On the 30th January 1972, British soldiers shot dead thirteen Irish nationalist civilians during a civil rights demonstration, which protested against the present discrimination and state tyranny against the Catholic minority; Derry city, Northern Ireland. This event is known as ‘Bloody Sunday’, argued to be the most devastating instance of the British state’s use of armed force against its own citizens (Dawson, 2005). Source two, an interview of a Catholic priest that attended the demonstration appears to be more valuable to a researcher seeking to understand the events. To compare, source three acts as less useful to a researcher due to the level of criticism it later received, which ultimately led to a fresh inquiry in 2010, named the Saville …show more content…
Despite Lord Widgery’s emphasis on claims of objectivity, the report failed to call upon the views of hundreds of civilian eyewitnesses who made statements through NICRA’s accounts. The narrowness of the report reduces the value to a researcher because it suggests the reports main intention was to protect the legitimacy of the British Army (Dochartaigh, 1997). To exemplify, the report describes the acts of the Army as “sincere” however this is simply a personal judgment, as there is no evidence to support this …show more content…
This suggests that his interview could be of greater value to a researcher as he provides a fresh and in the moment response to a traumatic incident he experienced first-hand. In spite of this, it could also be argued Daly’s view cannot be completely upheld as he holds a purpose to support the protestors, which comes with protecting the victims of the demonstration and accordingly does not act as entirely reliable. However, contrastingly, the Widgery report was produced eleven weeks after the event, a period of time long enough for an account of events to be distorted, thus Daly proves a better source than the Widgery report.
In addition, Daly admits to the British Army being antagonised as he confesses to a “few stones” being thrown. This attempt to provide an honest statement of the actions of both the British Army and the protestors is not however extended in the Widgery report. This weakens the substance of source three because it is further evidence of an attempt to justify the actions of the British Army by Lord Widgery, rather than provide an honest