September 1979: "On my knees, I beg of you..."
September 1979 saw a 5-day MUSE (Musicians United for Safe Energy) "No Nukes" concert against nuclear power open at Madison Square Garden, NYC. The performers included Jackson Browne, Bonnie Raitt, Crosby, Stills & Nash, Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band, James Taylor, Carly Simon, Gil Scott-Heron, and the Doobie Brothers. In Northern Ireland, we also saw ‘No Bombs’ for the first time in a long time…
Political Developments in September 1979
September started with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Irish Prime Minister Jack Lynch meeting in London on the 5th to discuss security matters.
There were some changes amongst Unionists in September. James Molyneaux succeeded Harry West as the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Molyneaux remained as leader of the UUP until August 28th, 1995.
On the 11th, we had a further update on the medical situation in relation to the prisoners on hunger strike.
Prison inmates in Northern Ireland have access to medical facilities equivalent to those available to the general population. Medical staff attached to the prisons provide primary medical care and can call in consultants to give specialised advice and treatment when this is indicated. Prisoners are also referred when necessary to outside hospitals for outpatient treatment or for admission.
The doctors concerned with prisoners' health observe the same professional ethical principles as apply to the treatment of any other patients. In particular, treatment which is considered advisable in a prisoner's own interest is not forced upon him against his will. While prisoners can, therefore, deny themselves the medical care which is readily available by refusing to cooperate with the medical staff in or outside the prison, medical care is never denied a prisoner on disciplinary grounds.
Certain prisoners in the Maze prison have been indulging in a so-called protest action in support of their demands for special status. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will not yield to these demands. the continued concerted actions of these prisoners in using their own excreta, urine and waste food to foul their cells and the areas outside the cells are, as far as I am aware, unprecedented in a civilised society. Their objective is to create disgusting and unhygienic conditions, apparently with total disregard of the consequent risks to health.
At an early stage of the "protest", a number of special measures were introduced, in consultation with the Governor of the prison and with the advice of the Prison Medical Service, to deal with the situation. As regards general health measures, procedures not previously needed in ordinary prison conditions have had to be employed; for example, regular vacating and steam-cleaning of the cells have for some time been part of the routine for the cell blocks involved. The cells are now being cleaned every few days, and the walls are repainted after each fourth cleaning.
The full range of medical services is available to the prisoners taking part in the protest, including a daily sick parade in each block and the availability day and night of a medical officer and hospital officers. It is, however, part of the protest that prisoners generally are uncooperative with the clinical staff and with the other prison staff. The cells are visited at least once a week by a prison medical officer to monitor the internal conditions and to observe the personal hygiene standards and the inmates' health, so far as this is practicable. It is not possible, without coercion, to maintain the same standards of clinical care for prisoners who reject it as for the generality of prisoners who cooperate in necessary procedures recommended for their own welfare. Should the action of individual prisoners cause an unacceptable health hazards to other inmates, prison officers or the community, the authorities would take whatever measures were needed, on medical advice, to counter this risk. It is not the practice, nor is it the intention, to force medical care upon any prisoner for his own individual benefit. Despite the conditions which the prisoners have been creating since March 1978 there has so far been no evidence of any resulting illness.
Prisoners who reject normal hygienic standards of behaviour and who refuse to cooperate in medical examination or treatment indicated for their individual welfare do so at their own risk, and the consequences are entirely their own responsibility. I hope this is clearly understood by these prisoners and by those outside the prison who are directing or supporting the protest.
I shall continue to monitor closely the conditions in the cell blocks concerned and, in the light of medical advice, to take appropriate measures to control the health risks.
On the 20th of September, a letter was sent to the Secretary of State regarding a monument that was erected in Crossmaglen.
Extensive publicity has been given during the last few days to the appearance of a monument in the town centre of Crossmaglen. The monument is a 15-foot bronze statue of a man astride a phoenix and is inscribed in English and Gaelic with the following words;
"Glory to all praised and humble heroes who have willingly suffered for your 'unselfish and passionate love of Irish freedom".
The erection of the statue has provoked considerable comment, and Mr Harold McCusker MP has now written to Mr Goodhart asking for the statue to be removed.
The planning background to the matter is as follows. An application from a body calling itself the Crossmaglen Memorial Committee to erect an 11 ft grey granite monument was received by the then planning authority, Armagh County Council, on 24 November 1972, and planning permission for this was given on 10 July 1973. Consideration was given by the then Ministry of Development in 1973 to possible revocation of the planning authority's permission, but this was not considered to be appropriate on planning grounds.
What is clear is that the structure now erected cannot be considered to be covered by any existing planning permission and that it is, therefore, in breach of planning control. Where such a breach comes to the notice of the Department, it is our practice to seek the submission of a planning application covering the development only if there is a prospect of our being able to give permission for it. It would clearly be a pointless charade to seek an application for permission and go through the thorough administrative procedures, including statutory consultation of the local district council, in any case where the development clearly could not be accepted, e.g. an offensive commercial activity in the midst of an area residentially zoned.
This, of course, is a less clear-cut case. Planning is not an exact science. Normally, the Department's concern is with such issues as whether an application is in conformity with an area or other plan, the impact on land use and visual or other amenity, road traffic consequences and so on. But I hold the view that in the last resort, the Department is entitled to decide whether or not a development is, in the broadest terms, in the public interest. Thus, it seems to me too restrictive a view to refuse a development if it represents a risk of road accidents but to allow it if it could have emotive and potentially serious security implications.
