Collusion confirmed.

Lemming

gurramok wrote:

One thing that has not been mentuined is that this report only revealed huge collusion in a tiny area of north Belfast in 15 murders.

How do we know there has not been widespread collusion in all the other areas, there could be hundreds who died as a result of this, speculation maybe, but i feel this report is only the start of a breaking dam bursting of more stomach churning revelations.

Indeed ... I hope all of this attention also includes Irish agencies as well ..... I suspect that "stomach churning revelations" will be found equally on both sides.

Jackie laughlin

May I point out that the reason that this is so awful is that public servants have been found acting in a manner no better than a member of SF/IRA or any of the murdering thugs on the other side.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote:

May I point out that the reason that this is so awful is that public servants have been found acting in a manner no better than a member of SF/IRA or any of the murdering thugs on the other side.

:rolleyes: My only surprise is that it took nearly two whole pages before someone tried to turn this against Sinn Féin and the IRA.

Lest we forget as someone else pointed out, this is only a tiny number in a tiny area of Belfast. There are more cases spanning the north of Ireland where this kind of thing is alleged to have taken place.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

:rolleyes: My only surprise is that it took nearly two whole pages before someone tried to turn this against Sinn Féin and the IRA.

She isn't turning this against Sinn Fein. She is pointing out that this is hardly a victory for Sinn Fein as some seem to be suggesting.

It simply confirms that the British government was prepared to stoop to the level of SF/IRA. SF/IRA were already wallowing the mud of immorality, the British government decided to join them.

The British government have lost any claim that they were acting with the moral high ground of a legitimate democratic state. But the IRA and Sinn Fein never had the moral high ground to lose.

Hagar

It could also be argued that the level of murderous corruption and bigotry in the Police force hark back to Bloody Sunday which really kicked things off.

Zombrex

Hagar wrote:

It could also be argued that the level of murderous corruption and bigotry in the Police force hark back to Bloody Sunday which really kicked things off.

This is the British Empire we are talking about. They never exactly what a particularly "clean" record when dealing with the locals from Northen Ireland to India. I think the only people who would disagree with this report are the DUP

RedPlanet

Wicknight wrote:

This is the British Empire we are talking about. They never exactly what a particularly "clean" record when dealing with the locals from Northen Ireland to India. I think the only people who would disagree with this report are the DUP

In your earlier post you claimed that the Brits were "stooping to the level of the IRA"
Yet surely the British Empire and the tactics they employed pre-date "SF/IRA".
Therefore the state-sponsored terrorism (aka "collusion") discussed in this thread can hardly be reactionary.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

In your earlier post you claimed that the Brits were "stooping to the level of the IRA"
Yet surely the British Empire and the tactics they employed pre-date "SF/IRA".
Therefore the state-sponsored terrorism (aka "collusion") discussed in this thread can hardly be reactionary.

Ok, I suppose if you want to put it that way you can claim the the IRA stooped to the level of the British Empire, since the British Empire were around before the modern IRA .... it doesn't really matter, either way the result is the same

I'm not sure what you mean by "reactionary" Ultimately everything that happened in the North was reactionary. The IRA were reacting to the British and Loyalists and the British and Loyalists were reacting to the IRA. That is how it works. Its hard to have a 30 year conflict if you only have one side.

I would hope you weren't suggesting that reactionary means "justified", because that isn't how it works at all. The IRA were not justified and neither were the British Army/RUC/Loyalists, no matter what the other side were doing.

RedPlanet

So does anybody think we'll be seeing a concerted push for Loyalist decommissioning?
Being the case that members of the HMG's security services assisted them and would surely have influence and intel that would be of benefit.

(fat chance huh?)

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

So does anybody think we'll be seeing a concerted push for Loyalist decommissioning?
Being the case that members of the HMG's security services assisted them and would surely have influence and intel that would be of benefit.

(fat chance huh?)

