Collusion confirmed.

A Dub in Glasgo

Can somebody explain how NI became a Kingdom?

Whilst they are explaining the above, how come Ireland was one political entity when part of the UK and the majority in Ireland wanted to come out of the union and it would have been undemocratic to grant the wish of the majority?

Apparantly, the democratic thing to do was to ignore the wish of the majority and partition the country into 2 states, one of which was designed to have a built in unionist majority. How is that democratic and taking the wish of the majority undemocratic?

Zambia

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Can somebody explain how NI became a Kingdom?

Whilst they are explaining the above, how come Ireland was one political entity when part of the UK and the majority in Ireland wanted to come out of the union and it would have been undemocratic to grant the wish of the majority?

Apparantly, the democratic thing to do was to ignore the wish of the majority and partition the country into 2 states, one of which was designed to have a built in unionist majority. How is that democratic and taking the wish of the majority undemocratic?

Give us time we will find a way to make this the Kingdom of George Best

The UK was in 1922 a solid mass , a large part of that mass wanted independence and was granted it. The Population of Northern Ireland did not want to leave the overall original Majority of the UK so they where not given independence along with the other 26 counties.

Would you be happier if a poll was taken by britain of every county and the each decided where there loyalties lay. I think I know what wick knight is getting at whicjh is rare for the two of us

It sucks but thats how it worked. If we are going down this majority route.

Fratton Fred

The current British government is the one that is putting these commissions in place, funding the enquiries and trying to bring some sort of sanity to Northern Ireland, yet that seems to matter not to many on here who just see it as “The British Government” and therefore something to be despised. I haven’t read the full report yet, but does it actually say there was government collusion or is it a case that because the RUC are involved a link is being made to Westminster.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Whilst they are explaining the above, how come Ireland was one political entity when part of the UK and the majority in Ireland wanted to come out of the union and it would have been undemocratic to grant the wish of the majority?

That isn't true. Ireland was part of the U.K from 1800. As such we weren't one political entity, we were a part of the political entity of the U.K.

Which is why we had the difficulty getting things like Home Rule, because the majority of UK, including the majority in the Northern counties of the island, did not support one bit of it breaking away. That was why partition happened in the first place.

Republicans have long invented the idea that the island of Ireland represents the true democratic entity of Ireland, but that has not been the case for 400 years (and arguable if it was before hand either).

There is little difference between Republicans inventing boundaries that support their cause and the British inventing boundaries that support their case. Both ignore the reality of the people actually living the areas they claim to be trying to represent.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Apparantly, the democratic thing to do was to ignore the wish of the majority and partition the country into 2 states

You keep assuming that the island of Ireland was an individual political entity. It wasn't and still isn't.

Before independence it was all part of the UK. So if the Irish in the South were not the majority of anything. They were a minority in a larger kingdom. To make them the majority of something you have to invent the democratic entity of the island of Ireland. Which of course Republicans were all to happy to do, ignoring the fact that a million of so Unionists in the North would strongly object to the democratic entity being decided along those lines.

This is what I mean by the "romantic idea of a united island" The island was not united at all as a democratic entity, no matter how much Republicans like to dream it was and is.

If you decide to define the boundary of Ireland as the island of Ireland, placing yourself in the majority of your newly formed entity, just so you can force those in the North to submit to this, well then what exactly is the difference between that and the gerrymandering that Unionists were doing in N.I for decades, or what the British did by the formation of the U.K

People seem to be all for democracy so long as they can manipulate the situation so they get a favourable outcome.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

How is that democratic and taking the wish of the majority undemocratic?

The Ulster plantations were not democratic, and they were designed to upset the population spread to place people loyal to the Throne in Ireland. And guess what, it worked in the North.

But that was 400 years ago. You cannot simply ignore the reality of the situation now because you object to how it was done. That isn't democratic. As I said, dead people cannot vote.

You cannot pretend the Ulster plantations didn't actually happen and that the island of Ireland does actually represent a unifed united political entity, because it clearly doesn't.

Pretending that it does, proclaiming yourself in the majority of this invented entity, and then using that majority as an excluse to force your will upon those in the North is exactly what the British did. They invented the United Kingdom and then said "Oh sorry Ireland, it appears you are now out numbered some what. But you can't complain this is democracy after all"

I find it amazing that those who proclaim the injustice done to them are all to ready to use the same injustice when it suits them or their goals.

