The first thing to note is that Lord Widgery was an ex-army officer, so it makes it quite likely that he would be bias. The report also isn’t very consistent, as at it tells us that the wounded were not found with any firearms, but the army returned fire. These two claims don’t link up well and again, create more speculation on the biasness of this investigation. It also does not question any witnesses or wounded survivors and goes on what the army claims alone. The possibility of shooting directed into the Catholic Bogside from city walls was also not taken into consideration. From my interpretation of the Widgery Report, I would not rely on it alone to investigate what really happened on Bloody Sunday, as it does not look into any other view of the day other than that of the army’s.
This led to other interpretations of the event, but as many of the sources are biased we need to be careful how much of each source we take as fact and opinion.
The New Communist Party produced an article about the events leading up to Bloody Sunday and their own interpretation of what actually happened. It claims that the protesters had been “beaten off the streets” beforehand. It tells us how the Unionists intimidated the Nationalist protesters, with CS gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and even internment “without trial and marital law”. But this intimidation tactics “had failed” and this led to the march that kicked off the events of Bloody Sunday. It tells us that on a previous march a group of protesters were “savagely batoned by the British occupation forces” and this was a “foretaste of what was to come it the nationalist people still chose to defy British rule”. This immediately shows the British Army in a bad light, as though they were not really there to protect, but to enforce their rules by any means necessary. But this only strengthened the will of the Catholics, so when the march to the Bogside arrived “the mood seemed almost ebullient”. But this mood was to be “cruelly shattered” by the British Army. When the march had to be redirected we are told that “CS gas, water cannon, and rubber bullets were unleashed by the occupation forces. But we are not told if this was provoked to contain the hooligans or not, so from this the attack seems very much unprovoked. The descriptions of how people were shot by the British Army are horrific and intensely inhumane. Again we see the British Army in a bad light, and wonder ourselves if they really were there to protect or if this was just a game to them. It goes onto tell us that “the facts about Bloody Sunday” have been “covered up”.
This source works strongly from the Catholic interpretation of what happened, which may be because the New Communist Party was violently opposed to the British Army being in Northern Ireland. Now that we know that they used violence, it is fair to say that the army may have been provoked by violence to take this action. But as this is very one-sided, and has given no credit to what the army has said it is not a very reliable source to rely on alone.
There is an article from a Republican point of view, they were very opposed to the British Army being in Northern Ireland and endorsed the IRA who used violent action to get them out. This article strongly supports the Catholic version of the events; it describes the official statement given in the House of Commons as a “tangle of lies”. It argues that no independent witness, who included “many high-profile anti-Republicans”, accepted the Unionist interpretation, and they would “have been only too delighted to drive a wedge between both wings of the IRA and the Nationalist population they served if they had been offered the slightest excuse to do so”. So this would have been a useful piece of information to them, why would they not have used it? They reason their argument with the event having been planned by the British Army to draw out the IRA to “ambush” them, and to “terrorise” and “break the resistance” of the Catholics, who were the minority community. This would repress them, and they would bide by British Rule. It then goes onto refer to the Widgery Report as “whitewash” and says that it is “full of contradictions,” as there no consistency throughout the report.
I feel that this source makes some good points, but as it is from a Republican point of view it is biased and cannot be used solely to find out the truth behind what really happened.
An ITN new report broadcast is about an eyewitness that overheard soldiers before the events of Bloody Sunday. Daniel Porter had heard them talking about “clearing the Bogside” and then was later told of the plan by off-duty troops in a pun in England. Later he linked it to Bloody Sunday, after first assuming that they “clearing away the barricades”. The way that this is interpreted supports the Catholic version of the events, rather than the Protestant- though at first he claims to have thought of the army’s plans as innocent.
Fulvio Grimaldi, an Italian Journalist, was an independent eyewitness to the march that led into Bloody Sunday. He found the events “unbelievable”, and referred to it as a “cold-blooded murder, organised, disciplined murder, planned murder.” He tells us the events from how he saw them- we are told that at first there were a “few exchanges” and the protesters “threw a few rocks”, but it was nothing serious as they were “not very heavy”. The army then used the water cannon to spray the crowd, who then dispersed only to return later. We can now see the events that led into Bloody Sunday from a less biased view- as we know that the protesters did taunt the army, who tried to handle the situation. Again the protesters threw more rocks, and CS gas was used “massively”. After this build up we are told that the paratroopers “jumped out” and “started shooting in all directions” but this was done without “the slightest provocation”. He claims that from the protesters there was “no shot, no nail bomb even, nothing at all” but the army still opened fire. He goes onto tell us how he witnessed innocent people being shot, some from even “about a yard away.” This creates a lot of emotion; the reader is immediately led to believe that the killing was a brutal massacre and cannot be just.
This source is meant to be from a neutral point of view but supports the Catholic interpretation of the events. But we have to remember that the reporter would have wanted to support a civil rights march, and only saw what was happening from the actual march and was not just an onlooker.
The differences between the interpretations led only to more violence in Northern Ireland. There was a complete breakdown of law, the IRA began to attack mainland Britain, causing the Unionists to become even more extreme in their actions. All these consequences supported the British Army’s interpretation of the events. On 24th March 1972, Edward Heath announced that the Ulster parliament of Stormont would be suspended, the British parliament at Westminster were to take direct responsibility for the governing of Ulster as William Whitelaw became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Now there were even more soldiers in Ulster, to settle the situation but this only fuelled the Catholics with more anger. More and more extremist action was taken- and there was an increase of support from abroad for this. The IRA even began to carry out assassinations and bombings, and splinter groups from the IRA such as the Irish national Libration Army emerged. This again supported the British Army’s interpretation of the events, as there may have been violent IRA members that took place in the march.
