Miami Showband survivor has no problem with controversial parade
Mr Lee told BBC Radio Ulster's Good Morning Ulster programme people in Northern Ireland should prioritise "giving our grandkids and their kids of the future a better Northern Ireland for everybody"."It's fifty years, must we continue with the childish things that are occurring all around us on all sides?"Mr Lee said his philosophy in life is to "forgive, forget and move on"."I don't hold any grudge. What happened to my friends was appalling, but I don't want to live for the rest of my life living in the past," he said."I have got to look forward to the future." Harris Boyle was known as one of the attackers of the Miami Showband murders in July 1975.The parade route is listed on the Parades Commissions website as starting at Levaghery Orange Hall, however, the Orange Order has said it's not a parade it has sanctioned.
"I look back and reflect on it now, I cannot believe how lucky I was", Mr Lee said."Because when we were asked to get out of the van, I was on the far left of the line. "I asked the guys if I could take my saxophone out of the van and put it on the road. "I ended up on the far right of the line."This new position meant that, when the bomb prematurely exploded, Mr Lee survived.Mr Lee pretended he was dead following the explosion, holding his breath and staying prone on the ground.When he stood up, he said the sight in front of him was "the most horrendous scene" he had ever witnessed. "There were bits of bodies all over the place. I would never wish anybody to see that in their lives. It was absolutely horrendous. "I remember every single thing in the finest detail, and I never want to forget it."Mr Lee said that despite the tensions of the time, the band never had any problems when it came to religion. "There were two protestants in our band. Our job was to entertain people, and that's what we did."
Criticism of Legacy Act
Mr Lee is critical of the controversial Legacy Act, which ended 38 inquests which had not reached their final stages by 1 May 2024.He said the British government is doing a "dreadful job"."They're trying to push all the families under the carpet and hope that it all goes away."I pity these poor families because it's not going to be an easy road for them."Mr Lee said he would "beg" Mr Benn to "do the right thing" and tell the families of victims "the absolute truth". Survivors and relatives of those killed in the Miami Showband attack received close to £1.5m in damages after they sued the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI).A concert is being held in Dublin later this year to mark 50 years since the attack.
What was the Miami Showband attack?
The bomb and gun attack happened as the band, which toured across Ireland, travelled home to Dublin after a gig in Banbridge.Their minibus was stopped by a fake army checkpoint which had been mounted by a group of men from the Ulster Volunteer Force, including two soldiers from the Ulster Defence Regiment.Harris Boyle was killed when the bomb which was placed on the Miami Showband bus exploded prematurely.The gang then opened fire, murdering singer Fran O'Toole, guitarist Tony Geraghty and trumpeter Brian McCoy.Des Lee and another band member, Stephen Travers, were injured but survived.The bomb also killed Wesley Somerville who was commemorated in April at a memorial parade in Moygashel in County Tyrone.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
30 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
UK's first trans judge to challenge Supreme Court's landmark gender ruling using European human rights laws
Britain's first transgender judge has lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the definition of a woman. Victoria McCloud is seeking a rehearing of the case as she claims the UK's highest court undermined her Article 6 rights to a fair trial when it declined to hear evidence from her. In April the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that 'woman' and 'man' refer to biological women and men in the context of the Equality act and that 'the concept of sex is binary'. Ms McCloud - who left her role as a judge last year - is seeking a review as she claims the Supreme Court refused permission for her to provide evidence on how its clarification of the law would affect trans people. But women's rights campaigners have dismissed the case as a 'fantasy' and say Ms McCloud should exhaust 'all domestic legal remedies' before appealing to the court in Strasbourg. The former judge will be represented by Oscar Davies, the UK's first openly non-binary barrister, and Olivia Campbell-Cavendish, the founder of the Trans Legal Clinic and the UK's first black trans lawyer. 'There is no space for decision-making about us, without us,' Ms McCloud said in a statement yesterday. 'I intend to ensure that there will be no peace for the gender-critical ideological movement, the Labour Government appeasing it, or space in our schools, homes and workplaces for an ideology which causes harm, misery and oppression of a small and law-abiding minority in our formerly tolerant country.' A spokesman for the Trans Legal Clinic said: 'For the trans community, it embodies a simple truth: there must be no more conversations about us, without us. 'At its heart lies the principle in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; the right to a fair and impartial hearing by an independent tribunal. 'This cornerstone of democratic societies exists to guarantee that those whose rights are affected can take part in proceedings that determine their future.' However Maya Forstater, chief executive of human rights charity Sex Matters, said Ms McCloud's appeal is legally 'incomprehensible' and a 'fantasy'. She said: 'What we are being told about this proposed case is incomprehensible. The ECHR only hears cases that have exhausted all domestic legal remedies, and since McCloud wasn't a party to For Women Scotland in the Supreme Court, that's not the case here. 'It's a fantasy that someone can go straight to Strasbourg to complain that the Supreme Court in their own country didn't listen to them.' Ms Forstater added: 'This looks more like a deceptive and expensive PR campaign than a serious legal strategy.' The Supreme Court can consider outside arguments from 'interveners' at its discretion but rarely allows individuals to intervene and often rejects them if it will hear the same arguments from others. In the biological sex case, the UK's highest court did consider arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International. Susan Smith - from For Women Scotland, which brought the Supreme Court case - said that it is the Supreme Court's 'prerogative whether to accept interventions or not' and that it 'rarely takes interventions from individuals' 'We will watch with interest whether McCloud's application is accepted by the ECHR or even if it comes within the deadline to proceed,' she added. Ms McCloud transitioned in the 1990s and became the first transgender barrister and judge in the UK. She stood down last year, saying she could not continue her work amid the increasingly fraught public debate. In her resignation letter, Ms McCloud likened herself to civil rights activist Rosa Parks. It comes as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy was criticised for wearing a trans rights T-shirt with the slogan 'protect the dolls' while attending a Pride march in her Wigan constituency. Critics have said a government minister should not be promoting the slogan and described it as a 'middle finger from the Labour Government'. The term 'doll' is a slang term from the 1980s for biological men who 'pass' as women but has seen a revival after celebrities including Pedro Pascal, Madonna and Tilda Swinton were photographed in a £75 T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan. James Esses, a gender critical campaigner and therapist, said it was a 'middle finger from the Labour Government to everyone who believes in biological reality'. Fiona McAnena, from Sex Matters, said: 'No elected representative of the public - let alone a government minister - should be promoting the slogan of campaigners who are calling for men to be able to identify into any space for women'. The Culture Secretary was contacted for comment.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ofwat – what are they thinking of?
