Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

el pasco

HansHolzel wrote: »

Other posters may be interested in the definition of a key term from an impeccable source.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy as:

- a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives:

- a state governed under a system of democracy:
- control of an organization or group by the majority of its members:
- the practice or principles of social equality:

...which do NOT include: interning taigs without trial; gerrymandering local government; terrorizing the artificial minority with regular and 'special' police units almost wholly drawn from the artificial majority; denying the minority equality in jobs and housing; and having a Special Powers Act that attracts the envy of a prime minister of apartheid South Africa.

Well said

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

and...?

Well that is a spefic case which he could of denied but did not contest what the HET said about systematic state collusion

That's my point

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

That doesn't follow. But if you expect him to deny any collusion took place, you'd be on your own - collusion has been known about, and some who were involved were jailed for their activities. Still doesn't support a theory of systemic state collusion though.

So Smithwicks can't prove collusion.
He also can't prove that there was no collusion.

So he guessed?
Well worth the 15 million that Tribunal.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

I'm well aware what the classic definition of democracy is. That doesn't remove from the fact that NI is a representative democracy, just as this state is, even though it wouldn't pass muster by the Oxford Dictionary definition.

Oh so now you're changing the goal posts eh?

So if you do not use a definition is then what is the point?
As use definitions to define our point of views

el pasco

tayto lover wrote: »

So Smithwicks can't prove collusion.
He also can't prove that there was no collusion.

So he guessed?
Well worth the 15 million that Tribunal.

Well said
So by that logic if the state just destroyed all evidence if collusion then none existed even if it DID happen

Just because you can't find any evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen

It what they call a cover up!!

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

So Smithwicks can't prove collusion.
He also can't prove that there was no collusion.

So he guessed?
Well worth the 15 million that Tribunal.

None of the tribunals role was to prove anything. They're not courts.
Smithwick was clear that there was collusion. I'm not sure how his report could be clearer in that regard.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Oh so now you're changing the goal posts eh?

So if you do not use a definition is then what is the point?
As use definitions to define our point of views

Do you accept you participate in a democratic electoral system?

If so, you'll recognise that the people of NI also do. Regardless of what your dictionary says.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

None of the tribunals role was to prove anything. They're not courts.
Smithwick was clear that there was collusion. I'm not sure how his report could be clearer in that regard.

Smithwick did not say there was collusion in his report
He even contradicted himself in the report

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Do you accept you participate in a democratic electoral system?

If so, you'll recognise that the people of NI also do. Regardless of what your dictionary says.

This is not my dictionary definition it is the Oxford English Dictionary definition

During the troubles would of NI be regarded as a representing democracy especially during the early dark days NO
Would the USA be regarded as a representive democracy when it denied black people the right to vote No

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

None of the tribunals role was to prove anything. They're not courts.
Smithwick was clear that there was collusion. I'm not sure how his report could be clearer in that regard.

But he could prove nothing. So how was he clear.
He had three names and cleared them SO the rest of the garda are now suspected in that case. All except the three suspects.
Smithwicks has left things worse in my opinion.
I could have come to the same conclusion in one minute for a cost of 1 euro.
The whole thing is just codswallop.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

None of the tribunals role was to prove anything. They're not courts.
Smithwick was clear that there was collusion. I'm not sure how his report could be clearer in that regard.

The tribunal is there to establish FACTS though which I'm not sure it even did a good at

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Smithwick did not say there was collusion in his report

You should tell Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan. He seems to believe he did, and that such collusion wasn't widespread.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

During the troubles would of NI be regarded as a representing democracy especially during the early dark days NO
Would the USA be regarded as a representive democracy when it denied black people the right to vote No

No-one was denied the right to vote in NI. There was, and is a universal franchise.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

You should tell Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan. He seems to believe he did, and that such collusion wasn't widespread.

Smithwicks report is an enigma.
It leaves more question than answers. He contradicted himself several times.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

I could have come to the same conclusion in one minute for a cost of 1 euro.
The whole thing is just codswallop.

Thing is, he didn't just pluck that conclusion out of the ether. Which, I'm guessing, would be your 1 euro technique. He investigated thoroughly and produced a set of findings on that basis.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Thing is, he didn't just pluck that conclusion out of the ether. Which, I'm guessing, would be your 1 euro technique. He investigated thoroughly and produced a set of findings on that basis.

With absolutely no proof of anything.

I firmly believe that he felt he had to blame someone because of the amount of money he spent on a fruitless Tribunal. Many flawed conclusions arrived at.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

With absolutely no proof of anything..

