Collusion confirmed.

Blackjack

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?

The issue is that this reports confirms what was being denied for a number of years. It can be no longer denied as a fantasy created by Republicans.

Unfortunately in NI it's all very well knowing something is true, proving it appears to be the requirement before one side will actually accept it was not a fabrication by another.

Zambia

Blackjack wrote:

The issue is that this reports confirms what was being denied for a number of years. It can be no longer denied as a fantasy created by Republicans.

Of course it can a democracy relies on the principle of innocent till proven guilty, this report does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt anyones involvement in collusion. It does to people who want to hear it.

Blackjack

Zambia232 wrote:

Of course it can a democracy relies on the principle of innocent till proven guilty, this report does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt anyones involvement in collusion. It does to people who want to hear it.

And of course NI has been a model of Democracy. Are you saying that the report is untrue?.

Zambia

Blackjack wrote:

And of course NI has been a model of Democracy. Are you saying that the report is untrue?.

And of course NI has been a model of Democracy Thank you we do try:)

Nope I am saying it does not prove or disprove that it happened. Personnally i am of the opinion it probably did happen but on the strength of this report no action acan be taken.

Blackjack

Zambia232 wrote:

And of course NI has been a model of Democracy Thank you we do try:)

Nope I am saying it does not prove or disprove that it happened. Personnally i am of the opinion it probably did happen but on the strength of this report no action acan be taken.

You seem to have moved a bit. Earlier it was a report that told everyone something they already knew. Then it moved to only proving to those that wanted to hear it, and now its probably something that did happen.

Seriously, those that colluded were no better than the IRA, and were equally guilty of terrorism, if not more so, as they were deliberatly breaking the laws they were employed to uphold.

Zambia

Blackjack wrote:

You seem to have moved a bit. Earlier it was a report that told everyone something they already knew. Then it moved to only proving to those that wanted to hear it, and now its probably something that did happen.

Seriously, those that colluded were no better than the IRA, and were equally guilty of terrorism, if not more so, as they were deliberatly breaking the laws they were employed to uphold.

I have not moved at all

It did tell everyone something we already knew.

To those that want to hear it is proof.

I said I think it probably did happen I stated that this report does not prove it.

So I fail to see it's benefit.

No-one is denying anyone that did collude should be punished I have not seen one post defending the actions of anyone who did such a thing.

csk

Zambia232 wrote:

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.

No that's not inevitable at all. Look at it this way, imagine the ugliest, most unattractive women you have ever had the misfortune to meet. Now imagine having to work with them. Given time and proximity to those women, do you think it inevitable you would engage in an orgy with them ?

It is inevitable you will have to eat something. It is not however, inevitable that you will eat a fish. Do you see the difference between those two statements.

In the same vein, it was inevitable that the RUC in the situation they were in would feel the need to do something. It was not inevitable they would feel the need to collude with murder gangs.

I think there is a very big deal being made over the very few who did.

Are you still not explaining it away ? Because that is what it definitly looks like to me now.

I have to say that my original suspicions are somewhat vindicated by this statement and it proves despite Wicknight's histrionics and his attempts to shout down my points, that my original line of questioning was extremely valid.

As someone else noted you have changed your position or at least attempted to modify it, first it was the Nationalists fault for not joining the RUC, then it was a "simple numbers issue nothing more", then it was "inevitable", now it seems it may not even be true.

As you said no one is defending these actions but there is one person trying to explain them away.

Zambia

csk wrote:

It is inevitable you will have to eat something. It is not however, inevitable that you will eat a fish. Do you see the difference between those two statements.

The statement was more like being in a room with nothing but fish..

csk wrote:

In the same vein, it was inevitable that the RUC in the situation they were in would feel the need to do something. It was not inevitable they would feel the need to collude with murder gangs.

No but the something they would do would always be beyond legal means in the case in the North the loyalist Paras where a way to distance themselves in other conflicts the police did there own dirty work.

csk wrote:

Are you still not explaining it away ? Because that is what it definitly looks like to me now.

That does not surprise me.

csk wrote:

I have to say that my original suspicions are somewhat vindicated by this statement and it proves despite Wicknight's histrionics and his attempts to shout down my points, that my original line of questioning was extremely valid.

It was and I answered it, you just keep asking it.

csk wrote:

As someone else noted you have changed your position or at least attempted to modify it, first it was the Nationalists fault for not joining the RUC

Nope I said the fact they didnt join ,did not help and IMO contributed to a possible bias in the force.

csk wrote:

, then it was a "simple numbers issue nothing more",

Me wrote:

You have completly lost the piont, I said that it could be argued,
if no catholics joined the police , then you will get a wholly protestant force.
Seems a simple issue of numbers nothing more.

Here is the original comment its a pure number statement you read into it what you wanted to pick up on.

If catholics leave + no catholics join = wholly protestant force

csk wrote:

then it was "inevitable", now it seems it may not even be true.

It may not ..I see no-one in court for it. However as I have said to you before on several occasions in every conflict of this nature behavior like this this has happened. In the conflict in the north all the markers where in place for it to happen again.

csk wrote:

As you said no one is defending these actions but there is one person trying to explain them away.

Really am a bit tired of you putting words in my mouth, I am trying to explain these actions not explain them away.

You on the other hand are of the opinion as you stated originally

csk wrote:

(decrepit attitude of Unionism crept into the "impartial" police)

was the reason they began this type of behaviour.

So in an effort to stop this to and fro here are three question feel free to side step them if you wish.

1: Do you indeed believe this collusion mentioned in this report (1990) was a result of Unionist ideals in the police or in an attempt to defeate the PIRA an organsisation they saw as out to kill them?

