Watch Henry McDonald’s interview below about how the PSNI’s move against the Boston College archive in 2011 sabotaged a similar project he was organising dealing with various security forces’ handling of paramilitary informers and then read what I had to say about the consequences of the PSNI’s move to kill off the Boston initiative. Interesting, yes?:
‘Softly, Softly Catchee Monkee’, should have been the motto for Sinn Fein’s peace process strategy, if you think about it. You know how it goes: mention an unmentionable enough times, people get used to it and soon enough the unthinkable becomes the doable.
The 1994 ceasefire was arranged in that way, repeated mentions along with denials that it would happen, giving way to a grudging acceptance of its inevitability and eventually delivered in a way that kept most of the faithful on board. So was power-sharing at Stormont and compliance with the consent principle, the acceptance of the PSNI and, of course, IRA decommissioning.
So forgive old cynical me if I see a little bit of the same in Mary Lou McDonald’s weekend interview with The Journal in which she floats the idea of Ireland ‘re-joining’ the British Commonwealth. Ireland quit in 1949 when the 26 counties declared themselves a republic. See below.
Now the British Commonwealth is headed by the British monarch of the day so I am wondering if it is entirely a coincidence that nearly every British royal who visits Ireland these days, especially south of the Border, gets to meet a leading Shinner.
Gerry Kelly, former IRA Adjutant-General (No 2 in the IRA hierarchy) and London bomber being the latest. Just a thought. You know how it goes: the more Royals the Shinners are seen with the more acceptable becomes the idea of rejoining the Commonwealth. Or am I taking a step too far?
Prince Charles meets Sinn Fein’s Gerry Kelly and Carol Cullen
Gerry Adams and Prince Charles share a cup of tea and a joke
Mary Lou McDonald: The idea of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth needs to be discussed
The Sinn Féin leader said the Irish government must start to put plans in place for a united Ireland.
Sinn Féin party leader Mary Lou McDonald Source: PA Wire/PA Images
MARY LOU MCDONALD has said she is open to discussions on Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth.
In an interview with TheJournal.ie, the Sinn Féin leader said there must be an open debate in order to encourage unionists to participate in a discussion about a united Ireland.
McDonald said she cannot call for an openness, and then censor voices before the debate has begun.
“You can hardly make that call and then say ‘we are not going to discuss any particular item’. And there are some people who think that rejoining the Commonwealth is a worthy proposition.
“I think those that hold that view need to put that view forward, and I think it needs to be looked at, and debated, and it needs to be discussed.
“It is not a proposition that I would be advancing – but I am me. This is not all about Sinn Féin. This is much bigger than us. The debate has to have the capacity to put everything on the table and then the business of debate and discussion in a reflective way, not a divisive way,” she said.
The idea of Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth has been floated by a number of politicians, such as Fine Gael Senator Frank Feighan who argues that it would promote Ireland’s values to a global audience, while strengthening and growing important economic and cultural ties internationally.
McDonald also said the Irish government needs to take the lead in the debate about a united Ireland and start making plans about how it might be achieved.
“I am firmly of the view that we are now on the way to a unity referendum. I think the genie is out of the bottle. I think the discussion around a new Ireland, how we might get there, and what it might look like is already underway.”
She said she is “conscious that Brexit is a very bad thing for Ireland”, adding that “for us to have a debate around the new Ireland and to have a referendum poll, obviously a chaotic Brexit is not the ideal music for that to happen”.
However, she added that she in no way thinks Brexit means a border poll should be put on the back-burner.
I am not arguing for a delay. I am an Irish republican, I am the leader of Sinn Fein, I want us to achieve Irish unity and I want us to do it as soon as we can and I know for that to happen we need space and the best atmosphere we can have in which to have that debate.
But, if the Tories insist on crashing out of Europe, and take the north of Ireland out of the European Union “in chaotic manner”, then the next question to be asked is the Constitutional one, said McDonald.
A border poll
Last week, she said “the time for a unity referendum is drawing near ”. This comment came just days after an interview where she commented that a “crash Brexit” would not be the time to look at a border poll or a united Ireland.
“The Constitutional question [of a border poll on a united Ireland] would have to be put – there is no way the Tories could inflict that level of disorder, of uncertainty, and damage on the island of Ireland and imagine that they are not going to put the Constitutional question.
