Michelle O'Neill accused of ‘trying to rewrite history of IRA campaign'
It comes after an interview Michelle O'Neill gave in which a DUP and TUV representative accused her of 'trying to shift blame onto the British state'.
Advertisement
During the interview with The Irish Times, Ms O'Neill referred to 'local lads' being killed by the British state, including her cousin Tony Doris, a member of the IRA who was shot dead in an SAS ambush in Coagh in 1991.
Asked whether she can understand why those who were bereaved by the IRA take issue with her attending republican commemorations, she said she respected there are 'many people out there that have a different narrative than me'.
She said: 'I respect that that's their view. It's also perhaps their lived experience, but mine's different' adding that part of reconciling is 'actually understanding that it's okay – we may have different narratives, but we need to respect that is actually the case'.
'That understanding is what allows me to say what I can say – what I said whenever I became First Minister – because I absolutely am sorry that anybody lost a loved one. I'm so sorry we lived in a society that (had) a conflict,' she said.
Advertisement
DUP MLA Trevor Clarke claimed Ms O'Neill's comments 'are a deeply offensive and pathetic attempt to rewrite the brutal history of the IRA's terrorist campaign'.
'Seeking to shift blame onto the British state while defending those who were on 'active service' with the IRA and were dealt with by the security forces is repugnant and shows a complete disregard for the suffering inflicted on innocent victims,' he said.
'These remarks are not the words of a leader seeking to represent all communities. They are the words of someone still trying to justify and sanitise sectarian, ruthless murder.'
TUV party chairman Allister Kyle claimed the interview 'revealed a deeply warped view'.
Advertisement
'Let us be clear: those who were neutralised by the security forces were not simply 'local lads',' he said.
'They were active terrorists caught in the act of attempting to murder soldiers, police officers, and civilians.
'This attempt to sanitise the IRA and recast gunmen as victims of 'the British state' is not only historically dishonest — it is an insult to the thousands of victims who suffered at the hands of republican violence.
'The record stands: the security forces saved lives. The IRA took them. No amount of spin can change that.'
Advertisement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
14 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Snowflake solicitors are destroying a once proud profession
Britain's legal profession – once a byword for rigour, intellect and integrity – now finds itself the latest battleground in the war against excellence. A cohort of aspiring solicitors has taken to petitioning for the Solicitors Qualifying Examination (SQE) to be made easier. Their complaint? The exams are 'too hard, disproportionately challenging ', and, of course, 'biased towards certain backgrounds and learning styles '. In other words: 'We didn't do well, and it must be someone else's fault.' There could hardly be a more telling parable of our times. The snowflake sensibility – once confined to undergraduate common rooms and the wilder fringes of social media – has now infected even the corridors of legal ambition. The future custodians of our justice system are not asking for a level playing field; they are asking for the pitch to be tilted until everyone scores. The argument, if we can call it that, is that maintaining high standards will inevitably restrict 'diversity' in the profession. And here we are again, at the familiar intersection where merit collides with identity politics – and where the latter is expected to triumph, no matter the cost. This isn't about widening opportunity. It is about lowering the bar. Having sat more than a dozen legal exams across three jurisdictions – from the halls of Cambridge to the benches of the Sorbonne, and ultimately the famously exacting New York bar – I speak from a place of experience. These were not fun. I lost a stone in weight during one set of particularly punishing exams. They were not 'inclusive'. They were not designed to reflect my personal learning style. They were difficult. That was the point. And when I passed them, I felt a precious sense of achievement and readiness for the real world of legal practice. And therein lies a truth we are fast forgetting: standards are not meant to flatter us, they are meant to test us. The whole premise of a professional exam is that it provides an independent measure of competence. It is meant to be hard. It is meant to discriminate: not on the basis of race or class, but on the basis of skill, preparation and effort. That is not injustice. That is fairness. If I'm paying a lawyer, a doctor, or a pilot for their services, I do not want someone who merely feels entitled to the role. I want someone who has earned their place. Their colour, class or creed do not matter to me. What matters, and should matters, is their calibre. And if that view now makes me