Collusion confirmed.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

It is what he/she is implying. Otherwise why bring it up ?

Maybe because we are discussing RUC collusion ...

A discussion about RUC collusion without an discussion about why the RUC colluded with Loyalists terrorists would be rather bizarre.

I don't agree with all of his points, but at least I bother to try and understand the point he is making, rather than simply tagging on a point he isn't actually making simply to box him into a stereotype of someone who doesn't agree with me. Why did you even ask him was he a Unionists? If he was a Unionists what would that mean?

csk wrote:

Were the PIRA's actions inevitable too ?

Yes, completely inevitable.

axer

Yes it was inevitable that if the RUC helped unionists murder innocent civilians then some people would get angry and think they must take the law into their own hands. The RUC created this vicious circle.

It was also a gross failure by the british government for which I know they will never be held accountable.

Zambia232 wrote:

Its no surprise to anyone it did happen so I simply fail to see the benefit of this report.

because what was said in this report had to be said officially. Pity it is only the tip of the iceberg though.

Zambia

axer wrote:

The RUC created this vicious circle.

Now your just plain demonising them , granted in 1969 there attitude was flawed and they could have handled situation better but to accuse them of starting the troubles is big stretch. I also said before if more nationalists had remained within the force this could have worked out better.

On that note I would also have to add here that several catholics did not join the RUC pre 1969 due to intimidation from the IRA. Granted some of them did see it as a protestant force for a protestant people but to impose this on others of their faith was wrong.

axer wrote:

It was also a gross failure by the british government for which I know they will never be held accountable.

If the British where held accountable for every country they left in a complete mess there would be an awful lot of paperwork...I cant argue with you there.

axer wrote:

because what was said in this report had to be said officially. Pity it is only the tip of the iceberg though.

I disagree I am sick to death of reports that cost a fortune to produce coming up with allegations that lead nowhere. This holds true on both side of the border. But thats just my opinion on the report itself and respect the fact that some people like to see these things said officially.

I am pleased to hear Peter Hain has claimed he can see at least one trial as a result of this report. IMO if this was uncovered they should have just proceeded with that one trial.

csk wrote:

It is what he/she is implying. Otherwise why bring it up ?

Wicknight answered this well for me. Thanks for that

Victor

axer wrote:

Yes it was inevitable that if the RUC helped unionists murder innocent civilians then some people would get angry and think they must take the law into their own hands. The RUC created this vicious circle.

I don't think they did. Forces beyond the RUC did.

Jackie laughlin

Voipjunkie,
You cannot seriously think that religion played no part in N. Irish violence. Sure, there are Catholic loyalists (I know a knighted Catholic retired civil servant.) and vice versa but they are very few. Some murders had complex motives but when SF/IRA say they defended Catholics, it is worth pointing out that they murdered more catholics than anyone else. SF/IRA lies must be highlighted time and again as they have an excellent, expensive PR machine engaged in deforming their image into something acceptable.

FTA,
An abstentionist fails to represent those in his or her constituency who voted for someone else. Westminster elections are important in this regard in that they operate the British first-past-the-post system and an MP can be elected with a very small proportion of the total vote.

Let me be frank here, I would not count someone, who voted for a candidate with a violent criminal record or a candidate who had supported murder, as a "good person". There are people who have placed themselves beyond forgiveness or forgetting and they should be expected to live out their lives anonymously.

Democracy must defend itself. It is nonsenses to suggest that because someone can attract votes they should be allowed stand in elections in all situations. It's an easy option as long as people who threaten democracy are a small extreme voice but should they get near power, would it be democratic to allow them to damage or even destroy democracy?

Shield

RedPlanet wrote:

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.

I completely disagree. I have not met one person in the job who doesn't agree with this report. We all know the RUC has a bad history and we certainly didn't need a report to confirm it.

It's only by having good people step forward and joining the PSNI that the force can eventually change internally. Most people here know I'm from Dublin and I'm damn proud of it. I work hard and get no problems that Gardai don't have to put up with themselves. I get the odd comment here and there about the report from the people on the street, but that's about it.

