Smithwick: Collusion in Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen murders

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Hmm well let me think the head of state can't be voted in so yeah

That's a ceremonial head of state, with no powers of governance.

el pasco wrote: »

The head of state is head of a state church the PM can't be a catholic (this may of changed recently)

There's no religious restriction on the PM or any other member of parliament or government. The restriction with regard to the monarch is because the monarch has a parallel role as head of the Cof E. As far as I'm aware, the pope is also required to be a catholic.

el pasco wrote: »

So yeah

Or no, as is the case.

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

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

That's not what your dictionary actually said.

Mr Cumulonimbus

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.

Councils played a part in the allocation of social housing. A right to have a roof over ones head is just as important as having a fair voting system.

alastair

Mr Cumulonimbus wrote: »

Councils played a part in the allocation of social housing. A right to have a roof over ones head is just as important as having a fair voting system.

Interestingly, more social housing went to Catholics during the 70's than Protestants in NI.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

That's a ceremonial head of state, with no powers of governance.


There's no religious restriction on the PM or any other member of parliament or government. The restriction with regard to the monarch is because the monarch has a parallel role as head of the Cof E. As far as I'm aware, the pope is also required to be a catholic.


Or no, as is the case.

Eh what?? I do care if the head of state can't be voted in
Everyone who is a citizen should be able to be head of state that is very important many people

By that standard America would never of elected Obama or Kennedy as US President

So that isn't important to Americas hey??

Also by having a state church means that people who aren't part of that state church can feel excluded and why should someone in this day and age be discrimitated because they aren't born King or Queen and why should the state have a state church

You are seriously miss guided if you think these aren't important

You are wrong the queen of uk has royal prerogative which is very powerful

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN03861

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

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

I like these ones.

http://sluggerotoole.com/2013/12/04/smithwick-are-we-back-full-circle-to-an-untested-allegation-of-collusion/

alastair

el pasco wrote: »

Eh what?? I don't care if the head of state can't be voted in
Everyone who is a citizen should be able to be head of state that is very important many people

That's not the case here.

el pasco wrote: »

Also by having a state church means that people who aren't part of that state church can feel excluded and why should someone in this day and age be discrimitated because they aren't born King or Queen and why should the state have a state church

The UK doesn't have a state church.

el pasco wrote: »

You are seriously miss guided if you think these aren't important

You are wrong the queen of uk has royal prerogative which is very powerful

http://www.parliament.uk/Templates/BriefingPapers/Pages/BPPdfDownload.aspx?bp-id=SN03861

The royal prerogative is not exercised by the monarch, but by the duly elected government of the day.

alastair

tayto lover wrote: »

I like these ones.

http://sluggerotoole.com/2013/12/04/smithwick-are-we-back-full-circle-to-an-untested-allegation-of-collusion/

There's no contradiction evident there - just an opinion that differs from Smithwick on what was most persuasive in terms of varying evidence presented.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

That's not the case here.


The UK doesn't have a state church.


I never said the UK had a state church

But to be head of state of the UK you have to be a member of the state church
The Church of England

Also it is discrimitation by not allowing 99.999% of the population to become head of state


The royal prerogative is not exercised by the monarch, but by the duly elected government of the day.

The royal prerogative is exercised on behalf of the queen
It is the queens government the queen country all on her behalf

The queen even picked a government back in the 1950's so it is a powerful position

She can also refuse to sign a bill

How is a democratic society??

How is the practice or principal of a social democracy??


Answer please

K-9

Mod:

Back again, park the democracy discussion for another time please, it's not what the thread is about!

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

There's no contradiction evident there - just an opinion that differs from Smithwick on what was most persuasive in terms of varying evidence presented.

A matter of interpretation then.
I do it Slugger's way.

Happyman42

tayto lover wrote: »

A matter of interpretation then.
I do it Slugger's way.

Smithwick could just as easily found the other way and remained credible. Fantastic waste of money.

Mr.Micro

Happyman42 wrote: »

Smithwick could just as easily found the other way and remained credible. Fantastic waste of money.

The fact is, he found collusion, so it's a moot point, if it was a waste of money. I think not, especially if we all learn from it and try and move forward. It's a blow for An a Garda Siochana and the IRA. The former need to deal with it and put its house in order, the latter will always do and say what it pleases.

Happyman42

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The fact is, he found collusion, so it's a moot point, if it was a waste of money. I think not, especially if we all learn from it and try and move forward. It's a blow for An a Garda Siochana and the IRA. The former need to deal with it and put its house in order, the latter will always do and say what it pleases.

he found probable collusion, which means to me that there was an equal probability of no collusion.
And how it could be a blow to the IRA escapes me, above and beyond the fact that the 'IRA' don't exist any more.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

he found probable collusion, which means to me that there was an equal probability of no collusion.
And how it could be a blow to the IRA escapes me, above and beyond the fact that the 'IRA' don't exist any more.