“But it does not represent the optimal atmosphere in which to have the discussion and debate, so that was the point I was making,” said the Dublin Central TD.
Sinn Féin have already set out a five-year timeframe for when they believe a border poll should be held, but McDonald said she, nor anyone else, is in a position to guess the exact date.
Before a border poll takes place, detailed plans and discussions need to be organised, something the Irish government must act on now, said the party leader.
The government in Dublin have a particular responsibility for that. We have argued for a long time that there ought to be an Oireachtas committee on Irish unity, that we need to see a green paper on Irish unity. The time for planning and really putting the ideas on that table is now and the government here needs to lead on that.
Her comments come just a few short weeks after the former leader of the DUP Peter Robinson said he believed Northern Ireland should prepare for the possibility of Irish unity, though he said he did not think Northern Ireland will want to leave.
The voices of unionism
McDonald said it is “very important that unionism finds its space, finds its voice and follows the advice of Peter Robinson and takes its head out of the sand”.
Unionism needs to set out “their wishes, their ideas, their ambitions – all of that needs to get underway”, she added.
McDonald denied some of the comments made by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil politicians that a border poll would be divisive.
“The change is in the air, and coming this way, it cannot be ignored, it can’t be denied, it can’t be delayed, in my view. I have heard a lot of people say that the poll on unity would be divisive, it would be dangerous, it is one of these issues that is ‘too hot to handle’. I don’t accept that,” said the party leader, adding that she believes the debate will be “liberating” and “invigorating”.
“We have to ask, in the national interest, in the interest of people right across the country, what is the next move and the next move post-Brexit is to re-fashion Ireland on a 32 county basis.
“It is big challenge, it is a huge job of work, it is a job for all of us.”
The site can be accessed here. And here is a Broken Elbow article based on the RGJ’s archives and regimental War Diary detailing the story of the killing of Jim Bryson and Gerry Adams’ brother-in-law, Patrick Mulvenna. It was written by myself and James Kinchin-White.
The RGJ site calls the killing of Bryson and Mulvenna ‘…this Eventful and Historic Day’. It seems we still have a ways to go to reconciliation much less forgetfulness. August 31st this year will mark the 45th anniversary of the double killing.
For many years the Green Jackets official regimental site carried a photo of the dead Jim Bryson taken in the morgue of the Royal Victoria Hospital. The existence of the photo was first highlighted by this blog. It was subsequently taken down.
I wonder what Jim Bryson would have made of the Provo peace process strategy?
Postscript: My eagle-eyed colleague, James Kinchin White points out that the bullet spattered car featured on the website is not the vehicle used by Bryson et al but was the car in which Stan Carberry met his death at the hands of RGJ soldiers nearly a year before.
In this important piece published in the current edition of the New York Review of Books, investigative reporter Murray Waas concludes that FBI Special Counsel Robert Mueller has gathered enough evidence – much of it from inside the White House – to present a recommendation to Congress that impeachment charges be leveled against Donald Trump. Enjoy:
Flynn, Comey, and Mueller: What Trump Knew and When He Knew It
Previously undisclosed evidence in the possession of Special Counsel Robert Mueller—including highly confidential White House records and testimony by some of President Trump’s own top aides—provides some of the strongest evidence to date implicating the president of the United States in an obstruction of justice. Several people who have reviewed a portion of this evidence say that, based on what they know, they believe it is now all but inevitable that the special counsel will complete a confidential report presenting evidence that President Trump violated the law. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel’s work, would then decide on turning over that report to Congress for the House of Representatives to consider whether to instigate impeachment proceedings.
The central incident in the case that the president obstructed justice was provided by former FBI Director James B. Comey, who testified that Trump pressed Comey, in a private Oval Office meeting on February 14, 2017, to shut down an FBI criminal investigation of Trump’s former national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go,” Comey has testified the president told him.
In an effort to convince Mueller that President Trump did not obstruct justice, the president’s attorneys have argued that the president could not have broken the law because the president did not know that Flynn was under criminal investigation when he pressured Comey to go easy on Flynn. In a confidential January 29 letter to the special counsel first reported by TheNew York Times, two of the president’s attorneys, John Dowd (who no longer represents Trump) and Jay Sekulow, maintained that the president did not obstruct justice because, even though Flynn had been questioned by the FBI, Trump believed that the FBI investigation was over, and that Flynn had been told that he’d been cleared.
