Collusion confirmed.

Zambia

Jackie laughlin wrote:

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.

Sorry

sophistry - being a cute hoor

SF operate like the DUP and the others up here in an enviroment of lets totally ignore this and scream about that. As long as there all talking and no-one is getting shot/bombed I really dont care.

And while we are defining things
Confirmed =
1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.
2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics.
3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify.
4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.

So personnally I think this report falls short of even that , if someone was guilty of this then let them be tried and convicted of collusion.

I would also like to piont out

answers.com wrote:

Officially, 303 officers were killed and over 9000 were injured during the Troubles (mid-1960s to late 1990s), of whom 277 were killed in attacks by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).

After suffering attacks like these (regardless of your politics) it was invititable that some officers would want to step outside of the law. Can anyone here claim the Gardai would be above resorting to this when faced with these daily attacks.

In total the RUC numbered 8,500 men to tar them all would be a slap in the face to the ones that held back from this behavior. If it did occur which in my opinion it did but no-one has ever been imprisioned because of what i think.

Zambia

Oh and in that regard

http://www.answers.com/topic/cory-collusion-inquiry

I forgot about this , see the finger can be pionted in all directions

csk

Wicknight wrote:

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

Okay let's get a few things straight here before we continue.

Firstly I have not brought up anything that did not happen inside the last 90 years bar a few generalisations or infereneces, you on the other hand brought up the plantations among other stuff that "happened hundreds of years ago". These are, I agree largely redunant and irrelevant, the fact that you seem to think it's me who is refering to these events is slightly disconcerting.

Secondly I don't disagree with the princible of partition, merely the reality of it. So you harping back to the plantations and your general argument is largely redundant.

Thirdly I am not a fundamentalist republican in fact I would not consider myself aligned in any way with Irish republicanism and I would appreciate it if you did not try to insult by intelligence by treating me as one.


Now with that out of the way let us deal with partition.

You say that to take the whole island of Ireland as a democratic entity would be undemocratic, that to impose such a thing would be unfair and an arbitary use of power, that it "is simply shifting borders to get the result you want".

Now the solution we both agree is partition, that as much as the majority of people on the island i.e. nationalist people have a right to choose their own destiny then so too do the minority people on the island i.e Unionists at least as far as is practical.

All this is fine in theory but in practice the border was arbitrarily and unfairly drawn up, surely this is no different than abitrarily and unfairly creating a United Ireland. Surely then by your own logic the northern Statelet was just as undemocratic as a United Ireland would have been ?

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.

This is pedantic hair splitting at its worst. A large chunk of Nationalist people were left in a state they did not want to be in, regardless of whether you wish to say we left the Union or the north stayed, either/or is irrelevant to what I was saying. If I should be allowed to indulge in hair spliting pedantics I would say the Act of Union was undemocratic anyway, so too would every Irish person of a right mind.

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

If those who are charged with upholding the Law don't do so, what law is there ?

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.

Firstly, they did do this.

Let's not beat around the bush, the RUC was a sectarian police force, Stormont was a sectarian parlaiment propped up by Westminster.

The RUC believed they were maintaing Law, firstly of Stormont, secondly of Westminster, when direct rule was imposed they were upholding the Law of Westminster.

Therefore either by the direct or indirect wishes of Stormont/Westminster they murdered innocent Irish people.

You yourself earlier acknowledged that these tactics of the British were not new, "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". This report is only the tip of the iceberg, the murder of innocent people inorder to uphold power(if that suits you better)/Law is by no means new.

So therefore if it is by no means new and with this report been shown to exist right up to the end of the Twentieth Century, what conclusions are we to draw, if we consider the past actions of the British Government to have been undemocratic ? What are their actions now ?

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.

More pedantic hair splitting. Power/law whatever you wish to call it they were willing to murder innocent people to uphold it, that can hardly be called democratic.

csk wrote:

As I have already said, that Law was created and maintained through force of arms. 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.