No- that would be 'possible collusion'

K-9

Happyman42 wrote: »

he found probable collusion, which means to me that there was an equal probability of no collusion.
And how it could be a blow to the IRA escapes me, above and beyond the fact that the 'IRA' don't exist any more.

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability, that does not mean an equal probability that the person is innocent.

The judge decided on what is probable based on all the evidence before him, there was probably collusion, that does not mean 50% there was, 50% there wasn't. He has to find what he thinks most likely, therefor, by logic, no collusion is not an equal possibility.

Happyman42

K-9 wrote: »

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability, that does not mean an equal probability that the person is innocent.

The judge decided on what is probable based on all the evidence before him, there was probably collusion, that does not mean 50% there was, 50% there wasn't. He has to find what he thinks most likely, therefor, by logic, no collusion is not an equal possibility.

It wasn't a civil case, he exonerated the 3 suspects, didn't identify any new ones, didn't reccomend proceedings against anybody and still found 'probable collusion'.
How does that work if he can't identify anybody or present tangible evidence? Would you get a conviction if it was in a court case?
It seems a whitewash to me and therefore, a waste of money.

jank

BFDCH. wrote: »

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/tables/Status_Summary.html
3531 killed in the troubles
1841 civilians killed
1522 catholics killed in the troubles- 396 republicans killed- leaving 1130 or so Catholic civilians as victims- given the sectarian nature of the conflict on that side and the policy of declaring war on the irish catholic population (as described in the link i posted earlier and the statements of the soldiers in the panorama doc the other week) we can assume were killed by the loyalist british side. so 4 out of every 5 killed by the british side were civilians- or two thirds of the total civilians killed.
the republicans killed

C1300 loyalists and british security forces killed- we can assume by republicans?
republicans killed 2058 in total. - so 760 is the most they could've killed in terms of civilians- less than half.
so out of every three victims of the republicans were civilian or 1 third of the total.

Your point is fundamentally flawed. my point was one side said it was a war, the other denied that there was sides or a war going on while taking part in a war against the other side.

Lies, lies and statistics. Yet after all your efforts to claim otherwise the PIRA as a group were responsible for more civilian deaths in the troubles than any other group, be it the British army, the RUC, UDF etc.etc..

You can of course try and prove other wise but that is akin to trying to prove that 2+2=1

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

Lies, lies and statistics. Yet after all your efforts to claim otherwise the PIRA as a group were responsible for more civilian deaths in the troubles than any other group, be it the British army, the RUC, UDF etc.etc..

You can of course try and prove other wise but that is akin to trying to prove that 2+2=1

If your interpretation of the conflict is competition based perhaps you would be better off on one of those vainglorious British Army forums or it's Republican equivalents?

Karl Stein

jank wrote: »

the PIRA as a group were responsible for more civilian deaths in the troubles than any other group, be it the British army, the RUC, UDF etc.etc..

Wrong.

alastair

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Wrong.

No - it's correct. The IRA were responsible for 510 civilian deaths. The only other group who came close to that sort of level was the UVF with a total of 361 civilian deaths. The British Army were responsible for the death of 149 civilians, and the RUC; 30.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

The British Army were responsible for the death of 149 civilians, and the RUC; 30.

Not that it matters all that much, but surely, in light of recent revelations, we are not quite sure of the totals there?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not that it matters all that much, but surely, in light of recent revelations, we are not quite sure of the totals there?

It's not going to suddenly bump them up 360 deaths, is it? The ambiguity over some deaths works both ways.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

It's not going to suddenly bump them up 360 deaths, is it? The ambiguity over some deaths works both ways.

Fact is, we don't know how much they are going to be bumped up by. Curious you don't have the moral courage to criticise those that are still hiding what they where involved in. The IRA at least gave the families of Buchanan and Breen some closure by detailing how their loved ones died and have co-operated with the ICLVR (witness their stated satisfaction)
But rock on with your competition results.

el pasco

So who was the Garda who helped the IRA in this attack then?
According to the report?

Happyman42

el pasco wrote: »

So who was the Garda who helped the IRA in this attack then?
According to the report?

You'd need to have a tribunal to find that out!

Sand

el pasco wrote: »

So who was the Garda who helped the IRA in this attack then?
According to the report?

Thats not known, but I believe Jefferey Donaldson named the *alleged* Garda under parliamentary privilege a couple of years ago. As far as I know that Garda strongly rejects claims made against him so it would be very wise not to name him given Irish laws. The inquiry found his evidence to the inquiry was evasive, and that his relationship with the Provos was inappropriate. The inquiry did not make any specific finding of collusion in this killing against him though.