On its face, this is a counter-intuitive argument—for if Trump believed that Flynn had been cleared and was no longer under investigation, there would have been no reason for the president to lean on Comey to end the FBI’s investigation—telling Comey that Trump hoped that Comey would be able to “see your way clear to letting this go.” Yet Trump’s attorneys have pursued this line of argument with the special counsel because perjury and obstruction cases depend largely on whether a prosecutor can demonstrate the intent and motivation of the person they want to charge. It’s not enough to prove that the person under investigation attempted to impede an ongoing criminal investigation; the statute requires a prosecutor to prove that the person did so with the corrupt intent to protect either himself or someone else from prosecution.
If, therefore, Trump understood the legal jeopardy that Flynn faced, that would demonstrate such intent—and make for a much stronger case for obstruction against the president. Conversely, if Trump believed that Flynn was no longer under criminal investigation, or had been cleared, the president could not have had corrupt intent. But previously undisclosed evidence indicates just the opposite—that President Trump was fully informed that Flynn was the target of prosecutors.
I have learned that a confidential White House memorandum, which is in the special counsel’s possession, explicitly states that when Trump pressured Comey he had just been told by two of his top aides—his then chief of staff Reince Priebus and his White House counsel Don McGahn—that Flynn was under criminal investigation. This memo, the existence of which I first disclosed in Decemberin Foreign Policy, was, as one source described it to me, “a timeline of events [in the White House] leading up to Flynn’s resignation.” It was dated February 15, 2017, and was prepared by McGahn two days after Flynn’s forced resignation and one day after Trump’s meeting with Comey. As I reported, research for the memo was “primarily conducted by John Eisenberg, the deputy counsel to the president and legal adviser to the National Security Council,” who, in turn, was “assisted by James Burnham, another White House counsel staff member.”
During my reporting, I was allowed to read the memo in its entirety, as well as other, underlying White House records quoted in the memo, such as notes and memos written by McGahn and other senior administration officials. My reporting for this story is also based on interviews with a dozen former and current White House officials, attorneys who have interacted with Mueller’s team of investigators, and witnesses questioned by Mueller’s investigators.
In arguing in their January 29 letter that Trump did not obstruct justice, the president’s attorneys Dowd and Sekulow quoted selectively from this same memo, relying only on a few small portions of it. They also asserted that even if Trump knew there had been an FBI investigation of Flynn, Trump believed that Flynn had been cleared. Full review of the memo flatly contradicts this story.
The memo’s own statement that Trump was indeed told that Flynn was under FBI investigation was, in turn, based in part on contemporaneous notes written by Reince Priebus after discussing the matter with the president, as well as McGahn’s recollections to his staff about what he personally had told Trump, according to other records I was able to review. Moreover, people familiar with the matter have told me that both Priebus and McGahn have confirmed in separate interviews with the special counsel that they had told Trump that Flynn was under investigation by the FBI before he met with Comey.
The sequence of events that led first to the firing of Flynn and subsequently to the president’s pleading his case with Comey began on December 29, 2016. On that day, after Trump had been elected president but not yet taken office, Flynn had several phone conversations with the then Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak. Flynn counseled Kislyak during these conversations not to retaliate against the US for economic sanctions imposed that day against Russia by the outgoing Obama administration. The sanctions were imposed to punish Russia for covertly intervening in the 2016 presidential election with the purpose of helping to defeat Hillary Clinton and helping Trump win.
On January 12, 2017, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius disclosed that US intelligence agencies had intercepted the phone calls, although Ignatius’s sources did not disclose the specifics of what either Flynn or Kislyak said. Vice President Mike Pence was immediately enlisted to defend Flynn. Flynn assured Pence that he never spoke to Kislyak about sanctions, whereupon Pence repeated those denials on Fox News and CBS’s Face the Nation. Flynn was then also questioned by the FBI about the phone calls, but once again denied that he had ever spoken to Kislyak about sanctions.
