
Gerry Adams had reputation as ‘warmonger', victims' campaigner tells court
Gerry Adams had a reputation as a 'warmonger' and 'peace taker', advocates with victims' groups have told the jury in a libel action taken by the former Sinn Fein president against the BBC.
Mr Adams is suing the BBC over a claim made by a confidential source in a Spotlight documentary that alleged he had sanctioned the killing of a former Sinn Fein official who turned out to be an informant.
In the programme, an anonymous source claimed that the shooting of Denis Donaldson was sanctioned by the political and military leadership of the IRA and that Mr Adams 'gives the final say'.
He denies any involvement in the killing and has denied being in the IRA.
Ann Travers, an advocate with the victims' group the South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF), said Mr Adams had a reputation as someone 'very heavily involved with the murder of innocent people' and being a 'senior member of the IRA'.
Ms Travers explained to the jury at the High Court in Dublin that her sister Mary was killed by the Provisional IRA in an attack in which her father Tom Travers, who was a lawyer who became a magistrate in 1979, was also shot six times.
Mr Travers survived and returned to work years later.
Asked by Eoin McCullough SC, for the BBC, about the perception of the public of Mr Adams, Ms Travers said: 'His reputation would be one of having been a warmonger.'
Asked to explain the reason for this, she replied: 'For the Troubles, supporting the IRA and the murder of innocent people.'
Under cross-examination from Declan Doyle SC, for the plaintiff, Ms Travers said Mr Adams had 'cast a long and dark shadow' over her life since 1984.
She said: 'I would even have a fear of him.'
Ms Travers added that many people in Northern Ireland are still scared and afraid of what they can say in case they are threatened.
The witness said that whenever she criticises senior Sinn Fein figures, especially Mr Adams, she is attacked, trolled and threatened.
'I have had death threats about it,' she said.
Mr Doyle put to Ms Travers that Mr Adams' reputation was overwhelmingly of a peacemaker, to which she said she would disagree and said the first person she thinks of in that respect in Northern Ireland is John Hume.
Asked if Northern Ireland is now comparatively more peaceful, she said: 'Of course we should all be grateful we're not getting murdered any more.'
She added: 'Thank you to Mr Adams for people being able to go to work and the IRA not murdering people.'
Ms Travers acknowledged that Mr Adams 'was part of' peace efforts but said he was 'yet to do anything' for victims' groups such as the SEFF.
Mr Doyle said Mr Adams worked with the Relatives for Justice group.
Ms Travers accused Mr Adams of working with groups that were biased towards republicans.
She said: 'He doesn't do anything for people like me. In fact, he condones what happens to us – that is why his reputation is as such that he is a warmonger.'
Ms Travers added that it was 'a joke' when Mr Adams talks about being a peacemaker or denies being in the IRA.
She said that he had 'lied consistently' about being in the IRA.
Ms Travers added: 'I'm delighted that Mr Adams decided to turn away from the Armalite.'
The BBC also called Northern Ireland solicitor Trevor Ringland as a witness.
Mr Ringland is a former Ireland rugby international who was born to a police family in West Belfast in 1959.
He said his father had been shot by the IRA in North Belfast.
Mr Ringland said he worked with victims' groups in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Asked by Paul Gallagher SC, for the BBC, for the public's perception of Mr Adams, he replied: 'He is seen as a peace taker, not a peacemaker.'
Under cross-examination, Mr Doyle said the response was a soundbite and asked Mr Ringland if he made it up.
The witness replied that it was not a soundbite and added: 'I think the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland would regard him as a peace taker.'
Mr Ringland said people welcome that violence has stopped but it should not be the case that you thank somebody for stopping something they should not have been doing in the first place.
'It is sucking the grace out of our society,' he said.
Asked by Judge Alexander Owens if he believed someone's reputation can change, Mr Ringland said he did but added: 'I think Mr Adams' reputation has not improved.'
He said the former Sinn Fein president 'messes with people's minds', adding: 'His reputation is as someone who stepped away from the violent past and is now promoting his constitutional preference through other means.
'There is still hatred at the core of that reputation – he is not aiding reconciliation in Northern Ireland.'
Mr Doyle asked Mr Ringland if he had been the vice chairman of the Ulster Unionist Party East Belfast branch and had run as a candidate for the party in 2010.
He said this was right but that he had subsequently left the party in protest against the leader saying he would not attend a GAA match.
Asked if he then joined the 'all-inclusive Northern Ireland Conservative Party', Mr Ringland said he had and had later campaigned for a Labour politician.
He said: 'I would like to see politics based around social issues rather than politics based around waving a flag.'