I didn't collude with anyone and neither did any of my colleagues. Slowly but surely, people are starting to see that policing IS changing in Northern Ireland and it's not the same force the RUC was. We are governed by so many people watching what we do now, which means that this type of thing just can't happen anymore without turning more than a few heads.

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

Now your just plain demonising them , granted in 1969 there attitude was flawed and they could have handled situation better but to accuse them of starting the troubles is big stretch. I also said before if more nationalists had remained within the force this could have worked out better.

Why would any catholic support an organisation that was so sectarian?

Zambia232 wrote:

If the British where held accountable for every country they left in a complete mess there would be an awful lot of paperwork...I cant argue with you there.

It is rare that they are held accountable - they literally get away with murder. This should not be the case.

Zambia232 wrote:

I disagree I am sick to death of reports that cost a fortune to produce coming up with allegations that lead nowhere. This holds true on both side of the border. But thats just my opinion on the report itself and respect the fact that some people like to see these things said officially.

I think the families of those affected by the collusion need this report and that is enough of a reason to have it.

psni wrote:

I completely disagree. I have not met one person in the job who doesn't agree with this report. We all know the RUC has a bad history and we certainly didn't need a report to confirm it.

Yes it is needed. It is needed so that people will not brush it off as hearsay. It is needed for the families of those affected by the collusion.

psni wrote:

It's only by having good people step forward and joining the PSNI that the force can eventually change internally. Most people here know I'm from Dublin and I'm damn proud of it. I work hard and get no problems that Gardai don't have to put up with themselves. I get the odd comment here and there about the report from the people on the street, but that's about it.

I didn't collude with anyone and neither did any of my colleagues. Slowly but surely, people are starting to see that policing IS changing in Northern Ireland and it's not the same force the RUC was. We are governed by so many people watching what we do now, which means that this type of thing just can't happen anymore without turning more than a few heads.

It is reports like this and pressure that has created change in the policing up north. I agree, people from all religions and races should step forward and join the PSNI. But you must understand why people are so slow to accept them considering the history of policiing in the North.

Zambia

axer wrote:

Why would any catholic support an organisation that was so sectarian?

The could be unionists...they could wnat to become police officers. They may even have believed like I did in their right to join as I have already stated to make the organisation fairer.

axer wrote:

It is rare that they are held accountable - they literally get away with murder. This should not be the case.

True but that is the case with most goverments the Brits hold no monopoly there.

axer wrote:

I think the families of those affected by the collusion need this report and that is enough of a reason to have it.

I see your point but they in no means hold the monopoly on this. Would you like the figures of IRA victims ...and the amount of families there?

axer wrote:

Yes it is needed. It is needed so that people will not brush it off as hearsay. It is needed for the families of those affected by the collusion.

Without convictions it still is to a degree, hearsay just now official hearsay. As PSNI stated everyone up North knew it anyway.

axer wrote:

It is reports like this and pressure that has created change in the policing up north. I agree, people from all religions and races should step forward and join the PSNI. But you must understand why people are so slow to accept them considering the history of policiing in the North.

The DUP and their party use the same lines in regard to the history the PIRA. Oh and as for your comment on slow to accept Policing , there is currently no lack of Catholic recruits to the PSNI despite SF's refusal to back the police. I would almost go as far to say the same type of people here who dont support the PSNI are in a lot of cases simialar to the type of person who does not support the Gardai down south.

The only people who have currently a reason to hate the PSNI are pitbull owners.

csk

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, completely inevitable.

If you truly believe that then I have to say that it is an incredibly naive view or maybe something far worse...

I can't argue with that if its what you think so we may agree to diasgree.

Maybe because we are discussing RUC collusion ...

A discussion about RUC collusion without an discussion about why the RUC colluded with Loyalists terrorists would be rather bizarre.

Maybe you should follow your own advice.:rolleyes:

I don't agree with all of his points, but at least I bother to try and understand the point he is making, rather than simply tagging on a point he isn't actually making simply to box him into a stereotype of someone who doesn't agree with me.

As I said to Zambia232 "I didn't side step the issue you raised as it is something that I have taken account of long before you raised it"

I know perfectly well the motivations of why it may have happened. My problem is with the word "inevitable" because it suggests to me that rather than explaining why, it is explaining it away

Why did you even ask him was he a Unionists? If he was a Unionists what would that mean?

