitimate targets' by going out clubbing at the Ministry of Sound. Doesn't mean anyone has to agree with them.
not saussure 1031: Having read Lord Tebbit's own article in the Torygraph, which I have blogged on further up, he also appears to conflate the two issues.
Agreed, on a personal level it is for Lord Tebbit to decide whether he forgives Roy Walsh. However, in the Torygraph he states it is a two-way street. And, he sits in the middle like a wide load not budging an inch from his entrenched position. Then, he has the cheek to ask why Roy won't meet or pass him on his terms.
Roy has expressed regret. However, once again in Tebbit's own words in the Torygraph, his idea of remorse is a political one and too lopsided to be realistic.
I don't believe that Roy dislikes Tebbit. With him it was not personal. I don't think I would have been too chuffed to have been blown up either. But, it comes down to Tebbit being a fool to himself as he is only hurting himself more. Like putting salt into a wound.
It wasn't like the BBC putting two gladiators into the ring to see what happens. In my view, Tebbit would have come off worst because he is his own worst enemy. All those on the programme agreed that it is time to move on. It is as though Lord Tebbit is stuck in a time-warp at the 1984 Tory Party Conference in Brighton.
neave: You resorted to the name calling. Which is disrespectful. Blair talks about respect, however, he does not know what it means. The issue here remains whether Lord Tebbit should or should not forgive Roy Walsh. I am stating that it is in his own best interests to do so. Simply because bitterness eats you away.
Roy was a soldier fighting a war. On your argument, they are all "scumbags".
not saussure 10.53: I do believe that those politicians who supported the oppression and repression in Ireland were legitimate targets. That is not to say that their family are, not that I believe those killed in pub bombings were legitimate targets. This was just tactics in a dirty war. Even though I sympathised with the IRA struggle, I don't condone a lot of what went on.
So you think a murdering bastard like him is worthy / entitled to *respect*. ? And you admire people who break other peoples jaws because they do not genuflect with the proper *respect*? And you say you are reformed? You are just an ex con with a slick act. Now I know at least I won't have to waste any more time reading your pretentious crap. I am a tough bastard too. And my friends and I fought the IRA to a stand still. They are cowardly poofters - the lot of them.
Post a Comment