Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ACCORDING TO STATE Papers from 1987 that have just been released, the documents reveal the government was told that the funeral of Larry Marley was the “biggest propaganda coup since the 1981 hunger strike” for Sinn Féin and PIRA.
The documents show that the government had a great deal of worry about Marley’s funeral, how the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) handled it and the violence that subsequently followed.
The behind-the-scenes discussions between the RUC and the Catholic Church, as well as talks between then-Tánaiste Brian Lenihan and then-UK Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Tom King are highlighted as well as their agreement not to go into details publicly about what was said.
Larry Marley
Marley was a member of the Provisional IRA from Ardoyne in Belfast. Imprisoned in the Maze Prison, he was described as one of the masterminds of the mass breakout in 1983.
He was shot dead in his home on 2 April 1987, and the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) claimed responsibility.
The State Papers detail how, after negotiations between the priest of Clonard Monastery in the Ardoyne, and the RUC, arrangements were made whereby the RUC would allow the funeral to take place.
This did not go to plan, however.
“Heavy-handedness”
In a paper written by a civil servant in the Department of Foreign Affairs at the time, however, “on Monday, 6 April, and Tuesday, between the manipulation of Sinn Féin/PIRA and the heavy-handedness of the RUC, the funeral was brought to a halt and eventually abandoned”.
With a heavy police presence, the perception among the nationalist community was that the RUC was unfair towards their right to bury their dead. What followed was several nights of rioting on the streets of west Belfast.
From the RUC’s perspective it appeared that the police was desperate not to “back down” in the face of the IRA on the matter.
On the Wednesday, a phone call was arranged between Lenihan and King.
Both men, looking at the actions of the police and the rioting on the TV, agreed they looked “awful”.
The perception that Irish officials had was the British government agreed that the RUC was acting disproportionately with the Catholic community for this funeral.
“Generally, we have the feeling around here that the British believe the RUC could have handled this funeral more sensitively,” documents said.
The difficulty for the police was that having taken the stand they did, it was very difficult for them to back down in face of the provocation from the provisionals.
There was a clear view from the government that the heavy-handed RUC tactics with the funeral, alongside the subsequent rioting “could only benefit extremists and undermine progress made in relations between alienated nationalists and the community in west Belfast”.
The Irish government wanted a “degree of sensitivity and a cleverer approach… an approach which does not play into the hands of the provisional IRA”.
The numbers and aggressiveness of the police seemed to many to be excessive.
The funeral, itself
In the paper written by the Department of Foreign Affairs official, it said that during the few days of delay of the funeral, “the affair had developed into something of a cause celebre” with the ranks of the funeral cortege “swollen to ten times their original number” when permitted to go ahead.
The Sinn Féin and the PIRA, who had orchestrated the affair all week, manipulated the situation so that there were continuous violent clashes between the mourners and the RUC.
A reference is made to Ardoyne as a “depressed looking nationalist enclave surrounded on all sides by predominantly Protestant areas”.
It highlighted the campaign from nationalists to attempt to encourage people to attend the funeral.
“Sinn Féin/PIRA runners toured the Ardoyne and parts of west Belfast dropping flyers and calling on the inhabitants to attend the funeral next day, saying that free black taxis would be available to take people to the funeral,” it said.
It also makes a number of conclusions, including that it was a disaster for nationalist-RUC relations and that it was a major PR victory for the PIRA.
The document closes with the warning that many nationalists would be looking at upcoming loyalist protests to gauge “RUC willingness to contain loyalists demonstrations and to protect nationalists from outbreaks of sectarian violence”.
After watching the violence that took place in the week of the funeral, the Tánaiste sought an urgent meeting with Secretary King to “thresh out the question of the handling of funerals”.
It said that the concerns of the Irish government were raised frequently with King’s office and that “the points we made did not appear to be heeded with the damaging results we saw this week”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“This is why Snapchat fully deserves a €16 billion valuation” And yet the article doesn’t explain why Snapchat deserves a €16 billion valuation. Sure, I understand its potential revenue raising abilities. I understand its appeal to advertisers. I understand that it hosts a lot of personal information which would be invaluable to potential investors and advertisers. But why, exactly, is it €16 billion? Why not €15 billion? Or €1000 trillion? How did they arrive at a figure of €16 billion?