I didn't ask him if he were a Unionist, I merely pointed out two quotes that lead me to believe he was coming from that point of view. I explained everything in that post if you bothered to read it. I only added "I don't know if you are a Unionist" bit to stop Zambia232 from side stepping the issue I was raising my claiming "don't ask me not a Unionist". It didn't work though did it ?

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

True but that is the case with most goverments the Brits hold no monopoly there.

Saying every one else does it does not justify their actions.

Zambia232 wrote:

I see your point but they in no means hold the monopoly on this. Would you like the figures of IRA victims ...and the amount of families there?

The IRA are and were an illegal organisation - the RUC were public servants with responsibility of maintaining law and order. There is a big difference.

Zambia232 wrote:

Without convictions it still is to a degree, hearsay just now official hearsay. As PSNI stated everyone up North knew it anyway.

Yes, convictions and punishments should be followed but failure to do so is another failure of the British Government.

csk

Zambia232 wrote:

Wicknight answered this well for me. Thanks for that

Well then as I said to him. If that's what you believe then it is very naive. I cannot argue with that.

You see I don't have a problem with you explaining why, I'm fully aware of why this may have happened. It's the fact that the word inevitable leads me to believe you are explaining it away.

The word inevitable suggests that the RUC men who partook in this awful deed are somehow absolved from any blame because they were just victims of circumstance. I don't accept this. The only victims of circumstance were those innocent people who were callously murdered.

The RUC men may have felt they had no choice, they have felt it was them or us, but the the reality is they did have a choice and they chose to do this. There was no flying spaghetti monster pulling strings to make things inevitable. They did not have to do what they did, I believe they made a choice, now what informs that choice is what we should be discussing.

I believe that choice while maybe being informed by their feeling of helplessness or the kill or be killed instinct, was also informed by the attitude that sees debate on this issue in the Northern Asssembly stifled by Unionists, the attitude that sees Willie McCrea elected an MP and MLA and the attitude that implies the Provisional IRA had to be "defeated at all costs".

The RUC collusion was no more inevitable than me getting the bus to work this morning. This time last week it would have appeared inevitable that I would get the bus. Yet this morning I did not get the bus. Why ? Because I made an informed decision that if I wanted to get to work on time I would need to walk.

RedPlanet

I don't see how RUC collusion could be "inevitable" considering they had:
Special Branch, UDR, British Army, Mi5, FRU, Diplock Courts, Northern Ireland Office, HMG, etc etc on their side.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

If you truly believe that then I have to say that it is an incredibly naive view or maybe something far worse...

Right back at you ...

If you truly believe that clamp down on civil liberties and the abuse of political capital by Unionists and Loyalist camps in N.I would not provoke some people on the Catholic side to form of violent resistance you are being quite naive.

How do you think the modern IRA came about in the first place? It wasn't a group of lads who thought it would be fun to be terrorists. It was in response to what they preceived at injustice perpretated by the British/Unionist establishment towards their people. That has always been the reason the IRA reform.

Any situation where you have a large population of humans with a serious issue towards their treatment by another population of humans violence is unfortunately largely inevitable because humans are fundamentally violent creatures.

Even in countries that had successful non-violent campaigns such as India and South Africa, violence still tended to irrupt at uncoordinated isolated events. Put simply it is not possible to either convince or stop everyone from acting in a violent manner.

That doesn't mean all the population will act violently. It doesn't even mean that a majority of the population will act violent. But some inevitably will.

Neither does this mean that that violence is justified, or to be condoned. It is only to be expected, argued against and prepared for.

csk wrote:

Maybe you should follow your own advice.:rolleyes:

I have absolutely no problem discussing why RUC/Loyalist collusion took place.

csk wrote:

My problem is with the word "inevitable" because it suggests to me that rather than explaining why, it is explaining it away

Well then I would suggest you stop being silly.

Inevitable does not mean "explained away." Quite the opposite in fact.

