Documents Still Withheld

April 7, 2009 · Print This Article

An attempt by the ‘Sunday Times’ [5th April] to call into question the republican leadership’s handling of the 1981 hunger strike by publishing British government documents released under the Freedom of Information Act has actually boomeranged on the reporter who wrote the story, Liam Clarke. [Liam Clarke, after being challenged by the Bobby Sands Trust, had to admit last month that a quote he attributed to Bobby Sands and used in a lurid headline – “Sinn Fein is turning into Sands’s dodo” – wasn’t said by Bobby Sands.]

The British government documents themselves – far from being incriminating – actually corroborate the account of what happened at the time by Sinn Fein, surviving hunger strikers, Brendan McFarlane, the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace and detailed research by authors David Beresford, Padraig O’Malley and Denis O’Hearn.

The documents can be accessed at the newspaper’s website .

Responding to the story the Secretary of the Bobby Sands Trust, Danny Morrison, issued the following statement. “I welcome the release of documents by the British government under the Freedom of Information Act, though I believe that their withholding of one or two particular documents is deliberate and mischievous.

“What is of interest is that a close reading of the documents supports not the sensationalist construction that the ‘Sunday Times’ and others have put on them but what republicans have contended all along, that the British government did not want a settlement on terms acceptable to the prisoners and that they played along with the delegation from the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace.

“It has been known for decades that the Republican Movement and the British were in contact in July 1981 during the hunger strike. As a result of that contact I went into the prison hospital on Sunday, July 5th, and told Joe McDonnell, Kevin Lynch, Kieran Doherty, Tom McElwee and Micky Devine, and told Brendan McFarlane, the leader of the prisoners, separately, that we were in contact and the details of what the British appeared to be offering in terms of the prisoners’ five demands.

“Because the prisoners at the end of the first hunger strike had experience of the British reneging on promised offers, and this reneging had led to the second hunger strike, the hunger strikers told me that they wanted a representative of the British government to come in and stand over what was on offer. Now, what the British were offering fell short of the five demands but whether it would have been enough to end the hunger strike was never put to the test because the British refused to meet the hunger strikers and stand over their offer. So there was never a deal.

“Those people who criticise the leadership for faithfully representing and echoing the five demands of the prisoners and trying to maximise their gains, especially after four hunger strikers had laid down their lives, would in all likelihood be criticising the leadership if it had tried to force on the hunger strikers acceptance of just one concession or two concessions from the British.

“Among the documents still being withheld by the British are the one whose contents were delivered verbally through an intermediary on July 5th and which I delivered verbally to the hunger strikers and Brendan McFarlane; and the one which the British rewrote hours before Joe McDonnell died on July 8th but which neither we nor the hunger strikers were given. They rewrote it, according to the newly released material, to alter its tone in response to a request, they say, by the Republican Movement. Crucially, if we accept this document then it indicates a Republican Movement anxious to settle, not prolong the hunger strike.

“The only reason the British could have for continuing to withhold this statement is simply to create and sustain confusion. These documents should be read alongside the timeline the Bobby Sands Trust has detailed. These documents also tally with a background interview from 1986 with a senior prison official, Sir John Blelloch, which he did not anticipate being published, but which the Trust released a few weeks ago.

“In that interview Blelloch states: ‘There was absolutely no change in the government’s position.’

“The documents in the ‘Sunday Times’ say: ‘The statement [the one still withheld – DM] contains, except on clothing, nothing of substance which has not been said publicly… It has been made clear (as the draft itself states) that it is not a basis for negotiation.’

“This was the real position of the British government and it is being lost among sensational claims which, unfortunately, are bound to cause pain to the families of the hunger strikers.”


The family of Francis Hughes, the second hunger striker to die in 1981, have responded to the latest story. Speaking through Oliver Hughes they said:

“Our brother Francis died on hunger strike along with nine other courageous men in 1981.

“They had five just demands and the British government refused to concede those demands at the time though later the prisoners won their demands and the British recognised and gave early release to all of the political prisoners.

“We came through that terrible year of 1981 and all the years afterwards supported by our memory of Francis, a young Irishman of whom we remain very, very proud.