Direct Rule was imposed, and the government tried to solve the problem of the permanent majority of Protestants in Ulster. The Conservative government wanted to show that politicians from Ulster and Eire could work together for peace. The Northern Ireland Act was passed in July 1973, it had the support of the Dublin government and stated:
- Power-sharing would occur, this was giving a voice to the Catholic minority in the politics in Ulster;
- A Council of Ireland” should meet, with members of the British, Irish Republic and Northern Ireland government could discuss matters such as regional development, water, electricity and tourism.
The Sunningdale Agreement was made, it meant that Ulster should remain part of United Kingdom until the majority voted otherwise, and the Council of Ireland should meet to discuss common policies.
Even the Government reforms didn’t help as it made the Protestant community think that the British government favoured the Catholics at their expense; thus leading to even more violence between the Protestants and Catholics. The Protestant community condemned the power-sharing executive, Brian Frankler, and power sharing failed. Ian Paisley put forward the view that the Catholic community did not want to just share power, and still wanted a United Ireland. They were seen to be in the hands of the IRA, who the Protestant community were extremely opposed to. The growth of the Ulster Worker’ 5 called a general strike by Protestants in Ulster, it aimed to bring all of Ulster to a standstill so that it could break the power-sharing executive. Protestants blocked roads, electricity, petrol supplies were scarce and Ulster became economically crippled. This forced Brian Frankler to retire in May 1974.
The actions of both sides seemed to support the other’s interpretations of the events of Bloody Sunday and as so many people disagreed with the Wigery Report, another inquiry was made- this was the Saville Report, it concluded that none of those that were shot had been carrying weapons and the British Army was not provoked. There were different responses to this report as well, but it mainly pleased the Catholic community.
When the Saville Report came out, there was a lot of criticism again. An article from the Daily Mail, published in September 1999 highlights the main views of each party. The British Army were infuriated by the beginnings of this report, and claimed it to be propagandised to “swing the public opinion against them”. They criticised the new evidence as “rubbish”, saying that they are being “accused” of firing indiscriminately and that the full story is not being given. Whereas a forensic scientist who was involved in the Widgery Report and stated that one of those murdered had been handling “guns or explosives”, has changed his opinion to the opposite. The Catholic opinion still remains consistent, as the Londonderry City Coroner (Major Hubert O’Neill) said that they British Army “ran amok that day without thinking about what they were doing… it was sheer unadulterated murder”.
The British Army’s opinion seems to be very different from the Catholic’s, but it looks at both sides- whereas the other only concentrate on part of the bigger picture which make them less reliable as facts and more just opinions. The forensic scientist is neutral, but he has had both opinions at some point so it still leads us to uncertainty about what is really right.
The Guardian published Catholic criticism to the Saville Report in September 1999 as well. It supports the Catholic interpretation as it calls them “innocent and defenceless victims of the British paratroopers,” insisting that they did not provoke the attacks. It tells us that the “civilian witnesses”, who would have been Catholics, “have always denied” that many of those who were shot were carrying weapons. It describes the forensic evidence accepted by the Widgery inquiry as “worthless”, and also tells us that the British Army returning fire is “strongly denied in Derry”. It gives us the forensic scientist, John Martin, view. He was involved with the Widgery inquiry and at first his evidence suggested that one of those shot handled firearms, but he now “concedes there could no longer be a “strong suspicion” that any of the victims held or were near weapons. This shows a one sided view on the attacks from the British Army, it bases opinions as facts and is biased to the Catholic view. Therefore we could not rely on this source alone.
A Socialist website produced an article in reaction to the Saville Report, the Socialists were against the British Army being in Northern Ireland. It regards the evidence accepted by the Widgery Report as “worthless”, and claims the Saville Report to be a “damning indictment of the inquiry by Lord Widgery, which had exonerated the soldiers who claimed that they had been fired upon by protesters, thus justifying their response.” This tells us that the new report proves that the Widgery Report was made in favour of the army and is very biased. It refers to John Martin, a forensic scientist who helped gather and interpret evidence for the Widgery Report, and how he has changed his interpretation of the evidence now. It calls the Widgery inquiry a “cover-up”. This article basically tells us how incorrect the Widgery Report is, and it is because it was to be used as a cover up but now there is the Saville Report which shows us the truth behind what really happened.
This is a Socialist article and typically supports the Catholic version of the events, but it may also be biased as a lot of the Socialists were Catholics themselves. They did not want the British Army there, and their interpretation of the day would work to get rid off them.
After having looked at all these sources, and finding out about the background of the events of Bloody Sunday I would definitely say that I could not rely on any one source alone as they are all biased to some degree. I can sympathise with the Catholic community as they were very repressed by the Protestants, and simply just wanted their freedoms and rights. But they also turned violent which made them stoop to the level of those who were mistreating them. Each side simply just angering the other instead of trying to help. If the dispute was really because of religious differences to start with, as the divide makes it seem, then they should look to their religions for guidance and realise they are both Christians, and should help each other and not be fighting. I believe that on Bloody Sunday the British Army did not just begin to attack the protesters, but were provoked to some extent. Due to their history the army had a hatred for the protesters that made their shooting brutal and inhumane, but they cannot be blamed alone as the IRA reaped havoc beforehand. The events of Bloody Sunday were tragic no matter what the interpretations are, even if those who were killed were not innocent it has caused so much more trouble that innocent people are now being hurt if they were not before. It should not have had to come to a point where the army were firing for enjoyment, but the acts of both the Unionists and Nationalists had fuelled so much anger that the situation could have been worse.