I have no idea why you think that beyond possibly that your posts suggest you have a stereotype that anyone who doesn't instantly say that the British/Unionists are just plan evil is attempting to justify their actions.

csk wrote:

I didn't ask him if he were a Unionist, I merely pointed out two quotes that lead me to believe he was coming from that point of view.

And if he was? Are all Unionists apologetics for terrorist violence?

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

I don't see how RUC collusion could be "inevitable" considering they had:
Special Branch, UDR, British Army, Mi5, FRU, Diplock Courts, Northern Ireland Office, HMG, etc etc on their side.

RUC collusion was inevitable for a number of reasons -

1 - The Republican groups were killing Unionists, including RUC men, while at the same time neither the RUC nor the Army were having much of an impact in destroying the IRA. This fact would naturally lead to some RUC men wishing to help the Loyalist terrorist groups, who were not constrained by such red tape as the rule of law, hit back at the perceived Republican threat.

2 - The RUC has long been a basis for Unionists control in the North. You only get that far by having some strongly anti-Catholic members in the ranks. These members of the RUC, with already strong anti-Catholic feeling, would no doubt regularly come into contact with Loyalists who shared a similar "outlook" towards Catholics and Republicans.

3 - The controls and accountability were not in place to ensure that individual RUC officers, or groups of RUC officers, could not collude with Loyalists using official means or resources.

As such collusion by some members of the RUC was unfortunately inevitable. Is anyone here seriously surprised by this report? Does anyone find it very hard to believe that some form of collusion would actually take place in that environment at that time (apart from the DUP of course).

Zombrex

csk wrote:

The word inevitable suggests that the RUC men who partook in this awful deed are somehow absolved from any blame because they were just victims of circumstance.

How does it suggest that?

If you put 10 gang bangers from the Bloods and 10 gang bangers from the Crips in an LA prison cell together and all the guards leave them alone it is "inevitable" that someone is going to get hurt or killed.

That doesn't mean a murder didn't happen. Everyone is responsible for their own actions. But that doesn't mean everyone makes the correct choice. It would be incredibly naive to assume everyone just will.

Which is why LA prison officers don't put different gangs in the same cells in the first place.

csk wrote:

The RUC men may have felt they had no choice, they have felt it was them or us, but the the reality is they did have a choice and they chose to do this.

It was inevitable that some would choose the violent option.

csk wrote:

There was no flying spaghetti monster pulling strings to make things inevitable.

That isn't what inevitable means. It does not mean something else decides what happens.

csk wrote:

They did not have to do what they did, I believe they made a choice, now what informs that choice is what we should be discussing.

That is what we are discussing, if you would just bother to read the posts properly instead of fixating on the idea that people are justifying the actions of the RUC.

csk

Wicknight wrote:

I have absolutely no problem discussing why RUC/Loyalist collusion took place

.

Maybe you just have mental block when it comes to my posts.
That was not what I was referring to. It was although not very clear, this specifically:

but at least I bother to try and understand the point he is making

Am I to now believe that I was correct in assuming you are not reading my points properly?

Wicknight wrote:

That is what we are discussing, if you would just bother to read the posts properly instead of fixating on the idea that people are justifying the actions of the RUC.

ME wrote:

I believe that choice while maybe being informed by their feeling of helplessness or the kill or be killed instinct, was also informed by the attitude that sees debate on this issue in the Northern Asssembly stifled by Unionists, the attitude that sees Willie McCrea elected an MP and MLA and the attitude that implies the Provisional IRA had to be "defeated at all costs".

:rolleyes: Futhermore I stated:

ME wrote:

The RUC collusion was no more inevitable than me getting the bus to work this morning. This time last week it would have appeared inevitable that I would get the bus. Yet this morning I did not get the bus. Why ? Because I made an informed decision that if I wanted to get to work on time I would need to walk.

Maybe if you could address the points I am making as opposed to selectively quoting me in order to score points we could have a discussion. My points all along were intended for Zambia232, he answered and I responded. Your involvement, I have to say, has been both unnecessary and unhelpful.

oscarBravo

Calm down, both of you. Discuss the issues dispassionately or don't bother. Wicknight, you're here long enough to know you're not allowed to call people silly.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

.
Maybe you just have mental block when it comes to my posts.