On January 20, Donald Trump was inaugurated as the forty-fifth president of the United States. On January 24, on only his fourth day in his new post as national security adviser, Michael Flynn was interviewed by FBI agents who were conducting a counterintelligence and criminal investigation of the ties between Trump campaign officials and Russia. (Flynn since pleaded guilty, in December of last year, to federal criminal charges that he lied to the FBI when he denied discussing sanctions with Kislyak. As part of his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to cooperate with the special counsel’s investigation.)
Two days later, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates met with White House counsel Don McGahn. One of the things they discussed was the FBI’s interview of Flynn. The McGahn timeline memorialized what McGahn says Yates told him about Flynn’s FBI interview thus:
Yates… indicated on January 24, 2017, FBI agents had questioned Flynn about his contacts with Kislyak. Yates claimed that Flynn’s statements to the FBI were similar to those she understood he had [already] made to… the Vice President.
Yates met with McGahn primarily to warn him that US intelligence agencies had intercepted phone calls between Flynn and Kislyak, and that they had discussed sanctions. Yates pointed out that Vice President Pence, based on assurances he said Flynn had given him, had publicly denied that Flynn had discussed sanctions with Kislyak—something that the Russians knew but Flynn would want to conceal, thus making Flynn “compromised,” she warned, and vulnerable to blackmail. “Mr. McGahn asked me how he [Flynn] did [during his FBI interview],” Yates testified to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee in May 2017. “I specifically declined to answer that,” Yates explained to senators, because of the ongoing criminal investigation.
Later that same day, McGahn briefed the president about what he had learned from Yates, according to confidential White House records and interviews. McGahn apparently made no contemporaneous notes of what he told the president. Reince Priebus was also present for this briefing, according to the same records. The McGahn timeline demonstrates that President Trump was clearly informed during that meeting that Flynn was under criminal investigation by the FBI. Trump directed McGahn to find out more, including any information about the criminal investigation of Flynn, before deciding on a course of action. The McGahn timeline recounts: “Part of [our] concern was a recognition by McGahn that it was unclear from the meeting with Yates whether or not an action could be taken without jeopardizinganongoing investigation.”
A person with first-hand knowledge told me that during interviews with the special counsel, both McGahn and Priebus confirmed that they had informed Trump during this meeting that Flynn was being investigated by the FBI. Further, according to three current and former administration officials, McGahn also relayed to President Trump that Flynn had told the FBI the same false story he’d earlier told Pence (that Flynn had never spoken to Kislyak about sanctions). Because Trump and McGahn knew of Flynn’s misstatements to the FBI, they would have understood the legal jeopardy Flynn was in: it is a felony to lie to the FBI—precisely the federal criminal charge Flynn would later plead guilty to.
Additionally, my sources say that the special counsel also interviewed the two White House attorneys, John Eisenberg and James Burnham, who helped draft the McGahn memo, in which they, too, concluded that Trump was told that Flynn was under FBI investigation. Both men said that they questioned McGahn while researching the timeline; one of them independently recalled McGahn’s contemporaneously telling the president that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI. (In October 2017, Burnham left the White House to go to work as senior counsel in the Justice Department’s Civil Division.)
The next day, on January 27, McGahn summoned Yates back to the White House to follow up. According to the testimony Yates gave to the Senate Judiciary committee in May 2017, Yates said that McGahn “was concerned that taking action [against Flynn] might interfere with the FBI investigation.” Yates responded by telling McGahn that “it wouldn’t really be fair of us to tell you this and then expect you to sit on your hands,” in reference to Flynn’s misleading Pence about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak.
Trump’s knowledge of the criminal investigation of Flynn is central to the special counsel’s obstruction case because of what Trump’s action later that same day, January 27, might reveal about his intent and motivation. It was then that the president called Director Comey and invited him to dinner that eveningat the White House. Comey has testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that he did not understand until he arrived that he and the president would be dining alone. At this dinner, Trump suggested to Comey that his job might not be secure, leading Comey to believe that Trump was attempting to “create some sort of patronage relationship,” something that was very troubling to Comey “given the FBI’s traditionally independent status.” Comey testified that:
A few moments later the president said, “I need loyalty, I expect loyalty.” I didn’t move, speak, or change my facial expression in any way during the awkward silence that followed. We simply looked at each other in silence.