The trial continues.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Mea Culpa: I know why the caged metal bird won't sing
We had a wonderful mixed metaphor in a comment article about rich people allegedly fleeing the country to escape Rachel Reeves's clampdown on non-doms: 'The UK, once a favoured magnet for the world's billionaires and multimillionaires, has fallen off its perch.' I tried to imagine a toy bird attached to a metal perch by a magnet, possibly a special kind of magnet 'favoured' by rich people, but it didn't work. Not only did we mix our metaphors, we overdid the first one. We meant that the UK had once been favoured by the world's mobile rich, or that it used to be a magnet for them, but both together was too much. In a bird cage. Fission power: Sometimes it is fine to split an infinitive. In the headline, 'Trump lacks the strength to usefully wield US soft power,' hardly anyone would notice that 'to' and 'wield' have been separated. In another headline, however, it didn't work at all: 'After 30 years – it's time to again ask what women want.' The natural rhythm there is 'to ask again'. Putting 'again' in the middle of 'to ask' is like when we write, as we sometimes do although I haven't seen it in the past week, 'the government on Saturday said…' When oh when? On Wednesday, we compared the prime minister's approach to the European Court of Human Rights with his predecessor's handling of the European Union. The headline said: 'Why Keir Starmer risks making the same mistake as David Cameron when it comes to Europe.' This is not wrong; it is just weak. 'When it comes to' is one of those phrases of verbal fluff that gives away a badly constructed sentence. What we meant was: 'Why Keir Starmer risks making the same mistake on Europe as David Cameron.' Hanging by a thread: In an article about a woman's campaign to educate students about coercive control in relationships, we lost our thread. 'Now studying for a master's degree in sociology at the University of Cambridge, her petition, which has been signed by more than 105,000 participants, has received cross-party support and was delivered to No 10 on Monday afternoon.' A natural reading is that the petition was studying for a master's degree. We broke it up into two sentences. Bevvied: We wrote about the confusion caused by the Office for National Statistics when it announced the most recent consumer price inflation figure. It had admitted that the previous month's figure was wrong: it was 3.5 per cent and it should have been 3.4 per cent, but it wasn't going to go back to correct the official series. 'The decision not to correct was taken so as not to disrupt a bevvy of contracts linked to the CPI,' we said. Thanks to Roger Thetford for pointing out that we meant 'bevy', a group, rather than 'bevvy', short for beverage, usually an alcoholic one. It may be, however, that both words come from the same source, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. 'Bevy' dates from the 15th century as a collective noun for quails or ladies, it says, from Anglo-French bevée, of unknown origin. 'One supposed definition of the word is 'a drinking bout', but this perhaps is a misprint of bever (see beverage). If not, perhaps the original sense is birds gathered at a puddle or pool for drinking or bathing.' The online dictionary comments: 'The quest for a clear and logical origin in such a word might be futile.' Amid celebrations: Finally, let me pause my campaign against 'amid' to allow Mick O'Hare to praise a good and helpful use of the word. In our report of the Premier League fixtures for the 2025-26 season, we said: 'Arsenal have away trips to Manchester United and Liverpool in their first five fixtures, amid home ties against newly promoted Leeds, last season's revelation Nottingham Forest and Pep Guardiola's Manchester City.' Amid? Used to mean 'in the middle of' and not just to bolt two parts of a sentence together? Alleluia.


Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain's new breed of drone-racing soldiers will be more than ready to take on Putin
The Chief of the General Staff – the head of the British Army – General Sir Roly Walker has a plan to defeat the Russians. In a speech this week he made it clear that our Army is laser focused on the enemy, the Russian Army, and is not only learning from Ukraine but re-equipping and re-training itself at pace. The European Nato allies are also focusing East. Collectively, European Nato will soon over-match Putin's men, even without the traditional assumption of massive help from the US. Though the whole world seems currently focused on Iran in its struggle with Israel, Vladimir Putin remains the main threat here and we should not forget it. He is committing war crimes every week in his evil campaign against Ukraine's civilian population: the latest is the reported use of cluster munitions against residential areas of Kyiv. Not only are cluster bomblets devastating across wide areas against unprotected civilians, their use leaves unexploded bomblets scattered across the target area: effectively a field of landmines, and one that is difficult and dangerous to clear up. Against this background, the move of US air defence assets from Europe to the Middle East is dispiriting, and seems to indicate that President Trump has given up on European peace. He will probably seek instead to disable the Iranian nuclear programme, with most of the hard work done for him by the Israelis. But this is no help to us in Europe and most especially not to the brave Ukrainians who are keeping Putin's war machine tied up and so protecting us all. Bold Ukrainian secret-service operations have taken the fight to Russia and shown the world that Zelensky and his indomitable compatriots are a force to be reckoned with. Meanwhile here in Britain there is scepticism among journalists and commentators regarding the British Army's ability to stand up to Russia, and the willingness of our young people to fight for their country. But in fact there is no shortage of young Brits wanting to join – over