Note the use of the word maintained in my quote. Note that the reality of partiton was undemocratic.
When you do this you will see I don't have to go back further than 20 years. If this report does anything then it proves my assertion above.

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

If you take that as correct then so too is the flip side which is what I ahve been saying all along.

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

You have to get away from this idea that because British Power/Law was undemocratic that I am advocating equally undemocratic Power/Law to replace it, that would be absurd.

Why could the nationalist people of the north not have democratic Law ?... Because the British Government imposed their democracy on them. It then killed uinnocent people to uphold it.

So who does have the right...?

You are not going to like my answer... but it's the obvious one the people of Ireland. Now how to implement that is the problem.
However taking the British way as right, merely because they are what ? Superior race of Humans or because they have a superior army ? is wrong in my eyes.

They must do it fairly of course, within the law and within the civil rights of all citizens, which they clearly didn't do.

Which they very clearly did not do is right. Their inability to so was undemocratic, the fact that their security forces murdered innocent people in an attempt to uphold the Law was not proper.

The people of Ireland regardless of their political persuasion are entitled to democracy, the Britsh Government only "bestowed" democracy on a certain element of the people in northern Ireland, therfore I am correct in my assertion that that the British Government had no right ot rule any part of Ireland because they could not do so in a fair and democratic manner.

[EDIT] Sorry Oscar Bravo I only saw your warning after I posted this. This will be my last post on the subject of partiton.[EDIT]

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

Oh and in that regard

http://www.answers.com/topic/cory-collusion-inquiry

I forgot about this , see the finger can be pionted in all directions

I don't get it?

The ONLY "finger pointing" in that page is pointing right at the british government and the RUC.

I think this report just says what the republicans up north were saying for a long time about the british government but it was needed nonetheless to give an official voice to this. But what will come out of this report? What will be done to ensure it never happens again?

I think the police ombudsman was really just a cop out for the british government unless they act on her findings - but I cannot see them doing that.

Zambia

axer wrote:

I don't get it?

The only "finger pointing" in that page is pointing right at the british government and the RUC.

Two of the cases - the murder of the RUC officers and the murder of Northern Ireland Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and Lady Cecily Gibson - relate to allegations of collusion by the Garda Síochána and these reports were submitted to the Irish Government [1].

In the case of the two RUC officers, who were murdered in an ambush by the Provisional IRA on 20 March, 1989, Cory considered all the relevant material, including intelligence reports, and concluded that evidence was revealed that, if accepted, could be found to constitute collusion. As a result, he recommended a public inquiry into the matter. The Smithwick Tribunal is currently considering evidence (as of October 2006).

Zombrex

csk wrote:

Okay let's get a few things straight here before we continue.

oscarBravo wrote:

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.

csk I would love to debate all the reasons that your post above is nonsense, but the mod has told us to drop it. If you want to start a new thread be my guest.

Zambia

Wicknight wrote:

csk I would love to debate all the reasons that your post above is nonsense, but the mod has told us to drop it. If you want to start a new thread be my guest.

Please dont

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

Two of the cases - the murder of the RUC officers and the murder of Northern Ireland Lord Justice Maurice Gibson and Lady Cecily Gibson - relate to allegations of collusion by the Garda Síochána and these reports were submitted to the Irish Government [1].

In the case of the two RUC officers, who were murdered in an ambush by the Provisional IRA on 20 March, 1989, Cory considered all the relevant material, including intelligence reports, and concluded that evidence was revealed that, if accepted, could be found to constitute collusion. As a result, he recommended a public inquiry into the matter. The Smithwick Tribunal is currently considering evidence (as of October 2006).

The tribunal for which is only begining but you presume guilt.

I would hope if something is found in that tribunal about corruption that those responsible are prosecuted.

Zambia

axer wrote:

The tribunal for which is only begining but you presume guilt.

I would hope if something is found in that tribunal about corruption that those responsible are prosecuted.