“In recent years we have read various accounts of the hunger strike and talk of negotiations and offers. We know who it was that took away special category status, who it was beat the prisoners, who it was caused the hunger strike and refused to do a deal which at the time would have saved lives.

“That was 28 years ago but still there are those who for whatever reason bring up the past in a way that puts us through more pain and distress. If they are really concerned about how this one family of a hunger striker feels then I would ask them to put the issue to rest.

“- Oliver Hughes, Tamlaghtduff”



10 Responses to “Documents Still Withheld”

  1. Geri Timmons on April 7th, 2009 6:07 pm


    It is just propaganda to drop the leadership into the ashes. Hold your heads up. We have faith in you and your words.

  2. Gerard on April 11th, 2009 2:05 pm

    Danny, could you elaborate on the content of the documents and gives us an insight into these communications between Downing Street and the IRA, and what exactly was the offer that suggested the IRA had no objection to the content but did with the tone? What was the the content of the expanded offer? If there was no objections to the content then how did the mountainclimber initative collapse?

  3. keen observer on April 16th, 2009 6:18 pm

    danny could you give me a bit of insite into how the strike came to an end, and was the brits talking to the ira to bring it to an end, when i did end,?

  4. Danny Morrison on April 17th, 2009 4:17 am

    Hi. The Brits were not talking to the republican leadership when the hunger strike ended [indeed, I don’t think there were any communications until 1990/91].

    The hunger strike as a weapon was neutered by relatives of the strikers who increasingly began authorising medical intervention once the prisoners lapsed into a coma. The prisoners ended the hunger strike on 3 October 1981. Within two weeks the British conceded their right to wear their own clothes. The prisoners were united and organised and fought on for the rest of their demands through sabotaging the workshops and using their numbers to establish segregation.
    Within two years the prisoners had political status and the IRA command structure within the jail was recognised by the administration. In the words of a former governor, they (the prison authorities) “learned at a terrible price that you could only run a prison like the Maze with prisoners like that with their consent.”
    The final admission of the political nature of the prisoners was their early release under the 1998 Belfast Agreement.
    – Danny Morrison, Secretary Bobby Sands Trust

  5. Gerard on April 17th, 2009 9:26 am

    Any comment Danny on the content of the 8th/18th July Downing Street documents, was there an acceptance, as suggested, of the content but not tone of Thatcher’s offer. What’s your opinion on the text from the Freedom of Information Team that to release further documentation ”may have an adverse impact” on those who were intimately involved in the 1981 issues. Some are suggesting that this is protecting Sinn Fein.

  6. Danny Morrison on April 17th, 2009 10:41 am

    What the British offered verbally [there were never any documents] through an intermediary on Sunday, July 5th, was given by me to the hunger strikers and, separately, to Brendan McFarlane, in the prison hospital, though we were not allowed to be together with the hunger strikers and the atmosphere from the prison officers on duty was hostile. Indeed, I was thrown out of the jail by Deputy Governor John Pepper during this initiative before I had finished my business.
    The hunger strikers were understandably suspicious, given the prisoners’ experiences the previous Christmas at the end of the first hunger strike when the British resiled from the tone of a promised liberal interpretation of prison rules. At least, at Christmas 1980 they had actually been supplied with a physical document!
    In July 1981 the British refused our requests and requests issued six times by the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace to send in a representative to the hunger strikers and show them what they were offering. One has to ask why they would not do that. The offer fell short of the five demands. Certainly, there was a division between the British Foreign Office which favoured a settlement [though whether the offer was enough or was negotiable was never tested] and the Home Office and NIO which wanted to screw the hunger strikers into the ground. Governor Pepper might be able to explain who authorised him to kick me out of the prison.
    Re “may have an adverse impact”, I haven’t a clue what that refers to, but I am calling upon the British, who released selective documents, to release all documents covering this period.