a million have tried over the last ten years, but sadly some 75 per cent of them were defeated by the absurdly clunky recruitment mechanism. This is now being sorted out, and people are making it through: among them my own son, following in my footsteps at Sandhurst and probably doing it better! General Walker reminded us this week of Field Marshal Montgomery's memoirs in which he wrote: 'I shall take away many impressions into the evening of life. But the one I shall treasure above all is the picture of the British soldier – staunch and tenacious in adversity, kind and gentle in victory – the figure to whom the nation has again and again, in the hour of adversity, owed its safety and its honour'. Never a better word said on the British soldier and it is as true today as it was then, in my opinion. When it comes to lethality, General Walker explained how this will double in two years and treble by the end of the decade. The traditional heavy end, tanks, artillery and attack helicopters, will account for 20 per cent with the remaining 80 per cent expected to come from drones. Anybody who has dipped even the smallest toe into the Ukraine war would agree this is a good mix. Mass, still the main currency that ensures victory, can come from drones: thousands of them, AI enabled, with the tanks providing the direct 'thunder' when appropriate. There is also a realisation in Strategic Defence Review that he who controls the Electromagnetic Spectrum nowadays controls the battlefield. Electronic warfare capabilities are now a priority. The third element which guarantees success in battle is training, and British soldiers have been training like dervishes in this contemporary battlespace. Despite the Russians having a few 'islands of excellence' the rank-and-file conscripts of Putin's army are in the main untrained and used as cannon fodder. The meat grinder has now consumed over one million Russian souls. The British Army for its part is now a 'world of excellence', well trained, with excellent kit coming onboard, and still pound for pound the best fighters on the planet. In the past the British Army concentrated on a few very expensive drones, but we have now well and truly grasped the mass drone idea, so critical for success against the Russians. General Walker tells us that 3,000 drone pilots have been trained in the last 12 months, and we will have another 6,000 in the next 12 months. These will fly mainly the basic FPV drones, $500 a pop-ish, that will create the mass we need. The Army's newest sport is drone racing, which teaches FPV pilots the skills they need to manoeuvre on the modern battlefield. At the beginning of the war, we were teaching Ukraine how to fight, but we are now learning from them how to be very much more lethal in the battle space, and most especially against a Russian looking threat. Sir Keir Starmer may be Trump's buddy today, but I'm sure he realises his genuine friends are in Europe and this absolutely includes Ukraine. It is now up to us to enable Ukraine to get into a position to get a just ceasefire out of the Kremlin. I'd argue that the RAF jets stationed at eastern airbases on Nato missions and our troops forward deployed in Estonia are doing more for our national interests than the planes we recently deployed to Cyprus. President Trump does not need our help to defeat Iran's nuclear weapons programme, but President Zelensky does to stop the Russians and force them to seek peace. I believe that General Walker is on the right track and is delivering the Army the nation needs and that Nato needs. When war in Ukraine ends and Putin looks further westwards, he will see a very different picture to that of 2022. The British Army will once again be ready to take the advice of the great General Slim: 'Hit the other fellow as quickly as you can, as hard as you can, where it hurts him most, when he is not looking'.


Times
2 hours ago
- Times
The small boats crisis is out of control. This plan could solve it
In December 2018, Sajid Javid, then home secretary, cut short his holiday and declared a 'major incident' after 78 migrants crossed the Channel in small boats in four days. Since then six more home secretaries, and four prime ministers, have struggled with the same problem: how to stop the boats. All have failed. A record 17,000 have crossed so far this year. More than 900 crossed in a single day this month. There are some who argue that this proves, once again, that irregular migration can't be stopped and there is no point trying. This is wrong: the premise is false and the counsel unwise. Irregular migration can be controlled. There are plenty of examples of countries stopping or significantly reducing it. Australia has reduced it to almost zero: not once, but twice. It did so in 2001, and again in 2013, by shipping 'boat people' off to Nauru, a tiny Pacific island. Israel did the same in 2012 by building a fence and pushing migrants from Africa back across its border with Egypt. And, in the United States, President Trump is making a pretty good fist of it now: by strengthening border patrols and denying asylum applications at America's southern border, he has reduced encounters with irregular migrants to 12,000 in April this year, compared with 240,000 in April 2023. All these policies have three things in common: they are cruel and they violate people's rights. But they are also popular; or voters are at least prepared to put up with them if nothing else appears to work. In Australia, the 'Pacific solution' is now backed by both main parties. Trump is polling steadily on migration, even if the expansion of his deportation policy has dented support in recent weeks. None of this is lost on Nigel Farage, or his equivalents on the Continent. Seeing all else fail, voters are warming to Reform's promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and turn boats back at sea, using the navy if necessary. It is doubtful whether this very dangerous policy could work: you still need a place to push boats back to, and France is unlikely to be obliging. But it sounds simple