2: Do you believe the Gardai under this type of attack would not have resorted to this behavoir?

3: On the strength of this report if on a jury would you send any off these officers to prison?

Zambia

:rolleyes:

Blackjack

Zambia232 wrote:

I have not moved at all

It did tell everyone something we already knew.

To those that want to hear it is proof.

I said I think it probably did happen I stated that this report does not prove it.

So I fail to see it's benefit.

You have moved and jigged, shame you fail to acknowledge it.
The benefit of this report is that Collusion has been confirmed. It can no longer be denied as a figment of imagination.

Zambia232 wrote:

No-one is denying anyone that did collude should be punished I have not seen one post defending the actions of anyone who did such a thing.

Zambia232 wrote:

I think there is a very big deal being made over the very few who did.

Well, it is a bit of a big deal to those who died as a result of collusion.

Zambia

Blackjack wrote:

You have moved and jigged, shame you fail to acknowledge it.

I disagree I have stated exactly my position in the post you just quoted and defended it previously. I wont again.

Blackjack wrote:

Well, it is a bit of a big deal to those who died as a result of collusion.

I am sure it is the time would be better spent bringing about a conviction rather than a confirmation.

csk

Zambia232 wrote:

The statement was more like being in a room with nothing but fish..

So the RUC officers were in a room full of murder gangs waiting to be colluded with ? or was it a room full of the PIRA with guns to their heads telling them to collude ?

No but the something they would do would always be beyond legal means in the case in the North the loyalist Paras where a way to distance themselves in other conflicts the police did there own dirty work.

Why would the something "always be beyond legal means" ? Could they not have always stayed within legal means, like they were supposed to ? Did they not have a choice here ?

1: Do you indeed believe this collusion mentioned in this report (1990) was a result of Unionist ideals in the police or in an attempt to defeate the PIRA an organsisation they saw as out to kill them?

What is your defintion of Unionist ideals? The sectarian attitude of Unionism that is well documented is what I am talking about. That attitude seems to be a fundamental part of the Unionist establishment. The attitude was there pre-Troubles, it was there during the Troubles and it seems it is still there in some quarters, especially those who can't bring themselves to admit what this report may actually mean. So yes I do believe that that attitude played a fundamental role in RUC collusion.

2: Do you believe the Gardai under this type of attack would not have resorted to this behavoir?

I believe the reason the Gardaí never came under this type of attack in the first place was because they did not fundamentally have a sectarian attitude nor did this state.

I read somewhere else on this site that there were/are roughly only 14 protestant members of An Garda Síochána (don't know how true that is) but it seems that it if it was the case, then it could be argued as "a simple numbers issue nothing more" yet there was no widespread discrimination of the protestant community here in the Republic of Ireland during peace times.

3: On the strength of this report if on a jury would you send any off these officers to prison?

I read recently there are over a thousand cases of alleged collusion, this report is only the tip of the ice berg and I would say that the hostile and unhelpful attitude in giving evidence experienced by those compliling this report would mean that to prove beyond doubt in a court of law would be difficult. I don't however think that is anything to be proud about or a defence to lessen what this report means. The idea that collusion was the stuff of tin foil hats and over worked republican imaginations has come to an end with this report.

You have modified your position somewhat, now whether that was due to you not explaining properly what that position was or for some other reason is immaterial to me. I don't see the point in continuing to argue with you especially if your " :rolleyes: " post was aimed at me for not answering soon enough. Some of us indeed have lives out side of the internet.

Zambia

csk wrote:

So the RUC officers were in a room full of murder gangs waiting to be colluded with ? or was it a room full of the PIRA with guns to their heads telling them to collude ?

I dont get you

csk wrote:

Why would the something "always be beyond legal means" ? Could they not have always stayed within legal means, like they were supposed to ? Did they not have a choice here ?

They did have a choice here but history has stated that in every situation of this nature some of the forces have strayed.

csk wrote:

What is your defintion of Unionist ideals?

A person wishing to remain in the United Kingdom

csk wrote:

The sectarian attitude of Unionism that is well documented is what I am talking about. That attitude seems to be a fundamental part of the Unionist establishment. The attitude was there pre-Troubles, it was there during the Troubles and it seems it is still there in some quarters, especially those who can't bring themselves to admit what this report may actually mean. So yes I do believe that that attitude played a fundamental role in RUC collusion.

I have already admitted it probably did happen, I have no problem doing so I just believe the collusion was a result of the pressure these officers came under in what was a very dirty conflict. Not the fact that they may have believed the IRA was ever going to win.

csk wrote:

I believe the reason the Gardaí never came under this type of attack in the first place was because they did not fundamentally have a sectarian attitude nor did this state.

This is not answering the question, if they did , not why they did not was the question. I do not believe the Gardai are at present bias in any way. Which makes them a good example of given the pressure the RUC where under, was directed at them are they above this type of behavior?

This is the basis for my original piont so I have to press you on it.

csk wrote:

I read recently there are over a thousand cases of alleged collusion, this report is only the tip of the ice berg and I would say that the hostile and unhelpful attitude in giving evidence experienced by those compliling this report would mean that to prove beyond doubt in a court of law would be difficult. I don't however think that is anything to be proud about or a defence to lessen what this report means. The idea that collusion was the stuff of tin foil hats and over worked republican imaginations has come to an end with this report.

So thats a no, we are gonna have to differ on this as I see no piont in reports that IMO no-one is held to account for , no reparitions are made , and everyone is simply left hanging. You on the other hand do.

csk wrote:

if your " :rolleyes: " post was aimed at me for not answering soon enough.

nope it was just to highlight this thread to someone mentioning collusion in another but I am glad you came back.