One more time? No tribunal has ever proved anything - ever. That's not what they do.

tayto lover wrote: »

I firmly believe that he felt he had to blame someone because of the amount of money he spent on a fruitless Tribunal.

I'll mark that down as Pet Theory 1... and file it in the appropriate place.

tayto lover wrote: »

Many flawed conclusions arrived at.

So you keep stating - without specifying anything of course.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

No-one was denied the right to vote in NI. There was, and is a universal franchise.

I never said that anyone was denied the right to vote in NI

Don't put words into my mouth

Where can you quote me where I said that people were denied the right to vote in NI quote me if you can

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

I never said that anyone was denied the right to vote in NI

Don't put words into my mouth

Where can you quote me where I said that people were denied the right to vote in NI quote me if you can

You introduced the subject of the restriction of the electoral franchise in the USA, in a discussion about NI.
You claimed that NI was not a democratic state.
If you now accept that NI has/had a universal franchise, and operated a democratic representative electoral system, then we can move on.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

You should tell Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan. He seems to believe he did, and that such collusion wasn't widespread.

Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan can believe what he wants but the reports contradicts itself in where there collusion actually happened or not

This is written by Judge Smithwich

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

You introduced the subject of the restriction of the electoral franchise in the USA, in a discussion about NI.
You claimed that NI was not a democratic state.
If you now accept that NI has/had a universal franchise, and operated a democratic representative electoral system, then we can move on.

Universal franchise basically means everyone can vote but democratic state means more than that and it is more wide ranging one is not exclusively the other

For instance Turkey have universal franchise but is not a democratic state as it represses Kurds for example

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Universal franchise basically means everyone can vote but democratic state means more than that and it is more wide ranging one is not exclusively the other

Care to spell out specifically how you believe NI was not a representative democracy? Feel free to refer to your dictionary.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Care to spell out specifically how you believe NI was not a representative democracy? Feel free to refer to your dictionary.

Referring to the Oxford English Dictionary on democracy where it says

The practice or principles of social equality

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan can believe what he wants but the reports contradicts itself in where there collusion actually happened or not

This is written by Judge Smithwich

What is?

What are these contradictions?

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

One more time? No tribunal has ever proved anything - ever. That's not what they do.


I'll mark that down as Pet Theory 1... and file it in the appropriate place.


My pet theory has as much credibility as Smithwicks has.
There are holes all through his conclusions.
Why did he not recommend that they have a proper investigation?

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Referring to the Oxford English Dictionary where it says

The practice or principles of social equality

And how does that not apply to NI?

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

You should tell Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan. He seems to believe he did, and that such collusion wasn't widespread.

Commissioner Callinan will state what his political masters tell him to state in fairness.
Garda Commissioners are politically appointed. That is just wrong.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

[My pet theory has as much credibility as Smithwicks has.?

Eh, no.

tayto lover wrote: »

There are holes all through his conclusions.

Such as...? You seem very coy on specifics.

tayto lover wrote: »

Why did he not recommend that they have a proper investigation?

Because there's enough evidence in his estimation to pursue a criminal investigation. Which is not what he was tasked to do.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

And how does that not apply to NI?

Well during the early 1970's did certain did not apply to a lot of people

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Commissioner Callinan will state what his political masters tell him to state in fairness.
Garda Commissioners are politically appointed. That is just wrong.

The tribunal was not a political body, and I've rather more regard for the Garda Commissioner's assessment of whether the guards were accused of collusion in the tribunal's report, than some anonymous keyboard warrior who reckons he could do a better job for a euro. But maybe that's just me.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Well during the early 1970's did certain did not apply to a lot of people

Like how?

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

If you now accept that NI has/had a universal franchise, and operated a democratic representative electoral system, then we can move on.

They didn't. NI council elections operated under the control of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, until abolished in 1972. The franchise was based in part on ratepayer suffrage, i.e. property based qualifications.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Eh, no.


Such as...? You seem very coy on specifics.

He cleared the 3 most suitable suspects thus casting blame on probably hundreds of non-suspects and probably decent hard-working garda members.
I wonder how they feel? He also gave credance to some very shady people.


Because there's enough evidence in his estimation to pursue a criminal investigation. Which is not what he was tasked to do.

How is there enough evidence. If he had evidence then surely he'd have produced it.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

They didn't. NI council elections operated under the control of the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, until abolished in 1972. The franchise was based in part on ratepayer suffrage, i.e. property based qualifications.