I didnt presume guilt !!! All i said was there can be finger pionting in both directions.

As easy as someone can say The RUC where in Collusion with the UVF someone else cliams the Gardai are in bed with the Provos.

We are debating Colusion confirmed when nothing is actually confirmed..

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

As easy as someone can say The RUC where in Collusion with the UVF someone else cliams the Gardai are in bed with the Provos.

Nope, the collusion between the RUC and the UVF has been shown by an independent investigator hired by the british government which is different.

Zambia232 wrote:

We are debating Colusion confirmed when nothing is actually confirmed..

The collusion between the RUC and UVF was shown by this independent investigaton.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Nope, the collusion between the RUC and the UVF has been shown by an independent investigator hired by the british government which is different.

The collusion between the RUC and UVF was shown by this independent investigaton.

The DUP would disagree

I think that Zambia232 point is that none of this would probably stand up in a court of law, which is probably why no charges have been filed against anyone. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that no one is guilty.

axer

Wicknight wrote:

The DUP would disagree

I think that Zambia232 point is that none of this would probably stand up in a court of law, which is probably why no charges have been filed against anyone. That doesn't mean it didn't happen or that no one is guilty.

I dont think that it is because it won't stand up in court. It is that the few retired RUC officers that did give statements wouldn't do so again in a court thus losing evidence. That is more cover up than anything else.

There were also a number of existing officers who blatenly lied to the ombudsman by giving false statements etc. Those are officers who should be punished - how can republicans up north respect these law enforcers when they don't care for the law themselves.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

I dont think that it is because it won't stand up in court. It is that the few retired RUC officers that did give statements wouldn't do so again in a court thus losing evidence. That is more cover up than anything else.

Well it doesn't really matter why it wouldn't stand up in court, there is always a reason. The link between the IRA and the Northern Bank robbery wouldn't stand up in court because it is all back channel army intelligence that probably wouldn't get past a judge in the first place.

axer wrote:

There were also a number of existing officers who blatenly lied to the ombudsman by giving false statements etc. Those are officers who should be punished

I would agree with that, assuming it can be proven they lied. I don't know how the report worked, if they were under oath or not, but at the very least they should have been ordered to give truthful evidence.

axer wrote:

- how can republicans up north respect these law enforcers when they don't care for the law themselves.

I don't think anyone up North can.

RedPlanet

axer wrote:

how can republicans up north respect these law enforcers when they don't care for the law themselves.

Exactly.
It shows Republican's have been right all along about Policing.
Certainly people should be wary of joining the PSNI as they are also implicated in this report, at the very least by their association with Mi5 and the former RUC Special Branch.
Sadly however, there is really nothing else on the table regards Policing and if SF balk at the opportunity today, than it will probably be an opportunity missed.

Zambia

RedPlanet wrote:

Exactly.
It shows Republican's have been right all along about Policing.
Certainly people should be wary of joining the PSNI as they are also implicated in this report, at the very least by their association with Mi5 and the former RUC Special Branch.
.

Ok so if everyone followed your advice and not joined the PSNI , that would leave the republican community with no police force. Leading to a imbalance which would in turn lead to this exact type of behavior.

Luckily there is no shortage of recruits to the PSNI from all members of the community and in time we will have a reprensentative force.

I see no victory in the republican movement claims of collusion here. The PIRA saw the RUC as all legimate targets and as I said Murdered 318 of them. For them to start claimin the high ground because a few officers may have colluded with the UVF. The RUC at least attempted to deal with the PIRA in a lawfull manner. They themselves where marked as fodder.

Regardless of your stance of wether they where or where not targets.

RedPlanet

So you think collusion only started sometime after the Provos formed huh?