Funny you should mention that ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2546412,00.html

UVF states plan to lay down arms
Liam Clarke (January 14, 2007)

SENIOR loyalist sources say UVF decommissioning is likely if the current political impasse is broken.
...
It is likely that, if political stability is maintained, the UVF and the Red Hand Commando (RHC) will appoint a new representative to liaise with the IICD in February.
...
The UVF supports power-sharing as the best way forward for unionism and a means of securing Northern Ireland’s future. Its main fear is that Sinn Fein and the DUP will not reach agreement and that a system of joint rule, the so-called Plan B, will be instituted instead.

I'm hoping that the DUP and Sinn Fein don't get into a pissing war over this report, ultimately derailing the possibility of proper power sharing.

Erin Go Brath

Wicknight wrote:

This is the British Empire we are talking about. They never exactly what a particularly "clean" record when dealing with the locals from Northen Ireland to India. I think the only people who would disagree with this report are the DUP

Isn't that the truth! Was watching the BBC NI politics program last night where they had Lord Ken Magennis (UUP) and the police ombudsman Nuala O Loan on. The Lord said he read the report, and it was absolute rubbish, and then went on a rant questioning O Loans integrity.

I agree when another poster said that this collusion is only the tip of the iceberg. If you have so-called respected politicans trying to rubbish this report, push it under the carpet, and then attacking the neutral ombudsman trying to do a job, who knows how far this collusion has spread???

Victor

csk wrote:

I wonder though, what impact this will have on the policing debate among Republicans? Will it strenghten Sinn Féin's line of reforming from within or will it be seen as another reason not to engage with the police?

The line taken by Sinn Féin's leadership is essentially "let us supervise them, so this can never happen again" or some such.

Jackie laughlin

The main reason why SF/IRA don't want to support the police is that they want to BE the police. This is their traditional tactic, dating back to the war of independence: create structures parallel to the existing state. This is how they "rule" working class areas today.

csk

Wicknight wrote:

I would hope you weren't suggesting that reactionary means "justified", because that isn't how it works at all. The IRA were not justified and neither were the British Army/RUC/Loyalists, no matter what the other side were doing.

By "justified" I presume you are refering to the tactics employed by both sides ? If so, do you think the British Government's presence was "justified" ?

I would be in agreement that neither side had a right to claim the moral high ground and indeed it's been something I have been saying for quite awhile. Yet right up until this report came out, it has always been claimed by various people that the British Government had some kind of claim to that moral high ground.

If anything this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

csk

Victor wrote:

The line taken by Sinn Féin's leadership is essentially "let us supervise them, so this can never happen again" or some such.

Yes I understand that as per my "It's not the shinners I would be worried about, nothing short of armageddon would stop them trying to sell policing at this stage" comment. By "shinners" I meant the leadership maybe that wasn't clear.

It's mainly the people on the ground who are still unsure about policing, will these revelations drive them closer to the Sinn Féin leadership's opinion or will it drive them towards the the anti-policing republicans, who by all accounts are getting more and more organised ?

Hagar

csk wrote:

It's mainly the people on the ground who are still unsure about policing, will these revelations drive them closer to the Sinn Féin leadership's opinion or will it drive them towards the the anti-policing republicans, who by all accounts are getting more and more organised ?

These are not "revelations" to the Nationalist community in N.Ireland, they have known about it and complained about it for years but nobody took any heed.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

By "justified" I presume you are refering to the tactics employed by both sides ? If so, do you think the British Government's presence was "justified" ?

So long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland then yes it is justified that British government's "presence" is there.

csk wrote:

Yet right up until this report came out, it has always been claimed by various people that the British Government had some kind of claim to that moral high ground.

The British Government have the right to claim the moral high ground as a legal democratic state so long as they follow the rules that that entails, such as following the rule of law. This report shows what many have always suspected, that they did not do this during the Troubles and as such have lost any claim to that moral high ground. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the IRA never had such a claim in the first place.

csk wrote:

If anything this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

It does nothing of the sort.

The British government have the right to rule Northern Ireland so long as the people of Northern Ireland say they do. Which they do by the way, a fact that is often forgotten.

Simply saying that the British rule should go completely is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What they the U.K state, don't have a right to do is to ignore the rules in some cases. The rule of law must apply to everyone universally. It cannot be convenently forgotten about just because the IRA exists.