That's council elections - not parliamentary elections. And the same ratepayer restriction applied in England until 1949. There was a universal franchise for the representative parliamentary democracy in NI.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

How is there enough evidence. If he had evidence then surely he'd have produced it.

You were about to produce some specific instances of contradictions in the report?

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Like how?

Well let me see hmm nationalist getting beating up for going on civil rights marches that's one
Catholics being illegally rounded up and imprisioned and beating up and having an sectarian state and police force and army

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

The tribunal was not a political body, and I've rather more regard for the Garda Commissioner's assessment of whether the guards were accused of collusion in the tribunal's report, than some anonymous keyboard warrior who reckons he could do a better job for a euro. But maybe that's just me.

Even the Commissioner was doubtful about the Tribunals findings. You could see it in his face but he had to satisfy his political masters even if he did it grudgingly.
The Tribunal was a waste of public money but very lucrative for Smithwicks and his crew. A cash cow just like all the other Tribunals.

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

That's council elections

Your point being?

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Well let me see hmm nationalist getting beating up for going on civil rights marches that's one
Catholics being illegally rounded up and imprisioned and beating up and having an sectarian state and police force and army

Did that state have principles which denied social equality?

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Your point being?

Council elections play no role in parliamentary elections - the democratic underpinnings of the state, nor in a universal franchise for the same.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

Even the Commissioner was doubtful about the Tribunals findings. You could see it in his face

If you say so. :rolleyes:

Those specific instances of contradictions...?

Tramps Like Us

alastair wrote: »

That's council elections - not parliamentary elections. And the same ratepayer restriction applied in England until 1949. There was a universal franchise for the representative parliamentary democracy in NI.

Why didnt you tell us what the unionists did after Westminster decided to extend the franchise to everyone?

Votes were also limited to rate payers, which was worse on catholics. However in 1945 the new Labour government in Britain abolished this restricted franchise and granted universal suffrage – Stormont managed to be excluded from this and they actually went further with their own Representation of the People Bill 1946 and disenfranchised more people by taking votes away from lodgers, who again were disproportionately catholic given the shortage of housing and Unionist control of how houses were allocated. Companies were also given multiple votes, depending on their value – up to six votes to be cast by the company’s directors. The Unionist government were not even subtle about it, their Chief Whip Major L.E Curran stated it was ;

“to prevent Nationalists getting control of the three border counties and Derry City… The best way to prevent the overthrow of the government by the people who have no stake in the country and had not the welfare of the people of Ulster at heart was to disenfranchise them”

Gerrymandering continued right up until 1967 when the local councils in Fermanagh were all amalgamated into one which despite being a majority nationalist county, was dominated by Unionists to the tune of 36 seats to 17.

http://theunitedirishman.blogspot.ie/2013/11/the-suppression-of-nationalist.html

Something to read over xmas

http://www.amazon.com/Northern-Ireland-The-Orange-State/dp/0861043006

Mr Cumulonimbus

alastair wrote: »

the democratic underpinnings of the state

So you don't think there was a threat to the credibility of the democratic underpinnings of a state which by 1961 according to cain.ulst.ac.uk disenfranchised a quarter of it's parliamentary electorate due to the restrictions imposed for council elections?

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

Did that state have principles which denied social equality?

Hmm well let me think the head of state can't be voted in so yeah
The head of state is head of a state church the PM can't be a catholic (this may of changed recently)
So yeah

Slick50

alastair wrote: »

Did that state have principles which denied social equality?

Yes it did
this is worth reading, as is this.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

So you don't think there was a threat to the credibility of the democratic underpinnings of a state which by 1961 according to cain.ulst.ac.uk disenfranchised a quarter of it's parliamentary electorate due to the restrictions imposed for council elections?

If council elections played any role in state governance - if course. But they didn't. There was a universal franchise for parliamentary elections.

el pasco

el pasco wrote: »

Hmm well let me think the head of state can't be voted in so yeah
The head of state is head of a state church the PM can't be a catholic (this may of changed recently)
So yeah

The practice or prinicals of social equality they definitely did not use the practice of social equality

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

If council elections played any role in state governance - if course. But they didn't. There was a universal franchise for parliamentary elections.

The definition of democracy is the ....the practice and principles of social democracy

Anyway are you sayin it is ok for local government to not have proper democracy is that it?

Tramps Like Us

Local councils had a lot of power, if they meant nada why do you think the unionists went to such pains to make sure they controlled them?

farcical stuff

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

If council elections played any role in state governance - if course. But they didn't. There was a universal franchise for parliamentary elections.

Ok course the play a part in state governance at a local level the part that can have the most impact on many people's daily lives