unfashionable, then so be it. But the consequences of this race to the bottom go far beyond a few disgruntled exam-takers. Undermining legal standards risks hollowing out one of the UK's most formidable exports: our legal profession itself. English law is the governing framework of choice for international commerce precisely because it has been shaped by a world-class profession. A profession forged through rigour, not rhetoric. Flooding it with underprepared entrants – however well-meaning or well-intentioned – will not promote equity. It will diminish excellence. And it is the very people supposedly being helped who will suffer most, entering a crowded profession where oversupply drives down wages and erodes prestige. Here, then, is the central paradox: in the name of inclusion, we exclude the very mechanisms that uplift. Hard work. Discipline. Ambition. Standards. The old virtues are being recast as vices: elitism, snobbery, oppression. And all to appease a cultural mood that seems to confuse equal opportunity with equal outcomes. But Britain cannot afford this decline. Not in a century where the likes of China, India, and the United States are training their brightest and best to surpass us. While they chase excellence, we chase excuses. This is not compassion. It is cowardice, disguised in the language of empathy. It is not progress, it is entropy. And unless we reclaim the idea that standards matter – that excellence should be earned, and that challenge is a feature, not a flaw, of a functioning society – then we will become a country incapable of producing not just good lawyers, but good professionals of any kind.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
It's marrow wars! Jeremy Corbyn battles Angela Rayner over Labour's sell-off of England's allotments
has hit out at Angela Rayner for allowing cash-strapped local councils to sell off allotments. The former Labour leader accused the Deputy Prime Minister of putting 'the nail in the coffin' for the 'precious' community spaces. Mr Corbyn, the MP for Islington North who has launched a new left-wing party to rival Labour, is a keen gardener and uses an allotment near his north London home. He has gone to war with Ms Rayner after it was revealed the Deputy PM had agreed for eight allotment sites across England to be sold since last year's general election. The veteran politician lashed out at Ms Rayner, who is also the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary, for approving the slew of allotment sales. So-called 'statutory' allotment sites owned by local councils are protected from development or sale under the Allotment Act 1925, except with ministerial sign-off. In an article for The Telegraph, Mr Corbyn - who has previously descibed marrows as his favourite vegetable - wrote: 'News that Angela Rayner may approve allotment sales will fill many with deep dismay. 'Allotments have always been under threat from developers. Now, that threat seems to have Government backing, which makes the future of these precious spaces even more perilous.' Mr Corbyn said the popularity of allotments had 'grown out of opposition to enclosures and the privatisation of common land' in previous centuries. He also noted how there are 'at least 100,000 people' on waiting lists for allotments across the country. 'Once lost, they never return,' he added. 'Their loss makes us all poorer, as we become more and more detached from how food is grown and how nature interacts with us. 'Allotments provide a vital space for community cohesion, biodiversity and social solidarity. 'These parcels of land, that cannot be individually fenced, provide growing space for many people. 'Many people have no access to their own garden, and an allotment gives them the opportunity to grow vegetables and fruit and observe nature. 'Allotments are particularly important for people who experience stress and mental health problems.' Mr Corbyn acknowledged that 'social housing is desperately needed' as Ms Rayner attempts to fulfil Labour's pledge to build 1.5million new homes within five years. But he warned: 'We need not sacrifice these vital green spaces to build it. 'Is this Government going to put the nail in the coffin of the joy of digging ground for potatoes on a cold, wet February Sunday afternoon? The battle for the grass roots is on!' Mr Corbyn's attack on the Government comes after his recent launch of a new party, temporarily known as 'Your Party', with fellow ex-Labour MP Zarah Sultana. Ms Rayner was recently revealed to have approved the sale of allotments in Somerset, Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire, Nottinghamshire, West Sussex, Derbyshire, and Kent. In Storrington, West Sussex, there are plans to build 78 new houses on a former allotment site. A spokesman for the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that councils should only sell off allotments 'where it is clearly necessary and offers value for money'. He added: 'We know how important allotments are for communities, and that is why strict criteria is in place to protect them, as well as school playing fields.'