The actions of the RUC in the August 1969 riots are perhaps the most contentious issue arising out of the disturbances. Nationalists argue that the force acted in a blatantly biased manner in the riots, assisting loyalists who were assaulting Catholic neighbourhoods. This perception discredited the police in the eyes of many nationalists and later allowed republican paramilitaries to effectively take over policing in nationalist areas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_riots_of_August_1969

You see, Cops assisting Loyalists as they burned families out of the homes.

Terry

Zambia232 wrote:

I didnt presume guilt !!! All i said was there can be finger pionting in both directions.

As easy as someone can say The RUC where in Collusion with the UVF someone else cliams the Gardai are in bed with the Provos.

We are debating Colusion confirmed when nothing is actually confirmed..

Collusion has been confirmed. did you not read the links?
This was reported in depth by both the BBC and sky news. They didn't just make it up.

ok, so the IRA were bastards. that does not give the RUC the right to help unionist terrorist kill innocent people just because these innocents are catholic.
It's gerrymandering for the 1990's at a far more violent and discreet level.

heads should roll, but the fact of the matter is that most of those involved have retired and the most likely reason for this is that they were told that they were going to be named in this report and should therefore take early retirement lest they be left with nothing. conspiracy? so was collusion until a few days ago.

i'm going back to AH. this crap involves rational thought and beer takes that away.

ghostdancer

axer wrote:

Zambia232 wrote:

We are debating Colusion confirmed when nothing is actually confirmed..

The collusion between the RUC and UVF was shown by this independent investigaton.

not to mention the Irish Government's own report on collusion between british security services and the UVF...

http://burnsmoley.com/pages/collusion/reports/Kays_Tavern.pdf

InFront

RedPlanet wrote:

So you think collusion only started sometime after the Provos formed huh?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_riots_of_August_1969

You see, Cops assisting Loyalists as they burned families out of the homes.

The links down at the bottom of those wikipedia pages can often come in very handy. But there's something very untrustworthy about an online encyclopaedia where people are free to present shoddily proven accusations as fact. I could just as easily link you to a private website owned by me claiming that the sky is falling. Just because some unidentified loon says so by no means makes a statement correct.

RedPlanet

You can go ahead and believe that the RUC were an impartial and representative police force until the big, bad IRA sprung up and started shooting at them.
But i am going with this one.

Zombrex

julep wrote:

ok, so the IRA were bastards. that does not give the RUC the right to help unionist terrorist kill innocent people just because these innocents are catholic.

Has anyone claimed it does?

I'm not sure where this is coming from, Zambia232 point was clearly that it would be very naive to assume there was no collusion between the Guards and Republican groups.

The argument in response was along the lines of oh well you see that hasn't been confirmed :rolleyes:

Everyone here seems very quick to (rightly) condemn the other side, yet seem to dodge the issue of is their side were doing the same thing. If it is wrong for one is it not wrong for the other?

As he said -

"All i said was there can be finger pionting in both directions."

A Dub in Glasgo

InFront wrote:

The links down at the bottom of those wikipedia pages can often come in very handy. But there's something very untrustworthy about an online encyclopaedia where people are free to present shoddily proven accusations as fact. I could just as easily link you to a private website owned by me claiming that the sky is falling. Just because some unidentified loon says so by no means makes a statement correct.

What are you actually trying to say here? Forget all the hyperbole about the falling sky and loonies. Are you say saying that you do not think British forces colluded with terrorists before the provos kicked off their campaign?

A Dub in Glasgo

Wicknight wrote:

Has anyone claimed it does?

I'm not sure where this is coming from, Zambia232 point was clearly that it would be very naive to assume there was no collusion between the Guards and Republican groups.

The argument in response was along the lines of oh well you see that hasn't been confirmed :rolleyes:

Everyone here seems very quick to (rightly) condemn the other side, yet seem to dodge the issue of is their side were doing the same thing. If it is wrong for one is it not wrong for the other?

As he said -

"All i said was there can be finger pionting in both directions."

Is this classic whataboutry from Wicknight?

axer

axer wrote:

how can republicans up north respect these law enforcers when they don't care for the law themselves.