What this report highlights is the need for much greater transparancy of the security forces, and much greater accountability to the democratic process for those working in these forces. I am very disappointed that no charges have been brought against anyone. I'm not sure if this is political or if it is due to the inability to be able to hold up these charges in court.

What one cannot do is complain that the British government do not follow the rules of a modern legal democracy and yet believe that their side are also justified in ignoring the same rules by attempting to force out a government system that the majority of the population in Northern Ireland wish to remain in place for the time being.

One is either for the principles of law and democracy or they aren't. Complaining that the opposition side isn't following the rules, while also attempting to justify that your side doesn't have to follow the rules, is nonsense.

RedPlanet

What this report does mean (to some), is that Republicans were right not to engage with the police in the past, that they were right to setup their own "community policing" arrangements, they were right to insist the Patten recommendations get implemented.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

What this report does mean (to some), is that Republicans were right not to engage with the police in the past, that they were right to setup their own "community policing" arrangements, they were right to insist the Patten recommendations get implemented.

I would agree with the first and the last points, but not the second.

"Community policing" systems were just as open to abuse as the system Republicans were complaining that the British were using (ie undemocratic, nontransparent, nonaccountable).

This is the point I was trying to get across in the above post. Complaining about a bad system and then replacing it with a just as bad system is largely pointless.

[EDIT]
I would point out that the term "community policing" is often used in wildly different contexts, sometimes by Sinn Fein themselves. Community policing in the wider world is used to describe the situation where effort is made so that the police force (the legitmate police force) are draw from community they serve. This would include efforts to make sure that police serve in their local area, live in the area they serve and are known in the community as a whole.

But "community policing" is also be used to referer to the various vigilanty groups that set themselves up in areas where they feel the police do not provide safety and protection. These groups often take the law into their own hands, attempting to deal with things like street crime and drugs.

So I whole heartily approve of the first type of "community policing", which involves greater involvement of the community and the police. But I don't approve of the second form, the vigilanty form of policing.
[/EDIT]

csk

Wicknight wrote:

So long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland then yes it is justified that British government's "presence" is there.

The British Government have the right to claim the moral high ground as a legal democratic state so long as they follow the rules that that entails, such as following the rule of law.

You see now you are saying that, ultimately when all is said and done, the British Government had the right to be here because of an artifically created "majority" and this gave them the right to any moral high ground.

What gave, what ultimately is a minority of the population of Ireland, the right to dictate terms to the rest ?... The backing of the British Government.

What gave the British Government the right to back that minority ?...the superior strength of her army.

What gave the British Government backing the "majority" the right to impose their law as THE LAW ?... Her security forces including the RUC.

Now what did those security forces do to maintain British Law as THE LAW, they only murdered innocent Irish people simply because they had the cheek to call themselves Irish.

These tactics are not new as you yourself acknowledged, however what is startling is that what, 50 years after the end of the British Empire and at the end of the twentieth century, they were still indulging in the killing of "natives" to uphold their law as THE LAW.

Obviously we have moved on from this with the signing of the GFA ( and hopefully Sinn Féin's support of policing ). However as I said this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

Zambia

csk wrote:

However as I said this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

Your really stretching here. Wether your right or not is another debate but this report does not say that.

If the irish gardai where implicated in the deaths of Irish citizens does that prove that Britain should never have let the republic come into existance?

Hagar

Zambia232 wrote:

...Britain should never have let the republic come into existance?

The British never had the right to determine the destiny of the Irish people.

Zambia

Hagar wrote:

The British never had the right to determine the destiny of the Irish people.

agreed but you see the overall piont

purple'n'gold

Hagar wrote:

The British never had the right to determine the destiny of the Irish people.

I agree, but they had the might, and in the real world thats all that matters.

purple'n'gold

I saw the “Rev” William Mc Crea being interviewed on TV the other night. I hate the idea of sharing an island with that bigoted caveman.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

You see now you are saying that, ultimately when all is said and done, the British Government had the right to be here because of an artifically created "majority" and this gave them the right to any moral high ground.

But that is ridiculous. Dead people don't vote.

What ever happened 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 800 years ago, is a matter for history debate. The simple fact is that Northern Ireland is in existence and the majority of people living in Northern Ireland wish to stay in the union within the UK, for the time being at least.

