Fresh row over Lord Mayor's tribute

Published Monday, 12 December 2011

A service to honour the dedication of bus drivers throughout the Troubles should not be turned into a "political football" over the involvement of the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor, a leading union has said.

Fresh controversy has been sparked at Belfast City Hall, after it was confirmed that Lord Mayor Niall Ó Donnghaile would host the reception on Monday night - 40 years after his dad hijacked and burned out a bus in the east of the city.

The driver, Sydney Agnew, was later shot dead by the IRA in front of his wife and young children, in a bid to stop him testifying in court about the hijacking.

Unionist councillors are understood to consider Mr Ó Donnghaile's involvement as "inappropriate".

But a spokesman for the union Unite, which represents bus drivers, told U105's Frank Mitchell Show that people needed to focus on what the City Hall reception was really about - recognising the ordinary workers who risked their lives just to do their jobs.

"We, as bus drivers, do not have the luxury of having an opinion on who would give the recognition - we serve both sides of the community," Michael Dornan said.

"But I am disappointed that the dedication of these people, and people who lost their lives, is being kicked about like a political football."

Bus drivers struggled to maintain their routes through even the 'no-go' areas of Northern Ireland and were often targeted by hijackers who wanted to use their vehicles as burning blockades or by those who wanted to force them to carry bombs to their intended targets.

Mr Dornan told U105 that, in those days, drivers' families had no idea if they were safe until they walked back in the door - or until someone else arrived on the doorstep to deliver bad news.

Twelve bus drivers were killed during the Troubles, while hundreds more were injured or forced to retire because of the trauma they had witnessed.

"We are a workforce that comes from both sides of the community," Mr Dornan said.

"All I can say is, from 1969, we were attacked from both sides of the community and we had no luxury of saying no. We provided a dedicated service and we suffered because of that."

He added: "I think it's fitting and right that we get that recognition tonight - irrespective of what other people's culture or beliefs are."

Friday night's reception at Belfast City Hall was proposed by SDLP councillor and former mayor of the city, Pat McCarthy.

It will be hosted by Lord Mayor Niall Ó Donnghaile, whose father Patrick Donnelly was jailed for eight years for his part in the hijacking of a bus on the Cregagh Road in east Belfast in October 1971.

Mr Ó Donnghaile recently found himself at the centre of a controversy arising from his refusal to present a Duke of Edinburgh award to a 15-year-old girl who was a member of the Army Cadets.

He has since apologised, but a number of loyalist protests were held over the issue.

Comments

40 Comments

JT in Antrim wrote (127 days ago):

Are you on crack Ulysses? Isaid the Mayor was discriminated against, because of his Republican stance and views. He didn't kill people for 40 years in this country, but was discriminated against because of it, by a Unionist Deputy Mayor. The 15yr old girl didn't kill people in Derry or Ballymurphy, but was discriminated against because of it, by the Lord Mayor. In my eyes, there is no difference, both were wrong. You may have different feelings. As regards the bus, I'm sure the police already have this information, as do any journalists who popped into the bus depot in Ballyclare to find out what actually happened. Knowing the FACTS, i'll stick to number 2. Theft with the intention to Permenantly deprive.

Ulysses32 in Belfast wrote (128 days ago):

Could you post my last comment please, UTV? Unless you condone comments purporting that Republicanism is a form of discrimination from a guy who quite obviously knows more about instances of criminality than the police, which of course beggars the question as to whether he should report such information that is unknown to the PSNI.

JT in Antrim wrote (132 days ago):

The girl was exercising her right to freedom of expression, but was discriminated against because of it. Its no different to the discrimination of the Deputy Mayor, due to the Mayors expression of Republicanism. Is one ok, and the other one wrong somehow? Both are prejudices of past actions by the respective sides. Personally I think neither was right. And regarding the bus, you are assuming the information on the date of that report was accurate. Not what was it you said about to assume something..... Anyway, the facts are Empty Yard+ empty bus taken from empty yard = Stolen Bus. Hope this helps clarify for you and the chief, again!

Ulysses32 in Belfast wrote (132 days ago):

Again, there was no suppression of the right to freedom of expression. An opinion is not discrimination. Supposition is not grounds for an accusation of an attack on reputation or honour. Niall's opinion on the British Army is well founded or are you suggesting that armed forces are immune from criticism and the likes of Bloody Sunday should be ignored? You were the one who brought up Article 19. You should read the article before citing it. I see no evidence of violence directed at the minor by Niall. I will point out again the words of the words of Chief Inspector Derek MacCamley who would appear to disagree with you on the "stolen" bus. Here is the link to the PSNI website provided that UTV don't have a problem showing the link to their website this time. If the link does not show up then search PSNI, Disturbances, Ballyclare, Newtownabbey, Carrickfergus. The press release was on the 10th July 2011. http://www.psni.police.uk/pr_statement_-_disturbances_ballyclare__newtownabbey_and_carrickfergus_100711

JT in Antrim wrote (134 days ago):

"The four core principles of the Convention are non-discrimination; devotion to the best interests of the child; the right to life, survival and development; and respect for the views of the child". Art 12 This girl had decided to join the army cadets and was expressing this view by the wearing of her uniform. Other children were there in other uniforms, school uniforms etc. The mayor discriminated due to his personal opinion of the uniform. Art 13 as above, she should have been free to express her pride in the uniform, not treated differently because of it. Art 15 While the mayor didn't stop her from the assosiation, he did discriminate against her because of it, Art 16 His behaviour could be construed as an attack on her honour and reputation, Art 19 I've previously clarrified for you. The spirit of the Convention is aimed mainly at parents and those with parental responsibilities, but it is also a guideline for all public bodies in countries signed up to the convention. The child was a guest of the Mayor, therefore in his care. He is also in a Public post and is automatically expected to uphold the Articles and Protocols of this Convention. He did not. I have already mentioned the apology and the fact that it does not supercede a UN convention. I have also clarified the point that I don't believe in guilt by association, I just said it was a sensitive issue. You said not so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. As regards the bus, I seem to be privy to more information than both you and Chief Inspector Derek MacCamley. The only offence of hijacking in the UK is under the Aviation Act, and while the bus may have been 'flying low' it certainly isn't an aircraft. Now the bus could be dealt with under the Theft Act as 1. Taking without the owners consent, 2. Theft with the intention to permenantly deprive, or 3. Robbery were violence or the threat of violence is used against some person. So, under the Theft Act the bus stolen from the empty, locked yard would fall into 1 or 2, probably more 2 as there was an attempt to set fire to it, which would help to determine the 'mens rae' at the time of the theft. Hope this help you and the Chief.

More Comments

^ Top of Comments