Taken from Socialist Worker Issue 207
Why honour a Nazi collaborator?
Just because Kevin Myers (Irish Times), Eilis O’Hanlon (Sunday Indo) and Henry McDonald (Observer) attack something doesn’t mean sensible people have to defend it.
Take Sinn Fein’s annual commemoration of ex-IRA chief of staff Sean Russell at Fairview Park in Dublin last month.  The usual media suspects—-rabid supporters of political violence when it suits them, including the killing of innocent civilians—-wound themselves up to the peak of high dudgeon to pour down vilification on all concerned.
Russell was a Nazi collaborator who travelled to Berlin during World War Two to try to persuade Hitler to help the IRA, they pointed out. He was on his way back to Ireland with plans to link up with Nazi agents and foment revolt in the North when he died from natural causes and was buried at sea.
How could people who advertise themselves as progressive gather reverently to mark the death of such a man?  Even though it’s reactionary wretches who are doing the asking, this is a good question.  Why, indeed, did Brian Keenan, Marylou McDonald and Ciaran Mac Anraoi step forward in turn to deliver eulogies to a Nazi collaborator?
An Phoblacht described Brian Keenan’s speech as “the main oration” and quoted him: “I don’t know what was in the depth of Sean Russell’s thinking down the years, but I am sure he was never far from Pearse’s own position, who said, ‘as a patriot, preferring death to slavery, I know no other way’... There are things worse than bloodshed, and slavery is one of them. We are not and will not be slaves.”
A moment’s thought about the millions enslaved by Nazism puts the repulsiveness and sheer stupidity of this remark into perspective.  So what aspect of Irish Republicanism prompted Keenan to make it?
Watchword
We can take it that Keenan is in no way soft on Nazism. But we can take it, too, that, generally speaking, he holds to the old Republican adage, “England’s difficulty is Ireland’s opportunity”—the exact sentiment which sent Russell on his mission to Berlin: before setting out, in October 1939, he’d spelt it out plainly: “‘England’s difficulty, Ireland’s opportunity’ has ever been the watchword of the Gael.”
For Russell, driving the Brits out of Ireland took precedence over everything else. No consideration of class differences within Ireland, nor of solidarity with persecuted peoples elsewhere, no thought of the implications for the 4,500 Jewish people living in Ireland, nothing could be allowed to cloud the shining vision of an Ireland freed of British rule. In this perspective, the question of what force it would be proper to ally with was secondary.
Russell’s willingness to collaborate with Nazis, then, did not stem from a fondness for Nazi ideas but from the intensity and exclusiveness of his Nationalism.  The Nazis were at war with Britain—-and so was the IRA. Ideological affinity didn’t come into it. If Hitler would help get the Brits out of Ireland, it would make no sense not to avail of that help...
Myers etc. suggest that the Russell commemoration exposed Sinn Feiners today as, if not sympathetic to Nazism, at least well-disposed to Russell’s collaboration with Nazism.  But what the Fairview Park event actually revealed is simply that Sinn Fein hasn’t broken with the notion that the “national cause” takes precedence over everything else.
The most important practical application of this notion in 2003 came not at Fairview Park but in Hillsborough Castle in April when the SF leadership gladhanded the leader of US imperialism even as his bombers revved up for the Iraq runs: the interests of Irish freedom, now deemed to be enclosed within the Belfast Agreement, took precedence over all else. If staying close to George Bush would advance the Nationalist cause, opposition to Bush’s imperialism had to be put in abeyance.
Herein lies the link between the perspective of the Repubican Movement in Russell’s time and the politics of Sinn Fein today.

Taken from Socialist Worker Issue 208
The Provos’ unfinished business?
A NUMBER of people seen as supporters of the Real IRA were visited by the PSNI last month and warned to tighten up on their personal security because they might be attacked by the Provisional IRA. The Provos, it was suggested, were angry at the RIRA for threatening people associated with the PSNI.
A confusing set of circumstances. But readers of Conor Cruise O’Brien will have been more confused. He maintains the Provos aren’t doing nearly enough to put the frighteners on the “dissidents”. In his Irish Independent column (September 20th), O’Brien quoted Mark Durkan calling on the Provisional IRA to confirm that it had not been involved in making threats against members of local policing boards.