On February 8, 2017, TheWashington Post contacted the White House to say that it was about to publish a story citing no less than nine sources that Flynn had indeed spoken to Kislyak about sanctions. In attempting to formulate a response, Priebus, McGahn, and Eisenberg questioned Flynn. Confronted with the information that there were intercepts showing exactly what was said between him and Kislyak, Flynn’s story broke down. Instead of denying that he had spoken to Kislyak about sanctions, the timeline said, Flynn’s “recollection was inconclusive.” Flynn “either was not sure whether he discussed sanctions, or did not remember doing so,” the McGahn timeline says.
Priebus then “specifically asked Flynn whether he was interviewed by the FBI,” the timeline says. In response, “Flynn stated that FBI agents met with him to inform him that their investigation was over.” That claim, of course, was a lie. The FBI never told Flynn their investigation of him was over. Shortly thereafter, Vice President Pence, Priebus, and McGahn recommended that Flynn be fired.
On February 13, faced with the prospect of being fired by Trump, Flynn resigned as national security adviser. The next morning, after an Oval Office meeting with the vice president, the attorney general, the deputy CIA director, and other national security and law enforcement officials, the president asked FBI Director Comey to remain behind. Once they were alone, Trump allegedly pressured Comey to shut down the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. Comey has testified that Trump said, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.” The president then repeated: “I hope that you can let this go.”
The next day, McGahn, Eisenberg, and Burnham completed work on their timeline memo of the events leading up to Michael Flynn’s forced resignation. The memo said nothing about the president’s conversation the day before with Comey. The three White House lawyers would later tell the special counsel that Donald Trump had not consulted with them first.
In arguing that the president did nothing wrong, Trump defense attorneys John Dowd and Jay Sekulow, in both informal conversations and later in formal correspondence with the special counsel, relied on the false statements of Flynn to Priebus, McGahn, and Eisenberg that the FBI had closed out their investigation of him. In the attorneys’ reasoning, if Trump had no reason to think that Flynn was under criminal investigation when he allegedly pressured Comey to go easy on Flynn, the president did not obstruct justice. More broadly, Sekulow and Dowd argued in correspondence with the special counsel that the “White House’s understanding” was that “there was no FBI investigation that could conceivably have been impeded” at the time of Trump’s White House meeting with Comey.
But Sekulow and Dowd’s account of these conversations is partial and misleading. In fact, there is no information or evidence that Flynn’s false assertions were ever relayed to the president. (The White House refused to answer questions from me about the president’s version of what he was told during the meeting.) More importantly, even if they were relayed to the president, Flynn should no longer have had any credibility with the president’s aides.
Flynn’s statements that the FBI had cleared him were obviously self-serving and unreliable—made by someone who had just admitted misleading the vice president regarding his conversations with Russia’s ambassador to the US. Indeed, Trump himself said he fired Flynn for misleading the vice president when Flynn resigned. And Trump tweeted last December, the day after Michael Flynn pleaded guilty for lying to investigators, that: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.”
Aside from McGahn, Eisenberg, and Burnham, the special counsel has interviewed five other attorneys who currently work for the White House counselor or have previously done so, according to administration records. Underscoring just how important these witnesses are, the special counsel has interviewed a total of twenty White House officials; of that number, eight have worked for the White House counsel. Two people familiar with the matter have told me that these witnesses have been asked, among other things: about the McGahn timeline; what McGahn contemporaneously told them regarding his briefings of the president; and more specifically, whether McGahn indicated to them that he had informed the president that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI and was under federal criminal investigation.
Sources have identified for me two other White House attorneys who have been interviewed by the special counsel. One is Uttam Dhillon, who has served the Trump administration as deputy White House counsel and deputy assistant to the president (on July 2, Dhillon was named by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to be the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration). Dhillon was a central participant in discussions with the president on whether to fire James Comey as FBI director—with Dhillon advising Trump not to do so. The special counsel has also interviewed Ann Donaldson, who is both the chief of staff to the White House counsel and special counsel to the president. Because so many attorneys working for the White House counsel have been witnesses in the special counsel’s investigation, and because their testimony will clearly be crucial in determining whether the president obstructed justice, Don McGahn took the extraordinary step last summer of recusing his entire staff from advising the president further about the Russia investigation.