That was not what I was referring to. It was although not very clear, this specifically:

Am I to now believe that I was correct in assuming you are not reading my points properly?

I can only go on what you post csk. If you post

wicknight wrote:

Maybe because we are discussing RUC collusion ...

A discussion about RUC collusion without an discussion about why the RUC colluded with Loyalists terrorists would be rather bizarre.

Maybe you should follow your own advice

I can only assume you are referring to the bit of my post you quoted.

csk wrote:

.
Maybe if you could address the points I am making as opposed to selectively quoting me in order to score points we could have a discussion.

My only issue with your points csk was posts like this -

csk wrote:

wicknight wrote:

As Zambia232 ever actually said that it is excused because it was inevitable? As far as I can tell he is saying the exact opposite.

It is what he/she is implying. Otherwise why bring it up ?

It was not implied at all. In fact Zambia stated explicitly a number of times that he was not atttempting justifying or dismissing the actions of the RUC, simply attempting to frame in an Irish context what happened.

I agree 100% with him that if a Loyalists started attacking the Garda on regular instances it would be equally inevitable that some of the guards would wish to take matters into the illegal realm. Irish people have long supported the illegal IRA in the North.

If you refuse to accept that saying something is inevitable does not mean one is attempting to justify it there isn't a whole lot more I can say on the matter.

csk wrote:

My points all along were intended for Zambia232, he answered and I responded.

I admit that I initial posted to defend Zambia's actual position because I felt his posts were being railroaded into a position I could see little evidence that he actually supported (and lost of explicit posts stating that he didn't support it).

Zambia has since thanked me for my contributions and I'm glad I could have helped him out.

I certainly don't agree with everything he has posted as I do think the collusion report was necessary and helpful, despite the fact that no charges are forth coming. But everyone should judge his posts on what he writes, not how they box his opinions in based on some stereotype of him or some idea of what he is secretly implying.

Since then you have asked myself a number of questions to which I replied to all of them, and had the replies largely ignored beyond a rather weak dismissal of being "incredibly naive view or maybe something far worse...", what ever that means.

You appear to think that saying something is inevitable must imply that any responsibility on a person for what happens is void. I have attempted to explain that that is not the case, and was certainly not what was meant by the original use of the term, by using such examples as the an LA gang cell inevitably leading to violence.

But if you are determined to view everyone post that you don't instantly agree with as being a justification for RUC/Loyalist violence there seems little chance that a discussion can been taken seriously.

csk wrote:

I believe that choice while maybe being informed by their feeling of helplessness or the kill or be killed instinct, was also informed by the attitude that sees debate on this issue in the Northern Asssembly stifled by Unionists, the attitude that sees Willie McCrea elected an MP and MLA and the attitude that implies the Provisional IRA had to be "defeated at all costs".

So do I. And I imagine so does Zambian, though I don't like to speak for him before he has a chance to comment.

His point was that it was inevitable that some in the RUC would hold these views, just as it would be inevitable that if the RUC was replaced by the guards, and the IRA by Loyalists, it would be inevitable that some in the guards would do the same.

It is inevitable because it is human nature. Some people, even only the tiny minority, will retaliate in an illegal, violent, fashion. That is why the IRA exists, it is why the UVF exists, and it is why there was RUC collusion (and probably Garda collusion as well)

It isn't right nor is it justified, but the fact that it will happen unless prevented must be recognised and most importantly understood if collusion in the future is to be weeded out or stopped from starting in the first place.

It is very easy to dismiss the RUC members, those who colluded and those in general, as simply evil bastards, but in reality they were exactly the same as the IRA members that were prepared to kill for their cause, IRA members that a lot of posters here seem to have little trouble identifying with or understanding.

Before one can deal with a situation one must understand why it happens in the first place.

A Dub in Glasgo

If it is inevitable that police officers would become part of death squads, does it make the inaction of the British Government worse? Nobody has been brought to account for partaking in and allowing state sponsored death squads.

This report was needed as there were/are plenty of people who accuse people of spreading 'tin foil hat' stuff when this topic comes up. Now that the report of this one small gang in one tiny area of NI is out, the time for accountibility is now. Will accountibility happen though? Do not hold your breath.