Martin McGuinness, O’Brien pointed out, had responded by accusing the SDLP of “politicking”. This, asserted O’Brien, showed that, “The Provisional IRA must be in tacit and deniable collusion with the Real IRA”—-a leap of logic which would leave an ordinary mortal dizzy but which the Cruiser carries off with casual ease. Mind you, he has the experience.
He went on: “The Provisional IRA could snuff them (the Real IRA) out of existence with no difficulty. They show no signs of doing so. The Real IRA’s campaign goes on right under the noses of the Provisional IRA and the IRA does nothing at all about it...” This comes close to denouncing the Provos for not killing members of the RIRA. A cynic might say that O’Brien is again ignoring the facts to make his political point: the Provos did “snuff out” RIRA Belfast leader JoJo O’Connor and are commonly believed in Republican circles to have killed Gareth O’Connor in south Armagh earlier this year. Whatever about that, they havn’t killed enough for O’Brien’s liking.
Interned
One of those warned he was under Provo threat was west Belfast Republican Brendan Shannon. He was interned at 17 and later served time for Provo activity. He’s now a non-aligned “traditional” Republican. He has fled his home after being told the Provos planned to kill him on his way to work because he’d attended gatherings in support of “dissident” prisoners.
Shannon told the writer Anthony McIntyre that he’d backed the peace process at the outset, but over time had become disillusioned: “Now it has come to the point where they are prepared to kill and disappear those who refuse to accept the lies and are upfront about their opposition... “Tony Blair and Hugh Orde have both said that the IRA ceasefire is intact despite Orde conceding that they killed Gareth O’Connor. It means the IRA have a licence to murder their own people but nobody else.”
A man who believes his life is in imminent danger from former associates might express his anger in extravagant terms. Suggesting that the British Government has issued the Provos with “a licence to murder” is putting it a bit strong. But Shannon’s underlying point helps unravel the tangled circumstances mentioned above.
The RIRA and other “dissidents” have little public support. But they do have the capacity to disrupt the pacification plans of those who do have public support. The result is a rage against them intense enough to verge on the murderous.
Quite unexpected people can be heard wondering sotto voce why the Provos don’t just take them out. In O’Brien’s twisted mind, the reason is that the Provos are just as bad as the “dissidents”. But O’Brien’s message—- that the Provos should take them out—-reflects an attitude which is more widespread in the political mainstream than is commonly acknowledged.
There are some who believe that the way for the Provos to prove their constitutional credentials is to kill off their aspirant militarist successors before leaving the battlefield themselves. As to what extent this view finds resonance within Provo ranks, we may find out soon enough. There is nothing in Provisional politics to prevent it, and no shortage of precedent.

Taken from Socialist Worker Issue 209
Bloody Sunday: The cover up continues
ONE OF the most striking revelations emerging from the closing stages of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry is that whether or not there was a conspiracy in advance of the Derry massacre, there was a conspiracy in the aftermath to cover it up.  Among those centrally involved was Britain’s current top soldier, the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Michael Jackson.
This wasn’t a long-ago youthful indiscretion. On the witness stand last April, Jackson continued the cover-up he had maintained over the previous three decades.  As to whether Lord Saville and the two Commonwealth judges who sit with him will acknowledge this truth in their report, we must wait and see. But we don’t need to wait for the truth itself. It’s already on the record.
A month after Jackson’s evidence, in June, the Tribunal unearthed a series of documents showing that within 24 hours of the paratroopers’ shooting which left 26 unarmed civil rights marchers dead or wounded, Jackson was personally writing out a phoney version of the shots which had been fired and false accounts of how five key para officers had seen the events. Jackson had made no mention of any of this in his evidence in April.
‘Shot-list’
The documents included a “shot-list” purporting to show, with the help of grid-references, where every soldier had been when he fired and where his target had been located. All the targets were identified  as either gunmen or bombers.
Re-called to give further evidence this month, Jackson claimed that a “vague memory” had suddenly returned to him of producing the documents.  The shot-list had originally been given to the Tribunal in typescript. A month after Jackson’s first appearance, Major Ted Loden testified that this was a word-for-word transcription of a document which he’d written within an hour of the shooting and handed over to administrative staff for typing.
But within 24 hours of Loden’s sworn testimony, the original of the typescript was produced, and immediately identified as being in Jackson’s hand-writing, not Loden’s.