The February 15 memo, combined with accounts given to the special counsel by Priebus and McGahn, constitutes the most compelling evidence we yet know of that Donald Trump may have obstructed justice. In an effort to persuade the American people that the president has done nothing wrong, Trump and his supporters have blamed those they identify as their political adversaries—from President Barack Obama to Jim Comey, and including entire institutions such as the FBI and CIA, and an ill-defined “Deep State.” But the most compelling evidence that the president may have obstructed justice appears to come from his own most senior and loyal aides. The greatest threat to his presidency is not from his enemies, real or perceived, but from his allies within the White House.
The photograph above is taken from The Daily Express during the so-called ‘Aden emergency’ of July-November 1967, when British troops came under sustained attack from armed elements of the Front for the Liberation of South Yemen (FLOSSY).
The assault, inspired by Nasser’s Arab Nationalist movement in Egypt, eventually led to the withdrawal of British forces from that part of the Arab world and was a key way-point in the post-war decline of the British empire.
The importance of the photograph is that it shows British troops using a tactic which three or four years later they would employ in Belfast against the IRA in an effort to identify militants.
The three Arabs in the photo are hooded, presumably to reduce any possibility of being recognised, and behind a cloth screen they are being asked to identify people who took part in an armed attack which killed a British soldier the day before.
A similar practice was commonplace in Belfast in the early days of the Troubles when intelligence on the IRA was scarce and unreliable, and military commanders had only scant information on the identity of IRA activists.
A variant of this ploy was, according to Dolours Price, the fatal mistake which led to the identification of Jean McConville as a spy only days, apparently, after the late Brendan Hughes had let her go on the understanding she would not return to her old ways.
According to Price, a blanket – with peepholes – placed between her and IRA suspects as they were allegedly paraded in front of her in Hastings Street Military/RUC barracks, failed to cover her lower legs and she was recognised by virtue of her distinctive house slippers.
In the wake of the interview about her role in the death and disappearance of Belfast widow and mother-of-ten, Jean McConville, Dolours Price told me that in subsequent years one of those assigned by the IRA to dig the Belfast widow’s grave on the shores of Carlingford Lough was exposed as an informer working for the Garda Special Branch.
He was however spared the same fate as Jean McConville by virtue of his father’s status as a senior and respected figure in the Co. Louth IRA. He was drummed out of the organisation but escaped with his life, thanks to his father’s intervention.
Dolours Price could not say when the gravedigger was recruited by the Gardai, whether this was before Jean McConville’s ‘disappearance’ or afterwards.
Dolours Price’s allegation, if true, raises a number of troubling questions, not least how much did the Special Branch know of Jean McConville’s murder, did they know who had been involved in it, where her body had been hidden and the most pressing question of all: why was this information not passed on so that her remains could be returned to her family?
The grim and unforgiving rules of agent-running suggest that the Special Branch would likely have placed protection of their source ahead of considerations for the McConville family.
Intelligence agencies around the world are obsessed with protecting sources and methods and that means never releasing information that would confirm the identity of an agent even if his or her cover has been blown. The Garda Special Branch would not be an exception to this iron rule.
The other side of the argument is equally compelling. If what Dolours Price alleged is true, the McConville’s are entitled to ask what is the point in running agents if the information they provide is not used to do good, in this case by returning their mother’s remains? Equally they could ask was it not possible for the Special Branch to marshall its talents to devise a low risk way of using the intelligence they had?
It stands to reason that one way or another the Gardai would have learned something about the death of Jean McConville over the years. IRA activity in the Louth area was largely geared to providing support to the units across the Border and it was in the IRA’s interests to otherwise keep a relatively low profile.
The arrival of a suspected informer along with three senior figures from Belfast, on two trips, culminating in an execution and secret burial would likely have been a matter of excited gossip amongst IRA activists in the area and eventually this would have made its way to the Special Branch, not least via its network of informers.
As it was, according to Dolours Price’s telling, the Gardai may have had a more direct source telling them about the tragic and bloody events on Shelling Beach.
The affair also highlights a glaring inconsistency in the IRA’s attitude towards informers or others who have broken the organisation’s rules – once uncovered an informer’s fate was not always predetermined and could sometimes depend on who they were and if they had friends or relatives in high places.