RedPlanet

It depends Wicknight, upon the representation Ireland had, in the House of Commons when Home Rule was proposed.
It sounds as tho you are claiming Ireland was represented county by county (32 Ministers) but i've a feeling that isn't true.
But i don't know.
It's certainly possible, that Ireland had just 1 person representing her in the House of Commons, and if that were the case, could rightly be considered: "one political entity".

I think in reality, Ireland was always considered and treated as "one political entity", right up until the "Government of Ireland Act 1920", which partitioned the country.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

A few points here



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.

Was it undemocratic to force Rathmines into the Free State
1918 election Maurice Dockerell was elected Unionist MP for Rathmines with just over 50% of the vote.
And why was it not undemocratic to force Unionists in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan into the Free State.



Why was it not undemocratic for Derry City, Fermanagh, Tyrone South and west Down , Belfast Falls etc to be forced into Northern Ireland.




Surely what is undemocratic is to section off a piece of a country namely six counties where you can maintain a majority and deny the wishes of the people of the country as a whole( or indeed the wishes of large areas of the 6 counties).

csk

Wicknight wrote:

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.

First of all I don't need a lecture on what constitutes Historical debate from the likes of you, second of all why are we having this debate so ?

Because what I am talking about happened in the past, I am fully aware of what the status quo is now, as per my "Obviously we have moved on from this with the signing of the GFA ( and hopefully Sinn Féin's support of policing )" comment.

"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.

Yet when it was part of the Union, the time to which I was referring, it was treated as a single entity. The border was artificially created leaving a rather sizeable chunk of Irish people who wanted to be free from Britain stranded in the Union.

Was that democratic ?

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.

No I am not. British Law is invested in the British Government who legislates, regulates etc. that law. The upholding of that law is invested in the Police service of Britain or in extreme cases the Army.

Now inorder to create British law in Ireland the superior might of the British Army was used, this was a factor in the creation of Northern Ireland. In order to uphold that Law police officers felt the need to collude in the deliberate murder of Irish people.

If the Irish Army or Gardaí had to, inorder to uphold Irish law, resort to aiding illegal para-military groups in the murder of completely innocent people I would be worried, the simple fact that they are not, tell us something surely. Does it not ?

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.

As I have already said, that Law was created and maintained through force of arms. It was not democratic in the first place.

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.

I want democracy hence the reason why I support the GFA. But the problem was that the British Government upto the GFA were only ever willing to consider democracy on their terms.

"Oh sorry Ireland, it appears you are now out numbered some what. But you can't complain this is democracy after all"

You see this is what happened to Nationalist in the North. I am not saying that the Unionists should be forced into a United Ireland, just that the British Government had no right to dictate what was or was not democracy simply because they had a bigger Army.

In fact all Irish politicians have acknoweldged since partition the rights of the Unionists. It's just a pity the Unionist or the British Government couldn't see that the Nationlists had rights too.

The fact that British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland has already been vindicated to some extent by the GFA.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

It sounds as tho you are claiming Ireland was represented county by county (32 Ministers) but i've a feeling that isn't true.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Ireland was represented in the House of Parliament by 103 seats from 1885, and 105 from 1918. These seats mostly followed county lines, and were in fact used as the basis for the first Dial.

Since the British Parliament contained close to 700 seats, that gave Ireland a small minority in the House, even if all Irish seats voted together, which they didn't because some of the seats were unionists.

http://www.answers.com/topic/redistribution-of-seats-ireland-act-1918

RedPlanet wrote:

It's certainly possible, that Ireland had just 1 person representing her in the House of Commons, and if that were the case, could rightly be considered: "one political entity".

She didn't, she has 105 (well Sinn Fein didn't go in the later years). These 105 seats did not view a united Ireland in the same way as they contained a large number of Unionists.

If one takes these 105 as a represenation of Ireland it is clear that Ireland was not united along the borders of the island, despite what Republicans would believe made up the state of "Ireland"

RedPlanet wrote:

I think in reality, Ireland was always considered and treated as "one political entity", right up until the "Government of Ireland Act 1920", which partitioned the country.

From 1800 Ireland was treated as a small fish in a big pond, for the purpose of keeping her close.