How on earth could this have come about?, Loden was asked. “Well, I cannot answer that question,” came the lame reply.
Lawyers for the Bloody Sunday families have shown that the grid-references on the shot-list don’t conform to where the soldiers actually fired from or where the casualties actually fell.  Some of the shots depicted went through brick walls. In other words, it’s a list of lies---in the handwriting of the Chief of the General Staff.
Jackson was adjutant to Lt. Col. Derek Wilford on Bloody Sunday. Loden was commander of Support Company, the unit which probably inflicted all of the casualties.
False version
Apart from the shot-list, the documents written out by Jackson included the alleged personal accounts of Loden, Wilford, the commanders of the other two para companies which had been present, plus the account of the battalion’s intelligence officer.
Jackson thus produced by his own hand within a day of the massacre the false version of Bloody Sunday which the British Army has stood by ever since.
In his recall evidence, Jackson insisted that he couldn’t remember the circumstances in which he’d been ordered to compile the documents, or where the order had come from. He did admit that, “the requirement may have been instigated in London.”
In their evidence, none of the other officers involved recalled Jackson conducting the exercise.  Just as significantly, none of the paratroopers who’d opened fire recalled any debriefing session where they’d been asked for their locations and the locations of the people they’d been aiming at. It was all sheer invention.
From January 1972 right up to this month, Jackson, Wilford, Loden and the others have stood by the cover-up. All of them, Jackson especially, were, at the least, accessories after the fact of murder. The test of the Saville Tribunal is how close it will dare come to this obvious conclusion.

Taken from Socialist Worker Issue 210
SPREADING THE VENOM OF RACISM
THE former mayor of Craigavon Fred Crowe took a lot of stick a couple of weeks back for pig-ignorant remarks about Muslims.  In the aftermath, even his fellow Ulster Unionists backed a council motion condemning racism and extending a welcome to “people of all ethnic minorities.”  Opposing the building of a mosque in Craigavon, Crowe had told BBC News that Muslims were “out to wipe out Christianity”, that “Christianity is the enemy of the Muslim,” and that “We know what Muslims did in the United States in September 2001.”
The remarks came at a time of almost daily reports of attacks on members of the Muslim and Chinese communities in the North.  Every local newspaper and a range of voluntary organisations and individuals voiced outrage at Crowe’s odious opinions. But maybe the problem was not what Crowe had said but with the crass way he’d said it.
Satan
Even as furore was erupting, the man recently appointed Undersecretary of Defence for Intelligence in the US was delivering himself of the opinion that God had put George Bush in the White House to lead “the global fight against Satan disguised as Islam.” Lt. Gen. William Jerry Boykin explained that he had become aware of God’s role in earthly affairs when the deity intervened to protect him and his troops in the “Black Hawk Down” battle in Somalia in 1993.
Boykin immediately realised that the battle had been a fight between God’s legions (the US soldiers) on the one hand, and “the principalities of darkness” (local Muslims) on the other.  In what way does this differ from the sentiments which caused a deluge of denunciation to descend on Fred Crowe?
Or take BBC1’s sensational “The Secret Policeman” documentary, in which trainee constables in Manchester were recorded exulting at the idea of murdering a “Paki” or dressing up in Ku Klux Klanstyle head-gear to snarl about a need to “eradicate the whole f----g country” of Asians.
Nothing squawked by Crowe came anywhere close to this for offensiveness and threat. And yet the initial reaction of the Home Office under New Labour was not to announce root-and-branch reform of the police but to attack the BBC for the undercover reporting methods used in the programme.
Libelled
Or take Irish Times columnist Kevin Myers. As liberal commentators were stoning the Crowe, the Times carried the latest in a series of rants by Myers likening the arrival of African immigrants in Ireland to the invasion of one’s home by uninvited strangers.  “It is not racist”, he argued, “not [to] wish to share your home with people who have insinuated their way under your roof with lies, and who then intend to help themselves to the contents of the fridge.” Myers’ specific targets were Nigerians, of whom, he informed his readers, there are “uncountable numbers....in Ireland.”
Nigeria, he went on, “has two major natural resources: oil and fraud.” Thus was a nation of more than a hundred million people casually libelled. Nor did he balk at inviting people suffering from the underfunding of the health system to channel their anger at immigrants, making an explicit link between “densely inhabited hospital corridors” and “dense throngs of foreigners cheating their way into the witless benignities of our welfare system.”