I'd imagine they can by stealth.
Thats what Gerry Adams was on about recently when he said that he wanted to "put manners on the PSNI".
In other words,its not and never was realistic to sack those that are in the PSNI now that were the RUC and I assume they are the majority of the PSNI.

In a position of compromise that would be no compromise and really there can be only a compromise,you can't ignore unionist feeling however much you disagree with it.They are there,they have views and they are not going away.
Adams and co with their series of meetings seem to be carrying the majority of Republicans on the road of compromise regarding policing.
Thats pragmatism for you and you've got to admire it.

It's easy to negatively harp on about wrong doing retrospectively but it gets one no where.
What gets you somewhere is to use the information gathered positively to cut out a repeat of what is obviously utterly wrong.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is this classic whataboutry from Wicknight?

No.
And whilst I'm here please make your points on posts with at least an iota of non personalisation with regard to users here.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Is this classic whataboutry from Wicknight?

No its classic "You guys aren't bothering to follow Zambia232 original point" from Wicknight

InFront

Tristrame wrote:

They are there,they have views and they are not going away.
Adams and co with their series of meetings seem to be carrying the majority of Republicans on the road of compromise regarding policing.
Thats pragmatism for you and you've got to admire it.

I don't admire it any more than I admire a Co. Cork man's acceptance of his local Garda Síochána as his police force. It isn't that I admire it, I expect it.

Just because it is Sinn Féin, ought we thank them for their altered philosophy? No. We ought to expect it.

InFront

InFront wrote:

I don't admire it any more than I admire a Co. Cork man's acceptance of his local Garda Síochána as his police force. It isn't that I admire it, I expect it.

Just because it is Sinn Féin, ought we thank them for their altered philosophy? No. We ought to expect it.

Oh I'd admire any move from trenchant positions.It takes Balls.
Remember the Gardaí don't have a history of singling out one large section of the community in the 26 counties for harassment.
Your comparison doesn't hold water when you examine where the trenchant positions regarding NI policing have come from.

However,we are where we are and I think todays meeting will signal a move foward from there,pragmaticly dumping previously held trenchant positions.
Such is the nature of compromise and personally I welcome that.

Jackie laughlin

No one doubts that the RUC were a corrupt "loyalist" police force before the emergence of the Provos. It took the deployment of British troops to protect Catholics from loyalist mobs. Those troops subsequently disgraced themselves in far too many instances. In the long years of the so-called struggle SFIRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group.

Terry

and now this:

Orde criticises SF and SDLP response to collusion report
31/01/2007 - 10:47:49

PSNI chief constable Hugh Orde has strongly criticised Sinn Féin and the SDLP over their response to the recent Police Ombudsman's report on collusion.

A confidential memo from Mr Orde to his officers accuses the nationalist parties of insulting PSNI staff and using them as a political football.

He says they have gone too far in their response to the Ombudsman's report, which highlighted how Special Branch officers protected a gang of loyalist murderers from prosecution.

The chief constable also expresses dissatisfaction with Gerry Adams' remarks that republicans would "put manners" on the police when they sign up to the Policing Board and local policing partnerships.

Sinn Féin has rejected the criticism, however, saying it is the role of elected politicians to ensure the police serve the people who pay their wages.

maybe SF should apologise for all those years of corrupt, one sided policing.

Voipjunkie

Jackie laughlin wrote:

No one doubts that the RUC were a corrupt "loyalist" police force before the emergence of the Provos. It took the deployment of British troops to protect Catholics from loyalist mobs. Those troops subsequently disgraced themselves in far too many instances. In the long years of the so-called struggle SFIRA killed more Catholics than any other armed group.

Of course the struggle was not about religion so the number of Catholics killed is irrelevant as it would include British Soldiers, RUC members, Judges, Informers, their own members killed accidentally,etc the IRA were not killing them because they were catholic so their religion is irrelevant.