But really if you want to go back to a time where the people of Ireland were united in their desire to be free of British interference you need to go back to before the Ulster Plantations. Which is a long long time ago.

csk

Voipjunkie wrote:

Surely what is undemocratic is to section off a piece of a country namely six counties where you can maintain a majority and deny the wishes of the people of the country as a whole( or indeed the wishes of large areas of the 6 counties).

Yes it was, the problem was not the Unionist population but the fact that large areas of people who wanted nothing to do with Britain were left stranded in a hugely undemocratic statelet.

In order to coerce these and the rest of the people of Ireland to recognise this statelet, the superioir strenght of the British Army was used. In order to maintain this undemocratic Statelet the British Government, through its security forces, then murdered innocent Irish people

The fact that this is what they had to resort to this is the reason why they should not have been ruling any part of Ireland.

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

Was it undemocratic to force Rathmines into the Free State

No because the formation of the Free State was done in agreement with the British government, a legitmate government of the House of Parliament, of which he was a member.

Voipjunkie wrote:

And why was it not undemocratic to force Unionists in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan into the Free State.

Again, because the partition of Ireland was agreed by the government of which those unionists were represented in.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Surely what is undemocratic is to section off a piece of a country

What "country?"

You only declare the island of Ireland a united country because you want the opinions of the Republican south to be in a majority (and it is debatable if the majority in the South actually wished seperation from Britian at the time). If one takes the island of Ireland as being part of the UK, which it was, then all of a sudden the entire island is part of a minority in the UK parliament.

You are simply shifting borders to get the result you want, which is exactly what the British did.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't true. Ireland was part of the U.K from 1800. As such we weren't one political entity, we were a part of the political entity of the U.K.

Which is why we had the difficulty getting things like Home Rule, because the majority of UK, including the majority in the Northern counties of the island, did not support one bit of it breaking away. That was why partition happened in the first place.

Republicans have long invented the idea that the island of Ireland represents the true democratic entity of Ireland, but that has not been the case for 400 years (and arguable if it was before hand either).

There is little difference between Republicans inventing boundaries that support their cause and the British inventing boundaries that support their case. Both ignore the reality of the people actually living the areas they claim to be trying to represent.



You keep assuming that the island of Ireland was an individual political entity. It wasn't and still isn't.

Before independence it was all part of the UK. So if the Irish in the South were not the majority of anything. They were a minority in a larger kingdom. To make them the majority of something you have to invent the democratic entity of the island of Ireland. Which of course Republicans were all to happy to do, ignoring the fact that a million of so Unionists in the North would strongly object to the democratic entity being decided along those lines.

This is what I mean by the "romantic idea of a united island" The island was not united at all as a democratic entity, no matter how much Republicans like to dream it was and is.

If you decide to define the boundary of Ireland as the island of Ireland, placing yourself in the majority of your newly formed entity, just so you can force those in the North to submit to this, well then what exactly is the difference between that and the gerrymandering that Unionists were doing in N.I for decades, or what the British did by the formation of the U.K

People seem to be all for democracy so long as they can manipulate the situation so they get a favourable outcome.



The Ulster plantations were not democratic, and they were designed to upset the population spread to place people loyal to the Throne in Ireland. And guess what, it worked in the North.

But that was 400 years ago. You cannot simply ignore the reality of the situation now because you object to how it was done. That isn't democratic. As I said, dead people cannot vote.

You cannot pretend the Ulster plantations didn't actually happen and that the island of Ireland does actually represent a unifed united political entity, because it clearly doesn't.

Pretending that it does, proclaiming yourself in the majority of this invented entity, and then using that majority as an excluse to force your will upon those in the North is exactly what the British did. They invented the United Kingdom and then said "Oh sorry Ireland, it appears you are now out numbered some what. But you can't complain this is democracy after all"

I find it amazing that those who proclaim the injustice done to them are all to ready to use the same injustice when it suits them or their goals.