In an echo of Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech in the 1960s, Myers continued: “It is imbecilic to think that the numbers of foreigners pouring into this country will not soon become a major source of unrest...We have no choice but to turn all illegal immigrants around at the point of entry (pregnant ones especially).”
Crowe had said nothing as calculated as that to give a booster-shot of venom to race hatred. Disowning Fred Crowe is one thing. But you have to cut far deeper into society to reach the roots of racism.

Taken from Socialist Worker Issue 211
Why safe abortion is a class issue
ABORTION is a class issue. In Ireland, Britain, everywhere, for generations, well-off women were able to get safe abortions in clean beds in private clinics while working class women risked death with backstreet or self-induced abortions.  Abortion only became a political issue when working-class women started to have safe abortions too.
Abortion is part of the reality of Irish life, North and South. British Ministry of Health statistics suggest that up to10,000 women from this island travel to England every year to terminate unwanted pregnancies— more than 7,000 from the South, about 2,000 from the North.  That’s over 150 women a week. The actual number may be higher, given that some Irish women do not give their Irish addresses.
This means that perhaps as many as a quarter of a million Irish women have had abortions in Britain since the procedure was legalised there in 1967.  In most cases, at least one other person will have known about and helped them on their journey. In many cases, a relatively large circle will have been involved in getting the money together and making other arrangements.  Abortion has touched the lives of a huge number of people on this island.
Jim Wells of the DUP referred glancingly to the class dimension when he told an Assembly debate in June 2000 that while 40 women a week might indeed be travelling from the North for abortion, the incidence would likely be a third higher if abortion were available here on the NHS.
Afford
He might have mentioned, although he didn’t, that this third is largely class-selected. They are the women who cannot raise around £500 and cannot afford to absent themselves from work in the home or wherever for days.  Wells might also have mentioned, although he didn’t, that the fact that abortion isn’t available on the NHS here goes a long way to explaining how come women from the North are three times as likely as women across the water to have late abortions— the abortions which, ironically, are prominently and luridly presented in the propaganda of groups crusading against the extension of the 1967 act.
It is against this background that we should consider current moves by “pro-life” activists to tighten restriction on abortion even further by manipulation of the proposed new European Union constitution.  The aim is to forbid women from aborting for reason of severe genetic disorder such as Down’s syndrome: the claim is that abortion for this reason is akin to “eugenic practices”—outlawed under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Choice
This approach, based on abstract morality and fundamentalist ideology, leaves out of account the fact that the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion is to make the choice of having a baby as unproblematic as can be.  It is surely a matter of observation and not of argument that it’s only when parents of children with disabilities enjoy as of right all the support that can be provided, when they know they can depend on speech therapy, physiotherapy, respite care, financial support and all the facilities that modern technology and medicine make possible, when they know that the educational system is structured so as to welcome children with disabilities and to give them every chance of realising all the possibilities within them and that dignified employment will then be open to them, isn’t it obvious that only then will it be possible for women to make the decision to have a handicapped child in a positive frame of mind?
But all of these things would require the sort of reordering of social and economic priorities which the overwhelmingly conservative “pro-life” campaigners can be counted on to oppose.  It is remarkable that in a period of intense debate about the political future of the North, these matters go virtually unmentioned. It is surely time that we began to look this reality in the face and to move towards a rational resolution.

Eamonn McCann says "Class not Creed"
‘Class struggle is the alternative to communal conflict'
As most people see the election being a sectarian headcount, why is the Socialist Environmental Alliance bothering to stand?
We live in a world dominated and distorted by the unaccountable power of huge, ruthless, profit-driven entities.  The SEA is a local expression of global resistance to this grotesque, unequal, undemocratic system. We are part of the drive for a safer, saner, socialist world.
If elected our candidates will register as ‘others’ in the Assembly, to promote the common class interests of all working people, as opposed to the communal basis of politics in Northern Ireland.
The last Assembly was characterized by dour stalemate and acceptance of conservative economics.  It is not inevitable that we repeat this. We want to represent trade unionists and activists in working class communities.
