McQuillan to sue Durkan as hole gets deeper for the SDLP leader
The controversy over the now infamous ill-advised advert by the SDLP in the Irish News on Policing has taken a new twist as Alan McQuillan tonight announced his plans to sue the party leader, Mark Durkan.
The advert was taken out by the party on the day that Sinn Fein paid the Irish News and Belfast Telegraph newspapers to deliver a 4-page party supplement on the Policing issue. In response, the SDLP took out a full page advert in the Irish News. It is not known if the advert was a hastily prepared piece of work- which would fit in with the fact that Sinn Fein only publicly announced the party’s intention to carry the Policing supplement with the two main newspapers in the north of Ireland the day prior to their delivery (that being said, it is of course possible that someone within the Irish News informed the SDLP in good time of Sinn Fein’s intentions.)
However, the wording of the SDLP’s advert- signed by party leader, Mark Durkan- has provoked a considerable uproar within the Policing Board, with unionist parties and, naturally enough, with the two named individuals who had also applied for the PSNI Chief Constable post.
It’s difficult to see a way out of this one for the SDLP that doesn’t involve a humiliating public climbdown, given that, whatever the party’s intentions, the wording does appear to indicate that the party supported discriminating against individual applicants from a RUC background. Here’s the key parts of the advert:
“Against the wishes of Tony Blair and [former Northern secretary] John Reid we made sure the policing board showed [former RUC and later PSNI chief constable] Ronnie Flanagan the door,” wrote Mr Durkan.
“Against the wishes of Tony Blair and John Reid we ensured that the policing board appointed Hugh Orde – and not a policeman from the old RUC order.”
Like so much here, this controversy needs to be viewed from two different perspectives- not least because of the electoral significance of its outworkings for the SDLP.
It will hardly come as a surprise for me to point out that, taken on its own, the advert will not have caused the slightest annoyance to the SDLP’s electorate, nor in fact the broader nationalist community. To suggest that the SDLP was responsible for ensuring no RUC figure replaced Ronnie Flanagan at the helm of the PSNI is hardly an unpopular assertion. Furthermore, to incur the wrath of unionist politicians and the two former RUC figures who competed with Hugh Orde for the post will not cause many ripples within nationalism, due to the lingering hostility of the nationalist community to the RUC and all it stood for (from a nationalist perspective.)
However, the SDLP must be worried about how this issue is playing with the constituency of voters to which they have spent several years courting in their vain efforts to hold off the Sinn Fein advance: namely, the ‘middle ground’ voter (though I hate the term, I’ll use it for the purposes of clarity here.)
The SDLP have spent a considerable period of time attempting to woo Alliance/ Women’s Coalition voters to bolster their first preference vote, and they have also sought to galvanise support in the form of voting transfers from within unionism in their efforts to compete with Sinn Fein.
For this reason, the timing of this very public spat could not have been worse for the SDLP. For the party to pick a fight with unionism over the most sensitive issue within both communities does not augur well for their efforts to attract the transfers necessary in many constituencies to achieve their electoral ambitions in just a few weeks time.
Hi,
The bottom line is Alan McQuillan must as a senior RUC/PSNI officer accept a portion of the blame for the institutionalised collusion that is outlined by Sir Stevens.Promotion brings with it not only benefits but also responsibilties.
All senior officers should make it their business to be famliar with all aspects of his force, in his role as Deputy CC he would in the absence of the C/C be involved on a day to day strategic decision making. That would include running of ALL ASPECTS of the force. He would also be privvy to all AGENTS just like the C/C is and anyone who denies it is telling porky pies.
He should wind his rather large kneck in and stop engaging in silly arguments.
Ding Ding
Ingram
Mick the headline on this post is biased. I’m not sure what the rules on this site are but headlines usualy have some connection with the reality. There is no hole getting deeper for the SDLP leader.
I am no legal scholar but I fail to see how McQuillan has been libelled by Mark. And Durkan should savour the chance of such a case, a high profile victory awaits him, and a chance, in the courtroom, to put the RUC itself on trail.
Stick to asset recovery Alan. You’re good at that.
This is a bogus debate. If this gets to court which I doubt – everything comes to into play – so Mc Quillan will effectively look like he is defending the RUC. When you turn a washing machine on – its very hard to stop until its finished. Libel/defamation plays for high stakes – for all sides. He is playing into political hands – the unionists and SDLP. The latter’s rural supporters will lap it up!
the only reason the paper appologized was because it cost them nothing financially or politically to appologize, they simply appologized to save them the expense of preparing a statement of defense
For Durkan its win-win he either makes McQillan back down or he as seen as someone whos is personally willing to fight the RUC
And for what? For the cost of preparing a statement of defence! The SDLP likely has an army of lawyers working full time so this is nothing really. Its already been clearly articulated early on in these postings what there defense will be and that it will be almost guaranteed to win
Did any SDLP Policing Board members sit on the Selection/Interviewing Panel?
Wasn’t Durkan’s old man a member of the RUC?
didn’t the Irish News apologise for a ‘perceived offence’ or somehting like that?
It seemed to me to be a prudent move by the newspaper rather than anything all out or genuine. It will have no bearing on the libel case.
So the SDLP and Unionists are arguing about ‘who did what’. so what? that’s what they do. McQuillan should shut up and rise above it. he is pissing away his credibility.
brendan, belfast
“he is pissing away his credibility”
I would love a libel jury to decide the point.
Yes Mark Durkan’s father was in the police who was also a Protestant and yes Joe Byrne was the SDLP rep on the panel
BonarLaw
“I would love a libel jury to decide the point”.
I doubt that this will get that far. Libel cases tend to drag on and attract a lot of publicity (this one certainly will). That’s why the Irish News “bailed out” – they didn’t want their name banded about for months in association with this case. Their decision will have no bearing on the actual case (should it ever get to court).
I am no fan or Durkan and didn’t agree with the advert.
I am also no legal eagle but I don’t think anyone posting on this topic is.
McQuillan is claiming that the SDLP associated him with collusion. As there is no reference to either McQuillan or collusion in the advert – that’s very difficult to prove.
Usually in a libel case, the defendant has clearly accused someone (in print) of saying or doing something. The defendant then has to prove that their accusation was true or that they sincerely believed it to be true at the time.
In this case, there is nothing libellous in the actual advert. McQuillan is claiming that he has been libelled “by implication”. Extremely difficult to prove.
The SDLP are claiming that they were simply resisting Govt pressure to have an ex RUC man. They can claim that they wanted someone from outside the RUC as part of Chris Patten’s new beginning.
The SDLP may not have apologised. However, they have stated in public that, while they thought Sir Hugh Orde was the best candidate (as is their right), they did not make any references whatsoever to collusion or accuse anyone of involvement.
Again – the advert completely supports their position.
Whether you like it or not, this is very plausible. It’s a lot easier to substantiate that what McQuillan is claiming.
I think this was a stunt by the SDLP to try and “out green” Sinn Fein and it has backfired badly.
I don’t like what they did or how they did it.
However, that doesn’t alter the fact that Alan McQuillan is suing the SDLP for libel for something (in his opinion) that they IMPLIED but DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY.
It’s all very well hiring a big name lawyer, I think McQuillan thought the SDLP would “bottle out” and apologise. They haven’t – I think McQuillan will realise he’s on shaky ground and I doubt that this will ever see the inside of a court room.