Zambia

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If it is inevitable that police officers would become part of death squads.Does it make the inaction of the British Government worse? Nobody has been brought to account for partaking in and allowing state sponsored death squads.

Steady the police did not become part of death squads. They are implicated in passing information to loyalists paras and allowing informants away with murder. They where not roaming the streets picking off people. Thats bad enough without escalalting it.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

This report was needed as there were/are plenty of people who accuse people of spreading 'tin foil hat' stuff when this topic comes up. Now that the report of this one small gang in one tiny area of NI is out, the time for accountibility is now. Will accountibility happen though? Do not hold your breath

Fair enough I wont..but as i said before everyone is under no illusion it happened. Even the ones that wont say it and unless you convict these members of the force that where involved in a court they never will. So I share your sentiment that justice occurs.

csk wrote:

I believe that choice while maybe being informed by their feeling of helplessness or the kill or be killed instinct, was also informed by the attitude that sees debate on this issue in the Northern Asssembly stifled by Unionists, the attitude that sees Willie McCrea elected an MP and MLA and the attitude that implies the Provisional IRA had to be "defeated at all costs".

Hardly surprising considering the PIRA had the attitude they had to be "defeated at all costs".

A couple of months ago some PSNI officers where caught having a orgy in a police station on camera.
(The camera was installed because sweets where being stolen from the station machine, now that's regulation). A long time ago women where allowed join the police in the UK. Since that day it was "inevitable" that they would end up sleeping with their colleagues. Given time and proximity to each other.

In the same vein of thought if you take 8000 officers , murder there friends & familys over a 35 year period. Some off them are going to come to the conculsion that the end justifys the mens and step outside the law to achieve revenge.

Now this does not excuse them , just as the enrolment of women into the police does not justify adultery. (PSNI hope your reading this?). I am stating as clear as I possibly can that the collusion the RUC where implicated in is simply something that happens in long prolongued civil war type situations.

Now as you rightly stated they where in a different position to the PIRA and should have held higher ideals. But lets remember the ideals of the people they where facing, who to a man believed they where all cannon fodder including their family's.

I researched this and in the end feel they deserved the recognition in the end for not all colluding. I think there is a very big deal being made over the very few who did.

Blackjack

Zambia232 wrote:

Now as you rightly stated they where in a different position to the PIRA and should have held higher ideals. But lets remember the ideals of the people they where facing, who to a man believed they where all cannon fodder including their family's.

I researched this and in the end feel they deserved the recognition in the end for not all colluding. I think there is a very big deal being made over the very few who did.

Personally, if my tax money is paying for someones service, I don't expect that service to include that person colluding with someone else to kill me, or someone who shares the same religion as me, or as a solicitor represents someone of the same relgion as me. I could even extend it to cases where it being something like a democracy, where if someone is accused of a crime, then the solicitor who might represent that person should not be threatened to be killed.

Maybe I just have a skewed view of what a democracy should be, or what tax money is supposed to pay for.

Zambia

Blackjack wrote:

Personally, if my tax money is paying for someones service, I don't expect that service to include that person colluding with someone else to kill me, or someone who shares the same religion as me, or as a solicitor represents someone of the same relgion as me. I could even extend it to cases where it being something like a democracy, where if someone is accused of a crime, then the solicitor who might represent that person should not be threatened to be killed.

Maybe I just have a skewed view of what a democracy should be, or what tax money is supposed to pay for.

No one said it was right or democratic ..and if your tax money paid for such a person then your tax money should be utilised to catch try and convict that said same person your tax money was paying to collude.

What i dont like is my hard earned tax money paying for a report that would have cost a fair bit to tell people something which everyone already knew. I am sure the families of the the victims would be far better served by a conviction. Than a report that most of the posters here have stated they believe will not lead to the convistion of anyone.

Would there be any piont in next week the Northern ireland office producing a report that said the IRA killed people in 1990?

axer

Zambia232 wrote:

What i dont like is my hard earned tax money paying for a report that would have cost a fair bit to tell people something which everyone already knew. I am sure the families of the the victims would be far better served by a conviction. Than a report that most of the posters here have stated they believe will not lead to the convistion of anyone.

