John Major: in the name of God, go!

SOME people s spirits may have been lifted by the news that a British general election is likely to take place on May 1st, but not mine. Is there no way that anyone can engineer the termination of John Major s appalling government sooner than that?
At the moment they re completely neutered by the wafer-thin majority they have in the House of Commons, but are prepared to hang around to no good purpose, desperately hoping that some catastrophe might befall Labour and in the process save their collective political skins. If they were a bunch of teenagers, on the basis of their own policing policies they would have been rounded up long ago and tossed into the slammer for loitering with intent. No such luck.
It isn t as if Labour are likely to offer anything radically different, but there is a possibility at least that they will not reflect quite the same arrogant disregard for ordinary people as the Tories continually betray. You might, for example, as a citizen of Derry, have felt that a kind of momentum was building, which would allow the British government to re-examine the events of Bloody Sunday with comparative dignity. New information has been unearthed by Don Mullan in his book Eyewitness Bloody Sunday, which offers compelling evidence that there was a systematic cover-up of what really happened in Derry on Sunday January 30th 1972. Mullan reveals that snipers fired on the civil rights marchers from the walls surrounding the city, and that this was clear from eyewitness accounts given to the tribunal of inquiry conducted by Lord Widgery. The implication is that the killings were planned, that what happened involved the cold-blooded murder of defenceless civilians. But that evidence was ignored by the Lord Chief Justice, who went on to exonerate the British army of any wrongdoing in his report.
People from all sorts of diverse political backgrounds had already concluded that the Widgery Tribunal was a whitewash. Fourteen people were shot dead on the streets and yet Lord Widgery concluded that no-one should be held accountable? The commander of the paratroopers, who were responsible for the bloodshed, was subsequently awarded an OBE. For the relatives of those who had been slaughtered, it must have seemed like the ultimate expression of contempt. But Don Mullan s evidence brings informed scepticism and anger about Widgery to a new level. It is hard to imagine how anyone can continue to pretend that his report retains even a shred of credibility. And yet they do.
Last week, representatives of the Bloody Sunday Justice Campaign met the Northern Secretary, Sir Patrick Mayhew at Stormont Castle, to present him with Don Mullan s account of events on Bloody Sunday and to seek agreement that a new inquiry into the bloodshed would be held. According to the chairman of the Campaign, John Kelly, a brother of one of the victims, the delegation were led to believe that Mayhew would thoughtfully review the information which was being passed on and that the issue of a new inquiry would be considered.
Within 24 hours, however, Sir Patrick had gone public with his response. There would be no apology to the relatives of the victims, he stated, because an apology would be unjust to those who had taken part in the day s events.
It is the kind of brutally insensitive dismissal of people s deeply-felt hurt which we have come to expect from Mayhew, a pompous and condescending old clown who you instinctively knew should never have been let within spitting distance of the Northern Ireland Office. Until you considered who else the Tories might have put in there.
This is not a sectarian issue. No matter which tradition you give your allegiance to or if you want nothing to do with either of them at all the slaughter of innocent people on the streets of the North, by the forces of the State, is an extremely serious matter. In this light, it was encouraging that some Loyalist politicians were willing to express their support for a new inquiry recently. That is something on which to build.
Anyone with the remotest sense of justice will recognise, and be appalled by, the glaring hypocrisy in Patrick Mayhew s stance. It is one thing for politicians of a Nationalist background to say so, but it would mean a hell of a lot if a significant number of Unionist representatives were to express their revulsion at the continuing cover-up, and to do so in unconditional terms.
At the very least, it would be seen as an expression of generosity, which in itself, might just sow the seeds for an increased level of mutual understanding and empathy. From small things, momma, as the poet said, big things one day come.
We can but hope.
Niall Stokes
Editor