Normally, individual routine planning cases are dealt with by the professional officers of the Department's Town and Country Planning Service. Nevertheless, planning decisions, like all other Departmental decisions, are taken under Ministerial authority, and it would clearly be appropriate in this case, with its emotive political and security undertones, to take the mind of Ministers as to how we should proceed.
If we were to decide that planning permission, if sought for the development, would not be given, we would have discretion to serve upon the owner and any other person having a sufficiently material interest in the land on which the monument is erected an Enforcement Notice requiring remedy of the breach of planning control (presumably by having the monument taken down). That, of course, would in itself be an emotive step, and it would be well to seek advice from the security forces as to its possible consequences. It is entirely possible that those who erected the monument did so without the approval of the owners of the land (I am taking steps to have ownership established).
Failure to comply with an Enforcement Notice is an offence and could be followed by a request to the DPP to initiate a prosecution. On summary conviction, the maximum fine is £400, with a per diem fine not exceeding £50 for continuing failure to comply. One could perhaps anticipate a court case of this kind becoming something of a propagandist cause celebre, with defendants possibly ready to accept imprisonment rather than to pay any fines imposed upon them.
The current options, therefore, seem to be;
To ignore the incident altogether. This is made very difficult by Mr McCusker's intervention. We have had to agree that the structure is not covered by a valid planning permission, and while the law does not compel us to take any action, either by way of Enforcement Notice or by seeking the submission of a planning application, there are obvious political and presentational risks in doing nothing.
To decide that we would not be prepared in any circumstances to give planning approval for such a development and, therefore, to proceed at once to the issue of an Enforcement Notice. Those upon whom such a Notice was served could respond either by submitting a planning application on their own initiative (in which case further action would be "stayed" pending its determination) or by appealing against the Notice on any one of a number of stated statutory grounds including "that the steps required by the Notice to be taken exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control”. It might be argued in any such appeal that we had not concerned ourselves with valid planning factors but had rather sought to use our powers of planning control to sensor unacceptable sentiments.
To seek the submission of a planning application. There is, of course, no reason to be confident that any such advice would be accepted. If it were to be, we would then be committed to a full statutory process, including consultation with the Newry and Mourne District Council, where an emotive debate would no doubt ensue. Our Planning Officer attending the Council meeting would be expected to give his professional view as to whether or not the development should be allowed.
I would propose, when Mr Goodhart returns from his current short period of leave, to make a submission to him on the matter. In the meantime, we will pursue the question of ownership of the site, and I think it would be useful if Mr Burns were to feed in any security forces advice and Mr Gee to offer any views on the political implications.
K P Bloomfield
Pope John Paul II visited Drogheda, County Louth, in the Republic of Ireland on the 29th. The Pope spoke to an estimated crowd of 250,000 people and appealed for an end to violence in Northern Ireland, "On my knees, I beg of you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the ways of peace".
Shootings & Beatings in September 1979
September 1st.
Gerry Lennon (23), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by The UVF at his workplace on the Antrim Road, Belfast.
September 2nd.
The Ulster Freedom Fighters (UFF), a cover name used by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), threatened to target members of the IRA.
The INLA shot a 20-year-old woman in the arms and legs in an apparent punishment shooting at Norfolk Road in the Springfield area of Belfast.
September 3rd.
Henry Corbett (27), a Catholic civilian, was shot dead by the UFF at his home in Bawnmore Grove, Greencastle, Belfast.
September 5th.
Loyalist gunmen boarded a bus in the Oldpark, North Belfast, and shot a male Catholic passenger, seriously wounding him. The UFF claimed responsibility.
September 10th.
A group of Official IRA Volunteers beat civilian Hugh O’Halloran (28) to death in the Ballymurphy area of Belfast.
September 12th.
The UVF shot dead Catholic civilian Gabriel Wigeons (56) at his home on Springfield Road, Belfast.
September 14th.
Prison Officer George Foster (30) was shot dead by the IRA off the Crumlin Road in Belfast.
September 19th.
Prison Officer Edward Jones (60) was shot dead by the IRA outside the Crumlin Road Prison in Belfast.
September 29th.
Two INLA members hijacked a motorcycle on the Falls Road, Belfast, for a gun attack on British soldiers in Belfast city centre. They were spotted by the RUC on Durham Street and, after a chase, were arrested.
If you’d like to support the newsletter, why not buy me a ☕️ ?
Bombings in September 1979
Surprisingly, there were no bombings to report during September.
Thanks very much for reading. I hope you found it interesting and will come back on Thursday!
I appreciate everyone who recently hit that heart icon ❤️ at the bottom. It makes it easier for other people to find this newsletter.
Thanks for the support!
I’ve also recently released Tales of The Troubles: Volume 1. The Early Years - 1960s. Check it out. It would be a great addition to your library or a gift for someone for Christmas. Stay tuned for Volume 2, covering the 1970s.
If you’d like to let me know what you think of today’s instalment, please comment below.
Some recommended reading based on research for this instalment.
Lost Lives: The Stories of the Men, Women and Children Who Died as a Result of the Northern Ireland Troubles by David McKittrick, Chris Thornton, Seamus Kelters and Brian Feeney.