Would there be any piont in next week the Northern ireland office producing a report that said the IRA killed people in 1990?

You keep talking about the IRA as if they are some official organisation. There is a huge difference between an illegal terrorist organisation and the legal upholders of the law (at least thats what they were supposed to be.

Shield

Zambia232 wrote:

PSNI hope your reading this?

Yes I am reading and I think I see the point you're trying to make. My point is that there are bad apples in each and every single police force the world over.

I hope you all understand that this discussion can and will never end. I know that bad things have happened. The big difference now is we have an Ombudsman who has powers of arrest over us. We are watched and monitored closely and carefully by many external groups that didn't exist when these events occurred.

Here's a dilemma to give you an idea of the type of decision a senior officer was faced with recently: A man knocked an old lady over and made off with her handbag. She broke her hip during the fall. He was arrested and said he would give valuable information leading to the arrest of others involved in a much bigger crime if the charges against him were dropped. The family of the elderly woman were happy that he was caught and are awaiting his day in court.

You're the senior officer.

On a much bigger scale, this was roughly the type of decision that was placed before those who turned the other way.

Let me "off" him, or he "offs" 10.

You're the senior officer.

Zombrex

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

If it is inevitable that police officers would become part of death squads, does it make the inaction of the British Government worse?

Do you mean now or then? If you mean now I was under the impression that no charges were being brought because there is not enough evidence to hold up in a criminal investigation. I'm not sure this would be classified as in action, though I suppose one has to first accept that that is why no charges are being brought.

If you mean back then then yes it does make the inaction of the British Government, who as far as I can tell completely failed (or didn't even think about) putting in place systems that would prevent collusion even worse, since it should have been obvious to everything that this was going to happen at some point.

Zombrex

Zambia232 wrote:

A couple of months ago some PSNI officers where caught having a orgy in a police station on camera.

Just like the DUP I completely refuse to accept this happend without hard evidence. I require pictures and video of this orgy now!!

Zambia

axer wrote:

You keep talking about the IRA as if they are some official organisation. There is a huge difference between an illegal terrorist organisation and the legal upholders of the law (at least thats what they were supposed to be.

I accept there is. I am not condoning murder on any side.

And PSNI's piont is valid every police force has bad apples ours just had a worse playground.

They should be dealt with the same as any other bad apple in a police force they should be routed out and removed from the force.

nacho libre

Zambia232 wrote:

I accept there is. I am not condoning murder on any side.

And PSNI's piont is valid every police force has bad apples ours just had a worse playground.

They should be dealt with the same as any other bad apple in a police force they should be routed out and removed from the force.

Didn't Gordon Kerr report directly to Margaret Thatcher? Have you heard of the Joint Support Group which operated in Northern Ireland? This cover name for the FRU clearly illustrates that these activities, which clearly broke the law, were systematic and widespread. They were not just the actions of a "few bad apples"

Zombrex

nacho libre wrote:

Have you heard of the Joint Support Group which operated in Northern Ireland? This cover name for the FRU clearly illustrates that these activities, which clearly broke the law, were systematic and widespread. They were not just the actions of a "few bad apples"

I was under the impression that the Force Research Unit was part of British Army Intelligence concerned with counter-intelligence, not part of the RUC.

I understand that it is believed by some that the FRU directed the RUC on a number of occasions, through the TCG, to remain clear of areas they claimed they were working in them, allowing Loyalists to carry out assignments in these areas.

I wasn't aware that the FRU, which was a relatively small counter-intelligence group that still operates in places like Iraq under the term JSG, recruited from the RUC though.

Zambia

nacho libre wrote:

Didn't Gordon Kerr report directly to Margaret Thatcher? Have you heard of the Joint Support Group which operated in Northern Ireland? This cover name for the FRU clearly illustrates that these activities, which clearly broke the law, were systematic and widespread. They were not just the actions of a "few bad apples"

I said there was a few bad apples in the RUC, You are now going further a field into a separate force. Namely the Force Research Unit a military outfit operating out of Lisburn at the time.