Couple of questions did Ireland enter the union as a single political entity or did it enter as 2 separate entities.
From the time it entered until the political reality that it was going to leave one way or the other in the early years of the last century was it treated as a single political entity.
The Unionist party (now the Ulster unionist party was an all Ireland party) its first leader was an MP for Cavan at one time its next leader represented Dublin.
The formation of the 6 county state was an anti democratic act it had never existed before it contained large areas where the population was opposed to it.
Ireland as a unit had existed both before and during the union otherwise how did it enter the union certainly not as 32 individual counties or 26 and 6.
Your logic is flawed does Scotland exist as a recogniseable political unit does Wales or England of course they do and they have recogniseable borders although they are all in the UK.
Ireland was in the same way treated as a political unit with recognisable borders if your logic was followed then it have been acceptable for Ireland to claim liverpool as part of its new area given that it returned an Irish Nationalist MP and that in your logic there was no Ireland just a UK.

csk

Wicknight wrote:

The Ulster plantations were not democratic, and they were designed to upset the population spread to place people loyal to the Throne in Ireland. And guess what, it worked in the North.

But that was 400 years ago. You cannot simply ignore the reality of the situation now because you object to how it was done. That isn't democratic. As I said, dead people cannot vote.

Y0u see this is the problem,ignoring the reality of the situation is what the BRitish Government and the Unionists have been doing since partition.

Now I acknowledg what the republicans ultimately wanted was not feasible so too have the people of the Republic of Ireland and long before the outbreak of the Troubles.

So why did it take the British Gov and Unionists over 30 years of warfare to realise this? n fact some Unionists still have not realised this, why can't you realise this ?

Zombrex

csk wrote:

Because what I am talking about happened in the past, I am fully aware of what the status quo is now

Then stick with the present and stop bring events hundreds of years ago into the discussion. It is pointless and largely irrelivent.

csk wrote:

Yet when it was part of the Union, the time to which I was referring, it was treated as a single entity.

It wasn't, it was treated as 103 seats inside a 700 seat Parliament.

csk wrote:

The border was artificially created leaving a rather sizeable chunk of Irish people who wanted to be free from Britain stranded in the Union.

The border was actually created separating a sizeable chuck of the island of Ireland out of the United Kingdom, because those people wanted to leave. That was democratic because they did not wish to remain in the U.K, nor did they wish to remain under British rule.

The U.K did not take the North. The UK had taken the entire Island 120 years earlier. We left, the North stayed where it was.

csk wrote:

No I am not. British Law is invested in the British Government who legislates, regulates etc. that law. The upholding of that law is invested in the Police service of Britain or in extreme cases the Army.

Exactly. Neither the British police nor the British army create the law, they are supposed to be under the law just like everyone else.

csk wrote:

Now inorder to create British law in Ireland the superior might of the British Army was used, this was a factor in the creation of Northern Ireland. In order to uphold that Law police officers felt the need to collude in the deliberate murder of Irish people.

Yes but that was ILLEGAL under British law. Why do you think the RUC went to such extremes to hide the fact they were doing this? Because they were breaking the law and knew it.

Seriously you seem to have some rather bizare Judge Dredd idea of what the police force in N.I was like. If an RUC man decided to just shoot a Catholic for the hell of it that was not British law decided that shooting Catholics was ok. That was an RUC man breaking the law.

csk wrote:

If the Irish Army or Gardaí had to, inorder to uphold Irish law, resort to aiding illegal para-military groups in the murder of completely innocent people I would be worried, the simple fact that they are not, tell us something surely.

Firstly, they did do this.

Secondly you cannot "uphold Irish law" by doing something illegal. You can uphold Irish power in a region, but that is not the same thing at all.

csk wrote:

It was not democratic in the first place.

That doesn't matter because you have to go back hundreds of years to legitimise this point, which is ridiculous. If you go back far enough you could say the Celts had no right to be here and that the Dublin government is illegal.

csk wrote:

I want democracy hence the reason why I support the GFA. But the problem was that the British Government upto the GFA were only ever willing to consider democracy on their terms.

That is a legitmate concern, it always has been. But the response for groups like the IRA were not legitmate responses to this.

As I keep saying throwing the baby out with the bath water is not democratic.

csk wrote:

You see this is what happened to Nationalist in the North. I am not saying that the Unionists should be forced into a United Ireland, just that the British Government had no right to dictate what was or was not democracy simply because they had a bigger Army.

So who does have the right...?

csk wrote:

The fact that British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland has already been vindicated to some extent by the GFA.

The British government have the right to rule anywhere that gives them that right, including Northern Ireland which did give them that right. They must do it fairly of course, within the law and within the civil rights of all citizens, which they clearly didn't do.

Voipjunkie

Wicknight wrote:

No because the formation of the Free State was done in agreement with the British government, a legitmate government of the House of Parliament, of which he was a member.