and radical enough to tempt both voters and, it seems, the Conservative Party. This is a big problem for a Labour government that has promised to reduce migration but is reluctant to follow that path. Sir Keir Starmer's government desperately needs a humane, lawful, effective alternative. Is there one? More law enforcement is definitely not the answer. Close to £1 billion has been spent on boosting patrols in France; even more won't make much difference. A 'safe third-country agreement', with another faraway country that will admit and process asylum seekers, is perhaps an option. There is a version of this policy that could work, and could be lawful. The Supreme Court was clear on this, even as it scotched the previous government's half-baked Rwanda plan. But Labour criticised this policy so vehemently in opposition it would struggle to revive it now. • 1,378 migrants tried to cross the Channel in one day. France stopped 184 There is still one thing worth trying, however. It's also a safe third-country agreement, but not with Rwanda or some far-flung country. The deal the UK needs is with countries much closer to home: countries in the EU. From an agreed day onwards, the UK would agree with a group of EU countries, ideally including both France and Germany, to swiftly return almost all migrants who arrive irregularly across the Channel. This would reduce crossings to zero within a few weeks. As soon as it became clear that there was no prospect of success, the incentive to undertake a dangerous, costly journey would evaporate. After a few weeks, therefore, the number of transfers back to participating states would also fall to zero. The agreement would not be with the EU itself and would not replicate the unwieldy and unworkable system for intra-EU transfers known as the Dublin system, under which hardly anyone ever got sent anywhere. Anything that resembled this would fail — it is essential that asylum seekers do not suspect that there is a good chance of remaining in Britain anyway. Instead, it would be an ad hoc, one-off agreement with a coalition of interested EU countries, designed to ensure fast, efficient transfer for almost everyone within three or four weeks, with very occasional exceptions for people with the strongest family ties. The idea is not to turn boats around at sea. Intercepted migrants would be brought to British shores. They would be held securely and processed fairly. They would get a hearing, but unless they could present a credible other ground to remain here their claims would be declared inadmissible because there was a safe country to which they could be sent. There is no question that Germany and France — or Denmark, or Austria or the Netherlands for that matter — are safe. Their asylum systems are no worse, arguably better, than ours. Transfers would, therefore, be perfectly legal. There is an obvious question about such a deal. Why would European countries go for it? France and Germany have both had significantly higher numbers of asylum seekers per capita than the UK in recent years. They could not possibly agree to any arrangement in which the traffic was all one way. For this reason the UK would have to offer something in return: to take in, through organised legal channels, a fixed number of asylum seekers from the EU a year for the next few years: say 20,000 a year for four years, after which the scheme could be reviewed. A capped scheme similar to the Homes for Ukraine visa scheme would be set up to achieve this. This would be a good deal for Britain. Admitting 20,000 asylum seekers a year would be 30,000 less than are likely to arrive this year if nothing changes. Some would see this as an admission of failure, but a sharp reduction in numbers and, crucially, the restoration of control would quickly bring political dividends. A scheme such as this would almost entirely eliminate illegal migration. In comparison, the Darwinian lottery of the UK's current protection system, where over half of those securing it must have the strength and resources to undertake deeply hazardous journeys, is surely unsatisfactory. But what's in it for a Macron, or a Merz? Ultimately, something similar. Mainstream parties in Europe are leaching support to populists promising much more radical solutions to irregular migration. Right now, they have no policies of their own that credibly offer control. Nor are uglier ones that they are already endorsing (pushbacks at external borders from Greece to Poland, and deals with Tunisia and Libya to intercept boats and take them back before they even get there) working particularly well. This deal offers the outline of such a policy. Western European countries have every interest in showing their voters that migration can be controlled lawfully and humanely through safe third-country agreements. If they agreed this policy with Britain, EU countries would then need to invest in similar arrangements of its own, with partners it can find. For EU countries, finding (genuinely) safe third countries to transfer migrants to will be harder and will take time. But it is not impossible. Short of legalising the abuses occurring at their own borders, this is the only policy option they have. Developing this plan with the UK could quickly show that the model, control through co-operation, works. They would have a narrative and plan: two things sorely lacking right now. Like all good agreements, this one appeals to interests on both sides. It won't appeal to everyone. Participating states would be criticised from all sides: too generous for some, not generous enough for others. But if even closely allied, rights-respecting countries such as Britain and Germany cannot reach civilised migration control agreements, there is little hope for such agreements being reached anywhere. And little hope, therefore, for humane border control — meaning cruel ones will prevail. John Dalhuisen is a senior fellow at the European Stability Initiative. The ESI helped to broker the EU-Turkey deal in 2016, to address the migrant crisis caused by the Syrian civil war