We are part of the anti-war and anticapitalist movements. We will bring a positive new dimension to local politics and challenge not just this or that policy but the whole basis of the political set-up here.
This won’t end sectarianism but it will at least help reduce it a bit, in contrast to the institutionalised sectarianism of the mainstream parties. It is a fact everywhere in the world that the higher class issues are on the agenda, the less dominant divisive community issues become.
Catholic and Protestant workers have never united on the basis of not fighting with one another: they have only united to fight together for common objectives.  Class struggle is the alternative to communal conflict. Leave it all to parties based on either Nationalism or Unionism, and we’ll end up with outright apartheid. It would have been absolutely wrong NOT to provide a socialist alternative to sectarianism and poverty.
Poverty seems to be a big theme in the SEA campaign. Is it really such a big issue?
It has to be. Poverty in the North is worse than in any other part of these islands. One in three children here live in a household entirely dependent on benefits. This compares with one in five in Britain.  Unemployment is still a massive problem, although government figures tell us it has almost gone away. It has not.  Yes, people who are signing on are forced onto the New Deal or some other scheme and so the figures look better. But they are still unemployed,  still looking for a decent job.
But there are few jobs around, not even lousy low-paid jobs. And low-paid jobs are the only ones being brought to Northern Ireland. In spite of Gordon Brown’s Tax Credits, Government research found that half of all children living below the poverty line here are living in families with at least one adult in work.
This confirms what trade unionists have said for years—-that poverty among those in work is steadily growing.
Almost one in three of people living in poverty are in employment—-an increase of five percent since the early  ‘90s,  Three quarters of all manual workers here are earning under £350 a week. Thirty-eight percent are earning under £250 a week. One in ten earns less than £180 a week. At the other end, forty percent of non-manual workers now earn more than £450 a week.  And ten percent take more than £707 a week. This yawning gap between the better-paid and the lowpaid gets worse year on year. And these figures do not include the real rich - owners and directors of businesses, and so on.
Don’t all the parties say they are against poverty? What’sdifferent about the SEA?
The difference is that the other parties, without exception, pretend that poverty is something beyond their control, like the weather. It’s not.  True, they can do nothing about miserly benefit levels - these are decided by Westminster.  But, for example, they could stop promoting Northern Ireland as a low wage economy.
Just look at the Invest NI website (www.investni.gov.uk). It informs potential overseas investors that the North offers “Employment costs that are highly competitive and up to 32% lower than in the US and 25% lower than the EU average… “Within our key target sectors of software and contact centres salaries are up to 35% lower than the rest of Europe at junior levels.”   The SEA encourages low paid workers to fight for better wages. So,  when the bus workers went on strike we congratulated them and pointed out theirs was action against poverty.  Bus workers can earn no more than £13,500 a year without working a level of overtime which will soon be illegal,  once the EU working hours directive is implemented.
We are for strong trade unions that stand up to bullying managements. In the fire-brigade, the post office, the civil service etc., we see bosses testing out how far they can go any time they sense weakness, reneging on pay deals, imposing new work patterns without consultation etc.  In the Assembly, I will ensure that no group of workers lacks a clear and unequivocal voice speaking loudly in their support.
You seem to talk a lot about  “equality”. Are you joining Gerry Adams in his call for  “an Ireland of equals”?
There is a fundamental difference in the approach of the SEA to the question of equality and that of all the other parties.  The top quarter of wage earners here takes home NINE times the money of the bottom quarter—-the biggest gap anywhere on these islands. Only the SEA puts this inequality at the top of its agenda.
This inequality - between the wellto- do and the rest - affects every other part of the “equality agenda”. It affects women, gays, disabled people, people of all religions and none.  The historic gap that saw far more Catholic families living in poverty than Protestant is steadily closing, while the gap between the rich and poor WITHIN each of the two communities is steadily growing. Mainstream politicians are settling for an “equality of misery”.
It IS possible to fight poverty and inequality. And this is best done through good old-fashioned class struggle. For example, at the lower end of the pay scale - and particularly for women - public sector workers earn considerably more than private sector.  So, public sector manual women workers earn on average 18% more,  and non-manual women a third more,  than their counterparts in the private sector.  While men in the public sector earn more on average than in the private,  the difference is nothing like as great for women. So, to truly address the equality issue, we must defend public services and refuse to accept PFI or other privatisation schemes.