Again, because the partition of Ireland was agreed by the government of which those unionists were represented in.



What "country?"

You only declare the island of Ireland a united country because you want the opinions of the Republican south to be in a majority (and it is debatable if the majority in the South actually wished seperation from Britian at the time). If one takes the island of Ireland as being part of the UK, which it was, then all of a sudden the entire island is part of a minority in the UK parliament.

You are simply shifting borders to get the result you want, which is exactly what the British did.

Again your logic is flawed

How was Ireland governed

As a single political unit

How did it enter the union

as a single political unit


The UK at that time was a union of four political entities which entered the union as four political entities they continued to be four political entities.
You are under the illusion that there was only a UK boundary and that Ireland Scotland Wales and England ceased to exist within that Union
They did not and they have not.
The name of the union even recognises Ireland as a unit the UK of GB and Ireland.


Lastly you claimed that forcing unionists in the 6 counties would have been undemocratic are you saying that if the UK parliament had voted for the Unionists to be part of a Unified Irish state then it would have been democratic irrespective of their wishes.

Can I also take it that you do not believe that the decision on whether the Scots can leave the union is not for them to make but for the UK parliament.


(of course all of this is completely ignoring whether we were legitimately in the union in the first place)


And lastly lastly on what grounds is it debatable that the majority wanted separation

A Dub in Glasgo

Ireland was one country when she went into the union. It was one country within the UK.

Now Wicknight is trying to tell us that Ireland was in fact two countries and it was a big thumbs up to democracy that the people who wanted to leave actually left the union. What is not explained is why the people who wanted to leave within the 6 county area were not allowed and the people who wanted to stay within the 26 county area were not allowed.

What is interesting will be the view of how Scotland entered the union and how Scotland is in the union and hiow Scotland might be if she were to leave the union. One country? maybe two countries? anyone for three? :rolleyes:

joebhoy1916

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but that was ILLEGAL under British law. Why do you think the RUC went to such extremes to hide the fact they were doing this? Because they were breaking the law and knew it.

Yes but It wasnt just the RUC It goes right up the ranks. They let innocent catholics be murdered without the fear of been prosecuted. Having a known informer who murdered catholics they gave him a pay rise.[/QUOTE]
If an RUC man decided to just shoot a Catholic for the hell of it that was not British law decided that shooting Catholics was ok. That was an RUC man breaking the law.
[/QUOTE]

So when british paratroopers murdered 13 people for the hell of It they were in fact breaking the law? So the why did the queen give them knighthood.

[/QUOTE]
In March 1998, the Sunday Telegraph was passed secret documentation that revealed for the first time the existence of the FRU. The information released by the Telegraph alleged that the FRU “was complicit in a series of murders carried out by the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) between 1987 and 1990." The UDA is a fascistic, loyalist paramilitary organisation[/QUOTE]


[/QUOTE]The Sunday Telegraph's article also revealed that Brian Nelson was probably the most important FRU agent. Nelson became the UDA's main intelligence officer and in that role was implicated in some in 15 murders, 15 attempted murders and 62 conspiracies to murder. The Sunday Telegraph documents confirm that as the UDA's primary intelligence officer Nelson passed on the names, photographs and addresses of suspected IRA members from Army Intelligence records to UDA gunmen and that he carried out assassinations under army direction.[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]At the time of Finucane's murder, Nelson was still the UDA's senior intelligence officer. He was later arrested for a series of other offences, including conspiracy to murder and having information useful to terrorists. Following his arrest an agreement was struck with the Attorney General at the time, Patrick Mayhew. In return for dropping the main charges against him, Nelson pleaded guilty to lesser offences and was jailed in 1992 for 10 years, of which he served just six years. At the time of the Sunday Telegraph article Nelson was still on the payroll of the British Armed Forces. He currently lives at a secret address in England.

Nelson's role was confirmed as a result of the investigation by John Stevens, then Deputy Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire in the early 1990s. In 1989, UDA members released official Army Intelligence documents to the media. These documents included 250 names, photographs and addresses of IRA suspects. The UDA also claimed that a man they had killed, Loughlin Maginn was on army files as an IRA Intelligence Officer. To answer where the UDA had received this information from, the British government was forced to establish an official inquiry headed by Stevens. This investigation led to Nelson's exposure: his fingerprint was found on one of the documents.