Karl Stein

alastair wrote: »

No - it's correct. The IRA were responsible for 510 civilian deaths. The only other group who came close to that sort of level was the UVF

The UVF/UDA/UFF loyalist terrorist nexus were responsible for many hundreds more civilian deaths than the IRA or broader physical force Republicanism.

tayto lover

K-9 wrote: »

Civil cases are decided on the balance of probability, that does not mean an equal probability that the person is innocent.

The judge decided on what is probable based on all the evidence before him, there was probably collusion, that does not mean 50% there was, 50% there wasn't. He has to find what he thinks most likely, therefor, by logic, no collusion is not an equal possibility.

If the "balance of probability" was reliable then there would be no bookies in existence. Smithwicks was very foolish to come to that conclusion in my opinion.
It's rare that I agree with some of the pro Sinn Fein posters but on this occasion I find them spot on. A waste of money.

tayto lover

Sand wrote: »

Thats not known, but I believe Jefferey Donaldson named the *alleged* Garda under parliamentary privilege a couple of years ago. As far as I know that Garda strongly rejects claims made against him so it would be very wise not to name him given Irish laws. The inquiry found his evidence to the inquiry was evasive, and that his relationship with the Provos was inappropriate. The inquiry did not make any specific finding of collusion in this killing against him though.

He was named and the Tribunal could find nothing against him. He is one of the three.

Tramps Like Us

In any case Jefferey Donaldson is not credible.

Happyman42

tayto lover wrote: »

He was named and the Tribunal could find nothing against him. He is one of the three.

That is my understanding of it.
The most probable conclusion is that the IRA gathered their own info as it seems to me a 5 year old boy scout could have worked out what was going on in Dundalk that day and where to be when a well known, flagged personal car was leaving by one of three routes.

tayto lover

Happyman42 wrote: »

That is my understanding of it.
The most probable conclusion is that the IRA gathered their own info as it seems to me a 5 year old boy scout could have worked out what was going on in Dundalk that day and where to be when a well known, flagged personal car was leaving by one of three routes.

Maybe so. If Smithwicks found that there was possibly collusion from someone within Dundalk garda station and left it at that it would have been the best thing to do. I feel he made his decision solely to cover the ridiculous amount of money he spent on the Tribunal. A total waste again.

el pasco

Sand wrote: »

Thats not known, but I believe Jefferey Donaldson named the *alleged* Garda under parliamentary privilege a couple of years ago. As far as I know that Garda strongly rejects claims made against him so it would be very wise not to name him given Irish laws. The inquiry found his evidence to the inquiry was evasive, and that his relationship with the Provos was inappropriate. The inquiry did not make any specific finding of collusion in this killing against him though.

So what was the point of the inquiry?
Was there a need for an apology from the government?

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Fact is, we don't know how much they are going to be bumped up by. Curious you don't have the moral courage to criticise those that are still hiding what they where involved in. The IRA at least gave the families of Buchanan and Breen some closure by detailing how their loved ones died and have co-operated with the ICLVR (witness their stated satisfaction)
But rock on with your competition results.

They're not my competition results. I'm simply pointing out that the group with most blood on their hands is the IRA. My moral courage is just fine, cheers.

alastair

Carlos Roca wrote: »

The UVF/UDA/UFF loyalist terrorist nexus were responsible for many hundreds more civilian deaths than the IRA or broader physical force Republicanism.

Feel free to shift those goalposts. You were wrong when you disputed the group responsible for the most civilian deaths was the IRA. They were.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

It wasn't a civil case, he exonerated the 3 suspects, didn't identify any new ones, didn't reccomend proceedings against anybody and still found 'probable collusion'.
How does that work if he can't identify anybody or present tangible evidence? Would you get a conviction if it was in a court case?
It seems a whitewash to me and therefore, a waste of money.

He didn't exonerate anyone. He simply said that direct evidence wasn't available to him to implicate them. It may well be impossible to bring a conviction against anyone. Why do you believe it's a whitewash, when there was an option of finding no collusion, which would have been much simpler all 'round? Makes no sense.

el pasco

alastair wrote: »

He didn't exonerate anyone. He simply said that direct evidence wasn't available to him to implicate them. It may well be impossible to bring a conviction against anyone. Why do you believe it's a whitewash, when there was an option of finding no collusion, which would have been much simpler all 'round? Makes no sense.

Look can anyone give an result from this case
Was a person therefore named or blamed and was there any evidence for such claims

Sand

No individual was named or blamed. The inquiry simply found that on the balance of the evidence presented, Garda collusion from within that station was probable.