This is what I meant by "yet believe that their side are also justified in ignoring the same rules"

Some Republicans believe that history gives them the right to ignore the current situation in Northern Ireland, and force in an undemocratic situation, because they want to.

If they wish to do that good luck to them, but that makes them little better than the British security forces who are prepared to forsake the same democratic systems to maintain power and control.

csk wrote:

What gave, what ultimately is a minority of the population of Ireland, the right to dictate terms to the rest ?

"Ireland" is not state. The island of Ireland is divided up between the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Northern Ireland.

Claims that "Ireland" the island is a single population for the purposes of democratic decision is simply shifting borders to get the result you want (a result which is debatable anyway considering 95% of the population were happy to give up the constitutional claim to the North). This is what the British did by including Ireland with Britian in Parlimentary elections, making separation from the UK more difficult.

My point all along is how funny it is that people are prepared to use the same tactics the complain their enemies use, when it suits them.

csk wrote:

Now what did those security forces do to maintain British Law as THE LAW, they only murdered innocent Irish people simply because they had the cheek to call themselves Irish.

You are confusing British law with the British army that ignored British law. Under British law the army has no right to murder anyone, Irish or otherwise. Just like the IRA have no right to murder anyone. Neither the IRA, nor the British army, paid much attention to that law, as this report shows. That is not a reason to throw out the law. As I said, baby with the bath water. The IRA don't pay any attention to the laws of the south, yet would claim they want rule from Dublin, so clearly they don't have any problems with Dublin rule of law, even if they don't themselves follow it.

csk wrote:

However as I said this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

The British army violating their own legal set up is not a valid reason to undemocratically remove the system of government. As Zambia points out something like the guards being corrupt in Kerry or Donegal isn't a reason to ask France to rule us.

You either want democracy or you don't. If you just want rule under your terms that is fine, but don't pretend or be under any dislusion that democracy is the aim, because rule under our terms is exactly what those people in this report wanted.

Hagar

Zambia232 wrote:

agreed but you see the overall piont

I do unfortunately.

purplengold wrote:

I agree, but they had the might, and in the real world thats all that matters.

But if "might is right" then violence to overcome might must also be right as might is only the ability to enforce will through violence or threat of violence.

purple'n'gold

Hagar wrote:

I do unfortunately.



But if "might is right" then violence to overcome might must also be right as might is only the ability to enforce will through violence or threat of violence.

Might is not right, but might will always overcome. There is nothing an inferior force can do about it. But the inferior force is right to attempt to defend itself.

RedPlanet

There are other things the inferior (minority) community can do.
They can strike back; they can bloody the nose of the Might-is-Right superior.
Take for example the AlQueda-inspired 911 conspirators (should we believe in that particular conspiracy).
So few men inflicting such huge toll on AmeriKa.
Not just the actual attack, but the afters i am referring.
(the attack set in motion a series of events that brought AmeriKa into almost universal disrepute internationally, and those events would carry so high a price in terms of $$)

Makes me wonder if it weren't for the "Baltic Exchange" bomb, would there be a Peace Process today?

Zombrex

Hagar wrote:

But if "might is right" then violence to overcome might must also be right as might is only the ability to enforce will through violence or threat of violence.

A few points here

Firstly violence to overcome might is not always (and certainly not "must") right.

Secondly the "might" of that has lead to large proportion of Northern Ireland being unionists occurred hundreds of years ago. Might in the distant past does not justify violence in the present.

Like or not the Ulster plantations were quite successful. Yes they should never have happened, but as soon as someone invents the time machine let me know.

It would have been as undemocratic to force the Northern counties into a united Ireland in 1922 as it was for Ireland to be part of a United Kingdom in the first place.

Sometimes I think people are more concerned with the romantic, simple, idea of the united island rather than the reality of the actual people who live on this island. If we lived on a large land mass this would not seem at all as such a big deal, but the natural border of the island tends to confuse matters.

Violence towards the ancestors of these of the plantations is not justified, and neither is the forceful removal of what they democratically wish to be the system of governance in Northern Ireland.