Senior British army intelligence did everything possible in an attempt to obstruct this initial inquiry and it was only when the Stevens team threatened to arrest senior army officers for obstruction that documents were finally handed over to them.[/QUOTE]

Erin Go Brath

Ireland is historically one country, one entity, 32 counties. Ireland (the 32 counties) has existed as a single entity for thousands of years. The flight of the Earls and the subsequent plantation of Ulster doesnt change that fact. It just meant that there was then a small part of Ireland who had some inhabitants who identified themselves as loyal to the crown.

This plantation, an illegal act in itself, and the development of a unionist community on the Island in the last few hundred years in no way justified creating a border in this country. I know the border has been there 80 + years now, and tearing it up would cause serious ruptions up north, so I'll not suggest that.............again . I still question the legally of it though. How a foreign entity has the right to divide and partition an age old and seperate, single entity, and undermine their right to complete self-determination of their country (32 counties).

However, leaving these injustices aside, and in the interest of moving the artifically created statelet forward (which is what we have now, unfortunately). I will say the GFA is the way forward which will be of benefit to all citizens of the said statelet, who really are the ones who have suffered as a result of these sorry events, and are still suffering injustices to this day, by the sounds of the collusion report.

InFront

still suffering injustices to this day, by the sounds of the collusion report

The collusion report has nothing negative to say about the PSNI as it exists today. It does not suggest any police corruption in that force, and the police ombudsman has publicly endorsed the PSNI. On BBCNI a few days ago she said she has no reasons whatsoever to believe that there is corruption in the PSNI.

Are you suggesting she is wrong?

joebhoy1916

Mi5?

A Dub in Glasgo

InFront wrote:

The collusion report has nothing negative to say about the PSNI as it exists today. It does not suggest any police corruption in that force, and the police ombudsman has publicly endorsed the PSNI. On BBCNI a few days ago she said she has no reasons whatsoever to believe that there is corruption in the PSNI.

Are you suggesting she is wrong?

The failure to prosecute anybody associated with this iceberg tip of collusion is an injustice.

InFront

You think the reasons that prosecutions will not follow is because of collusion?

It's because there is lack of evidence. That's not injustice, it's lack of evidence. Injustice would be prosecuation based on insufficient evidence.

Erin Go Brath

InFront wrote:

The collusion report has nothing negative to say about the PSNI as it exists today. It does not suggest any police corruption in that force.

Incorrect.

Nuala O Loan:
"However, they could not have operated as they did without the knowledge and support at the highest level of the RUC and the PSNI [Police Service of Northern Ireland]."

InFront wrote:

Are you suggesting she is wrong?

No. Its the Unionists, such as Ken Magennis who are suggesting she is wrong.

I've never questioned her report, and have no reason to do so.

InFront

But that investigation only goes up as far as 2003

Special branch has since come under new management, and they have implemented new intellignence procedures and policing procedures in line with the Patten report. So what basis do you have for saying "still suffering injustices to this day by the sound of the collusion report"? Evidence?

Nuala O'Loan has not said there is continuing injustice, she has said she has no reason to believe that. So what reasons do you have?

Jackie laughlin

Nuala O'Loan's office is fantastic. Would that we had it on this side of the border.

Every miscreant still surviving in the PNSI should be rooted out, charged and/or sacked.

Anyone who has ever been a member of a terrorist organisation should be barred from public office. Indeed they should be shunned by the people of Ireland.

Some of the posts above seem to be unaware that democracy is quite recent. They also seem to forget that Northern Ireland is not ruled by Britain but participates in British democracy.

Echoing DeValera's sophistry when taking the Oath of Allegiance, present day SF/IRA don't take seats in Westminster (leaving their constituents without representation) but use facilities at Westminster and are gasping to take part in Stormont.

What is the difference between "Peace" and a "Peace Process"?

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Nuala O'Loan's office is fantastic. Would that we had it on this side of the border.

Every miscreant still surviving in the PNSI should be rooted out, charged and/or sacked.

Anyone who has ever been a member of a terrorist organisation should be barred from public office. Indeed they should be shunned by the people of Ireland.

Some of the posts above seem to be unaware that democracy is quite recent. They also seem to forget that Northern Ireland is not ruled by Britain but participates in British democracy.