I think the headline means, “Snapchat has recently been valued at $16bn. Here’s why it’s so popular/unique”.
Yeah, but we know why it’s so popular and unique. We see articles about it every second day. If, at this stage, you don’t know about Snapchat’s popularity and uniqueness then the likelihood is you just don’t care, in which case you wouldn’t be reading this anyway. We have still to see how exactly the 16 billion figure was calculated, which I what the headline alludes to.
What I was saying above is that Snapchat has three major features that could be massive money spinners for them, and how it’s effectively become a multimedia platform as well, they’re the most quantifiable ones unless you’re privy to their future plans then fire away.
As for how a company is valued, that takes into a number of factors into consideration which would include money raised (so far, it’s raised $648m in 6 different funding rounds), current popularity, the potential for growth in both revenue and users, (which links to the last one but anyway), the value of the industry (instant messaging would be the obvious one, but it’s now become a media entity and has video on its side so that’s two, three if you include Snapchat Stories and its potential for widespread event), assets (both digital and physical), is it public or private, and so on.
Determining the exact reasons why it settled on $19/€16 billion to the point of a formula isn’t possible since you don’t know what factors they’re prioritising ahead of others. Also, when you’re dealing with a private company as unlike Facebook, Apple, Twitter or any other public company, they’ve no obligation to share details about their plans or forecasts to anyone.
In Snapchat’s case, it’s potential in three areas as I mentioned above: events, multimedia (it trying to become a Netflix-style entity for articles, music and TV), and payments/ecommerce as they’re the ones that have a massive influence on this valuation. Also the core psychological element of Snapchat of limitation (which is oddly overlooked and was the main reason I wrote this in the first place) is such a massive factor and that seeps into all of its features. If Snapchat was just about self-destructing photos/videos on its own, then it would have been overshadowed by Facebook Poke back in 2012 or accepted Facebook’s $3 offer back in 2013.
The discussions I’ve seen on the subject (on Twitter and other sites) only mention Discover as if that was the sole reasons behind such a high valuation. The main point above is that it’s rarely one factor that leads to that, (especially when it’s well-known), and it’s weird how other features are forgotten about just because they’re not as new or shiny as the latest thing (or the tired ‘sexting’ angle that’s peddled out regularly).
Give it 3 yrs and youll see all such companies worth a fraction of todays value, times they are a changin
I get all that. The fact still remains that the headline suggests that the accompanying article will explain exactly how the figure of 16 billion was reached. I was curious to know how they got that figure. And yet, I’m still none the wiser. Should it have a large valuation? Obviously the answer is yes, and you have explained that both in the article and your comment. But we’re still no closer to understanding the 16 billion valuation. Sorry, but I’m a stickler for this kind of thing. If you know how, then say it and let the headline reflect it. If you don’t, then don’t mislead the reader into thinking you do, only to leave the reader empty handed.
If everyone on snap chat had a super sweet party = 16 x the amount of willie photos ever sent = 16billion
On Sesame Street their number of the day is 16 x 1billion. Tomorrow it will be $43 Billion
I’d say the long term bet is when an analyst bets a pension fund on this.
I’d be nervous.
It could only ever be a trade sale to Google or the like …. Its a very limited product. If a pension fund manager bought snapchat, they should be sacked.
Nothing on this Earth deserves to be valued at €16 billion
So what’s your idea of a max cap value so Andy?
You haven’t seen my willy.
If I owned it I would sell now
Fapchat
It deserves about a 16 CENT valuation. It’s ridiculous, and hopefully a fad that will die quickly. If the world is lucky, some evil company will pay 16B, then go out of business when people realise how stupid Snapchat is.
Never seen such anger directed at a mobile phone application before! Got dumped via Snapchat did you? :-)
have your say