But is this not all “gas and water socialism”? What about imperialism?
We are unashamedly anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist.  We are actively against the occupation of Iraq and the corporate agenda which enforces cut-backs and privatisation across the globe.  The threat to water service jobs here and introduction of water charges is an example. Those who see themselves as anti-imperialists should see that this is the front to fight on for the future.
The fight against imperialism in 2003 is a fight against US-led imperialism across the globe, or it is nothing.  Those who welcome Bush as “a friend of Ireland” position Ireland on the side of imperialism. We reject the idea that the issues   which are convulsing the world have nothing to do with politics here.  We make common cause with all across the world struggling for thesame aims.
We wouldn’t have taken George Bush’s hand at Hillsborough except to twist it up his back and run him out the door.
Do you really think there is room in the Assembly for a socialist voice?
Yes. We need at least 5,000 first preferences to win a seat. It’s not going to be easy but we believe we can do it.  There’s at least that number of people who know that what we have doesn’t match up to what we need and are entitled to.  We are being fobbed off with a settlement which from ordinary people’s point of view is second-rate. We are told that it’s either this or a return to allout violence.  This is an insult. There is a better and more radical way forward which we represent in this election.

Taken from Socialist Worker Issue 212
The cold hand of poverty destroys lives
ANYBODY my age in Northern Ireland will know somebody who has died from poverty.
Poverty won’t have been put down as cause of death. Family and neighbours asked what she or he died from will refer to a bad heart or a stroke or lung problems or whatever.  But the bottom line will have been that poverty sickens the existence of huge numbers in our society,  and every year brings thousands of lives to an unnecessary premature end.
Stress is among the most common causes of health problems, and to live in poverty is to live in stress.  As St. Vincent de Paul’s “Combating Poverty” report, published this week, puts it: “Health issues (are) inseparable from the living conditions experienced by respondents as the pressure of lack of finance and the consequences inevitably led to chronic stress.”
The strength of the report, compiled by Professor Gerry McAleavy and his team at the University of Ulster, lies in its first-hand accounts of the human reality behind the statistics usually deployed to measure economic well-being, or ill-being.  “You would think it would only be stress during the day but I go to bed and lie there worrying so it is a constant stress, you don’t have a night’s sleep. I do shout at the kids when I am stressed and it is not their fault, they are only asking what other kids are wanting.”
 “I put myself into debt with HP and that, so especially at Christmas, I wouldn’t sleep well. How am I going to juggle and pay this. I asked for extra help with the rent, I was very stressed, a bit of overeating, tearful and emotional.”
Poverty directly, devastatingly affects education, too. We know that in our shamefully divided system, only eight percent of grammar school students come from the poorer half of the community.
Privilege
Defenders of privilege airily discuss the extent to which this can be explained by the different emphases families put on the importance of schooling.  Sadly, they sigh—-or perhaps it’s a sniff of distaste—- poor parents don’t put the same premium on academic attainment as the middle-classes do.
This is the direct opposite of the truth. McAleavy’s research confirms that parents in poverty tend desperately to wish for their children to shine at school, seeing a lack of education as a reason for their own situation, a higher level of education the key to their children escaping the same deprivation. It’s lack or resources, not lack of resolve, which holds poor children back.
School attendance requires expenditure. Only the poor really notice this. “My big worry would be school uniforms when you are buying two of each. I had a new school bag to buy and that would stress you out as you are trying to get this or that and another. I had to borrow money off a friend to get the two uniforms. So I am worried about paying that back now”
 “I used to get a grant for school uniform...(Now) they won’t give a grant because they say it is not compulsory but it is. I buy something similar if I can” It’s commonly said that school uniforms minimize differences. But uniforms usually cost more than generic garments. So the poor are hit the harder for wanting their children not to stick out.
The answer is more money. An end to low pay. Grants not loans. A significant rise in lone parents’ allowance. The range of measures needed is obvious. Emphasis on “community” downgrades problems of poverty. The poor are lumped in with the better-off on their own “side.” This hides the extent to which “the upwards redistribution of wealth” within communities has locked the poor into permanent unemployment, low pay, bad health and exclusion from education. “Community” makes poverty politically invisible.
Copies of “Combating Poverty” are available from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, 196-200, Antrim Road, Belfast BT15.