Echoing DeValera's sophistry when taking the Oath of Allegiance, present day SF/IRA don't take seats in Westminster (leaving their constituents without representation) but use facilities at Westminster and are gasping to take part in Stormont.

What is the difference between "Peace" and a "Peace Process"?

sophistry - a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone

Fratton Fred

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The failure to prosecute anybody associated with this iceberg tip of collusion is an injustice.

I agree, but I guess that this will have to be carried out very carefully. There will no doubt be plenty of people/politicians who will be quick to cry foul and de-rail the whole thing.

A witch hunt will not help anyone.

Hagar

Fratton Fred wrote:

A witch hunt will not help anyone.

Least of all the witches.:D

Zombrex

Voipjunkie wrote:

Again your logic is flawed

How was Ireland governed

As a single political unit

How did it enter the union

as a single political unit

Groan


How she entered the union is irrelivent, because it happened in 1800. That is my whole point! In 1922 she was part of the United Kingdom. That is the point in time that matters for the issue of partition because that is when the democracy of the island holds weight with regard to partition.

If you need to go back 122 years to find a point in time where the political borders support your position you are being undemocratic.

If you are going to do that why don't the unionists just go further back in time to when the island of Ireland was broken into waring clans under a number of different kings and claim Ireland was never a country to begin with :rolleyes:

Dead people cannot vote.

Voipjunkie wrote:

You are under the illusion that there was only a UK boundary and that Ireland Scotland Wales and England ceased to exist within that Union
They did not and they have not.
The name of the union even recognises Ireland as a unit the UK of GB and Ireland.

Again you are missing the point (probably on purpose). The 103 members of parliament were returned to one parliament. In 1918 members of Sinn Fein, who represented most of the South, refused to attend.

That right there shows you which parts of Ireland wanted to brake away. As such the Dail that they set up only had legitmate representation of those parts of the island of Ireland.

What you are claiming is that the Dail they set up should have had claim over the areas represented by seats on Parliament that did not join the new Dail.

That is undemocratic

Voipjunkie wrote:

Lastly you claimed that forcing unionists in the 6 counties would have been undemocratic are you saying that if the UK parliament had voted for the Unionists to be part of a Unified Irish state then it would have been democratic irrespective of their wishes.

Yes, because it would have been done within the system of government that those in the North were involved in. You return a seat to parliament, you are represented in the democratic system. That doesn't mean that everything you want will happen.

Of course this never would have happened because the government of the time needed support from the members of parliament from the North. This is actually a pretty good example of democracy in action. Those in the North did not wish to leave the Union, and were in such a number that the government had to listen to them.

Voipjunkie wrote:

Can I also take it that you do not believe that the decision on whether the Scots can leave the union is not for them to make but for the UK parliament.

It is for them to make, just like it was our decision to leave the union.

The point you are bizarely missing is that a large area of the island of Ireland did not wish to leave the union.

You seem to think they should have been forced to leave the Union along with the rest of us. That was never going to happen because they had a strong enough voice in the system of government at the time to let it be known that they did not wish that to happen.

If the majority in a large area of Scotland did not wish to leave the UK either then it would be wrong and undemocatic for them to be forced into seperation with the rest of Scotland.

Voipjunkie wrote:

(of course all of this is completely ignoring whether we were legitimately in the union in the first place)

It is ignoring that because that question had passed over 120 years earlier. We were in the Union, like it or not. You cannot just revoke a system that has lasted for 100 years.

Voipjunkie wrote:

And lastly lastly on what grounds is it debatable that the majority wanted separation

It is debatable because the 1918 election that returned a majority of Sinn Fein to the first Dail was riddled with undemocratic events, such as uncontested seats and intimidation of rival candidates and voters.

It is debatable if the 1918 election was democratic and the actually wished of the population in 1918 will probably never be known.

For some strange reason I don't see many Republicans complaining though that the first Dail was illegitimate because of this fact. I don't think that the entire State is illegitamate, and I seriously doubt you do either :rolleyes:

Jackie laughlin

Zambia, That's a fairly weak definition of sophistry but it will do. Thank you. Now, I take it you see my point about the SF's long history of sophistry.

oscarBravo

I'd like to gently remind people that the topic of this thread is security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries - not the history of partition (which everyone seems determined to oversimplify one way or the other). Let's keep it on topic, ta.