Following major sewage breaches by Thames Water, Ofwat imposed a massive fine on it, the only effect being to make it still further unable to perform its legal responsibilities, instead of obtaining authority to prosecute the responsible executives of the company. Then the powers that be announced the imminence of a drought, yet the public has not been urged to cut water use. Can any of your readers enlighten me as to the thought process of our water regulators?Prof Roy GoodeOxford I have not enjoyed a double-yolk egg for more than 30 years until last week, when all six in a box of free-range eggs had double yolks. Rachel Reeves would have no worries if we could all raise our productivity by the same JohnsonBedford I was delighted by the excellent review of Beaumaris's launderette (Letters, 17 August). However, the Blue Bay Launderette in Llangollen is even more marvellous. Just in case anyone camping in north Wales needs one, the Welsh word for launderette is CollinsCarrog, Denbighshire To an atheist like me, this dispute over Good Friday (Letters, 14 August) is like two bald men fighting over a Joss BuckleyLondon On reflection, I find the planting of a potato tuber or seed into the ground on Good Friday deeply symbolic. I commend Christians and non-Christians to do so next spring, on 3 April Canon John Longuet-HigginsHartpury, Gloucestershire Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Britain's AI strategy: the risk is that it is dependency dressed up in digital hype
There was a time when Britain aspired to be a leader in technology. These days, it seems content to be a willing supplicant – handing over its data, infrastructure and public services to US tech giants in exchange for the promise of a few percentage points of efficiency gains. Worryingly, the artificial intelligence strategy of Sir Keir Starmer's government appears long on rhetoric, short on sovereignty and built on techno-utopian assumptions. Last week Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, was promoting the use of AI-generated discharge letters in the NHS. The tech, he said, will process complex conversations between doctors and patients, slashing paperwork and streamlining services. Ministers say that by applying AI across the public sector, the government can save £45bn. But step back and a more familiar pattern emerges. As Cecilia Rikap, a researcher at University College London, told the Politics Theory Other podcast, Britain risks becoming a satellite of the US tech industry – a nation whose public infrastructure serves primarily as a testing ground and data source for American AI models hosted on US-owned cloud computing networks. She warned that the UK should not become a site of 'extractivism', in which value – whether in the form of knowledge, labour or electricity – is supplied by Britain but monetised in the US. It's not just that the UK lacks a domestic cloud ecosystem. It's that the government's strategy does nothing to build one. The concern is that public data, much of it drawn from the NHS and local authorities, will be shovelled into models built and trained abroad. The value captured from that data – whether in the form of model refinement or product development – will accrue not to the British public, but to US shareholders. Even the promise of job creation appears shaky. Datacentres, the physical backbone of AI, are capital-intensive, energy-hungry, and each one employs only about 50 people. Meanwhile, Daron Acemoglu, the MIT economist and Nobel laureate, offers a still more sobering view: far from ushering in a golden age of labour augmentation, today's AI rollout is geared almost entirely toward labour displacement. Prof Acemoglu sees a fork: AI can empower workers – or replace them. Right now, it is doing the latter. Ministerial pledges of productivity gains may just mean fewer jobs – not better services. The deeper problem is one of imagination. A government serious about digital sovereignty might build a public cloud, fund open-source AI models and create institutions capable of steering technological development toward social ends. Instead, we are offered efficiency-by-outsourcing – an AI strategy where Britain provides the inputs and America reaps the returns. In a 2024 paper, Prof Acemoglu challenged Goldman Sachs' 10-year forecast that AI would lead to global growth of 7% – about $7tn – and estimated instead under $1tn in gains. Much of this would be captured by US big tech. There's nothing wrong with harnessing new technologies. But their deployment must not be structured in a way that entrenches dependency and hollows out public capacity. The Online Safety Act shows digital sovereignty can enforce national rules on global platforms, notably on porn sites. But current turmoil at the Alan Turing Institute suggests a deeper truth: the UK government is dazzled by American AI and has no clear plan of its own. Britain risks becoming not a tech pioneer, but a well-governed client state in someone else's digital empire. Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