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Brexit has been a resounding disaster. Starmer must find the courage to change course
Brexit isn't working, and the British people know it. Poll after poll shows that people are feeling the terrible damage caused by the deal forced upon us by Boris Johnson, Kemi Badenoch and the rest of the Conservative party, and want something different. There's no doubt that fundamental change is needed. There's no doubt the public will is there to make it happen. The question is: will Keir Starmer seize the moment and deliver it? There are big prizes on offer if he does. Giving our economy the boost it desperately needs, pulling it out of the cycle of low growth and high debt that the Conservatives plunged us into. Helping to raise more funding to lift our NHS and other public services off their knees. And, crucially, showing people that there is a better, more hopeful way forward than the nasty, nonsensical 'solutions' they hear from Nigel Farage and his fellow snake-oil salespeople on the right. Because people are, understandably, fed up. After so many failures of Conservative and Labour governments, people's faith in politics is at an all-time low. Many people just don't believe that any government of any party can really make their lives better. And beyond our shores, they see a world rife with conflict and instability, making it even harder to envisage our domestic challenges being solved. It's no surprise that all this disillusionment is fuelling the rise of rightwing populists such as Farage. Restoring faith in politics is critical if we are to save our country from a Reform UK-Conservative coalition of chaos. And acting decisively to fix our broken relationship with Europe is Starmer's big chance. To be fair, the prime minister has made some tentative steps in the right direction. He has at least shown a willingness to take a more positive and pragmatic approach to Europe than his Conservative predecessors. He has talked about a youth mobility scheme and bringing down trade barriers in key sectors such as farming and energy. But so far, all these amount to little more than promises to 'work towards' new deals. For all the smiles at the 'reset' summit in May, there's very little in the way of concrete progress to date. Like so much of this government's record, it risks becoming too much like 'continuity Sunak': all process and promises, no real change. But with growth still flatlining, Donald Trump wreaking havoc on the global economy and populism on the march, this challenge is much too urgent for such timidity. Of course, we know why Starmer has been reluctant to go further. He's spooked by the combined threat of the Conservatives and Reform, both of whom are itching for the chance to plunge Britain back into the nasty Brexit wars of the past decade. Well, I say let them try. With so many serious problems in need of urgent solutions, the British people have absolutely no appetite for all that division and distraction, and they will have no truck with politicians who do. The way to see off the populist right isn't to cower in its shadow; it's to step up and offer a compelling, positive alternative. So what does that look like? The first thing the prime minister should do is raise his sights when it comes to negotiating with the EU. This can't be about the odd limited improvement for this sector here or that sector there. The government has to be far more ambitious than just trying to polish up the rough edges of Johnson's bad deal. Just imagine if, instead, the prime minister set a clear target of leading the UK into a new customs union with the EU by 2030. That could be truly transformative. It's the single biggest thing the government could do to turbocharge our economy in the medium and long term. It would set us firmly on the path back to the single market, with all the benefits that would bring. It would be a game-changer – not just for our economy, but for the future of British politics. And not only that. A clear commitment to work towards a customs union would unlock big benefits for the UK now. It would give us the power to finally sign a veterinary and plant health agreement to boost British farming, and secure that youth mobility scheme to give our young people incredible new opportunities to live, work and travel across Europe, while also helping British employers to recruit the workers they need. Or even something less headline-grabbing but potentially just as impactful, such as joining the European Union Aviation Safety Agency. Post-Brexit rules mean that air cargo firms – such as the one run by a constituent of mine – can't have repair work done in Europe, apart from by the single German workshop that is recognised by the UK. It means they have to fly their planes all the way to the US just to get them serviced – at huge expense. With a more ambitious approach to Europe, we could get rid of that ridiculous red tape, and so much more like it. We could free British businesses to get on with their work, create jobs and grow our economy. That is the real change people across the country are crying out for. The opportunity is there and the rewards are great. I really hope the prime minister is listening. Ed Davey is the leader of the Liberal Democrats and MP for Kingston and Surbiton