  7. Simon on April 17th, 2009 6:26 pm

    The British security services and governments are known for their dirty tricks, withholding vital documents, leaking others, exploiting divisions etc. They are also known to stick to tried and tested methods. I suggest that they planned to dangle an “offer” which they wanted the prisoners to accept just as in the first hunger strike and then go back on their word. So close but yet so far… Why? To break the prisoners’ spirit. That is why the prisoners were tortured, beaten, psychologically mistreated over that period and it explains the parallels in Danny, Bik, Richard O’Rawe’s and others accounts. I believe there was an offer, but one which would not have been implemented properly into a deal, the same as in the previous year. Maybe there were a few subtle differences to tempt, fool and cajole the prisoners but once bitten twice shy.

    If there was a proper deal would it have been callously rejected for a few votes? How did the republicans know then that the British weren’t going to go public with the alleged rejected “deal”? Why reject a proper deal that dealt with the prisoners’ demands knowing that it might never be offered again? All those years of protest for nothing? It doesn’t ring true!

    Sinn Fein and the republican leadership did not know at the time of the Hunger Strikes what was going to happen in the future regarding political progress. They could not have foretold the future. Does it not make sense that an earlier, more successful ending to the protests would have highlighted Sinn Fein’s political acumen and skill therefore leading to a quicker, larger increase in political support than what occurred?

    Oh, and people really do have short memories! Do you actually remember what Thatcher was like? All the above points to trickery on the part of the British. It doesn’t have the ring of truth that there was sickening disregard for the prisoners’ lives by fellow republicans.

  8. Bill Delaney on May 24th, 2009 9:35 pm

    Why hasn´t there been a freedom of information request to retrieve these documents.

  9. Simon on May 26th, 2009 8:32 am

    I have just read the details of one of the NIO’s drafts of the supposed deal/offer. Liam Clarke says there are different drafts but they differ only in “minor ways”. Given the fact that the list of points in the offer are ambiguous and that they all have provisos or conditions attached to them surely any minor difference would be crucial? I take it the most generous draft was leaked.

    Some of the prisoners demands are described as having been met but the ambiguity described above coupled with the power over the prisoners retained by the prison authorities renders the offer useless. Examples of the provisos are: 1.The prisoners’ choice of clothes can be refused if the governor doesn’t approve, 2. remission is at the descretion of the authorities and will be based on good behaviour. (As if other reasons for lack of good behaviour wouldn’t have been found. eg. getting punished for assaulting the screws when you were the one who was beaten),

    The points that do not even meet the demands are 1.The authorities will be responsible for allocation and supervision of work. 2. No segregation, 3. As they say themselves “Little advance is possible on association”. A basis for negotiation definitely but as the document says “This statement is not a negotiating position. ”

    And if the leadership did reject an acceptable deal at the stated time they would have had to be comfortable with allowing more men die than those who did since they did not know that the families would eventually end the strike. If such an offer was non-negiotiable then the leadship by rejecting it would have let many more men die in perpetuity. But why accept a deal that like the deal in the first huger strike was flawed and open to abuse?

  10. J McDaid on May 30th, 2009 5:59 pm

    With regards the meeting in Derry to present some further truth into Richard O’Rawe’s views on an offer to bring an end to the 1981 hungerstrike a few points to consider. If there had been more ‘provisionals’ at this meeting they would have got a flavour of what the intentions of this debate was all about. The tone of the event was a Provisional Leadership basing exercise. An attack on the leadership of Adams/McGuiness and their role in leading the peace process. Will we get full video of all the speakers and their opinions on the night or a full edited version to suit the occasion ?
    Indeed if we get former I am sure their will be egg on the faces of the organisers.
    Yet lets not forget its good we are having this debate, now we are getting the views and intentions of those who have an alternative to the current provisional leadership, open and in public.
    As regards the offer, yes indeed it was part of the ‘negotiations’, with Thatcher at that moment in time, in the heat of battle. If we accept the rationale of any negotiations their is going to be some compromise. Surely those organising this meeting can see that this was also the purpose of the peace process and the ongoing struggle for a united Ireland.
    Why after all these years are we only now getting these alternative interpretations of the offer. Perhaps hindsight, this can turn back the clock and provide the answers we wish to have others believe today.
    ‘There’s an inner thing in every man……..that thought that says I’m Right !

Got something to say?