I would suppose the inquiry did not feel there was enough evidence against any single individual to name them specifically though. That's a responsible position given the fallout it would have for the individual. You have to remember, this was an inquiry. Not a court. No-one was going to be convicted.

Happyman42

alastair wrote: »

He didn't exonerate anyone. He simply said that direct evidence wasn't available to him to implicate them. It may well be impossible to bring a conviction against anyone. Why do you believe it's a whitewash, when there was an option of finding no collusion, which would have been much simpler all 'round? Makes no sense.

Smithwick examined the possibility that the RUC passed the information but 'could find no direct evidence' that that was the case.
Therefore I (Happyman) conclude that there was probable collusion by the RUC in the murders.

You don't get to hang people on the basis of probabilty and with no evidence. Therefore his conclusion is unsupported by what he found. Whitewash and contradictory.

tayto lover

Sand wrote: »

No individual was named or blamed. The inquiry simply found that on the balance of the evidence presented, Garda collusion from within that station was probable.

I would suppose the inquiry did not feel there was enough evidence against any single individual to name them specifically though. That's a responsible position given the fallout it would have for the individual. You have to remember, this was an inquiry. Not a court. No-one was going to be convicted.

I say the garda in Dundalk feel that they were convicted even though Smithwicks had no evidence.
If they were not convicted then why was there apologies issued?

Mr.Micro

Sand wrote: »

No individual was named or blamed. The inquiry simply found that on the balance of the evidence presented, Garda collusion from within that station was probable.

I would suppose the inquiry did not feel there was enough evidence against any single individual to name them specifically though. That's a responsible position given the fallout it would have for the individual. You have to remember, this was an inquiry. Not a court. No-one was going to be convicted.

Well its not too late for the Gardai to launch an investigation, as the suspects are known. That would probably be too much to expect?

Happyman42

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Well its not too late for the Gardai to launch an investigation, as the suspects are known. That would probably be too much to expect?

There isn't any direct evidence, I think the possibility of litigation by one of the gardai would be more likely.

Mr.Micro

Happyman42 wrote: »

There isn't any direct evidence, I think the possibility of litigation by one of the gardai would be more likely.

You mean, to refute the findings? I doubt that will happen, as more stuff might come out. Much easier to get on the phone to his friends......anonymously of course. It's up to the Gardai to do an investigation, and the tribunal says there was collusion, so that is a start, if An a Garda have the will.

alastair

Happyman42 wrote: »

Smithwick examined the possibility that the RUC passed the information but 'could find no direct evidence' that that was the case.
Therefore I (Happyman) conclude that there was probable collusion by the RUC in the murders.

You don't get to hang people on the basis of probabilty and with no evidence. Therefore his conclusion is unsupported by what he found. Whitewash and contradictory.

Given that the tribunal isn't in the business of charging or prosecuting anyone, it's rather unlikely that anyone was going to be hung. There's no contradiction in its findings, Swithwick was clear that the probability that collusion occoured from within the station, but that there's no smoking gun to implicate any individual.

tayto lover

alastair wrote: »

Given that the tribunal isn't in the business of charging or prosecuting anyone, it's rather unlikely that anyone was going to be hung. There's no contradiction in its findings, Swithwick was clear that the probability that collusion occoured from within the station, but that there's no smoking gun to implicate any individual.

The Tribunal answered and found absolutely zilch.
Jobs for the boys. Cash cow.

marienbad

tayto lover wrote: »

The Tribunal answered and found absolutely zilch.
Jobs for the boys. Cash cow.

The tribunal found what every proverbial dog in the street already knew , why bother to dispute it ?

tayto lover

marienbad wrote: »

The tribunal found what every proverbial dog in the street already knew , why bother to dispute it ?

Pray tell then. What evidence was found?
I must have missed that part.

marienbad

tayto lover wrote: »

Pray tell then. What evidence was found?
I must have missed that part.

what evidence is there that Gerry Adams was a member of PIRA or that salt causes high blood pressure or a host of other examples that I presume you don't dispute .

This was a tribunal not a trial and having examined all the available documentation and spoken to all the available witnesses the conclusion reached was that on the balance of probability there was collusion.

tayto lover

marienbad wrote: »

what evidence is there that Gerry Adams was a member of PIRA or that salt causes high blood pressure or a host of other examples that I presume you don't dispute .

This was a tribunal not a trial and having examined all the available documentation and spoken to all the available witnesses the conclusion reached was that on the balance of probability there was collusion.

So maybe they should give Paddy Power a go the next time.
He's very good at the odds regarding probability and he'd be much cheaper.
The whole thing was a waste of time and money.
Jobs for the boys.