Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Durkan names three SB officers in Parliament…
Mark Dukan has used Parliamentary previlege to name three senior officers as having obstructed the Police Ombudsman in her recent investigation.
SDLP leader Mark Durkan has named three former heads of Special Branch who he said failed to cooperate with a Police Ombudsman investigation. Using parliamentary privilege he identified them as Chris Albiston, Raymond White and Freddie Hall.
Mick Fealty @ 02:11 PM
All three MUST be sacked and have theirpension rights removed. They are clearly through their unwillingness to co-operate guilty of perverting what should be the course of justice.
The destruction of evidence and failure to co-operate with a legal investigation must be an offence of some discription and charges brought against all those involved.
Clearly everyone who failed to answer questions that is still employed by the PSNI needs to be removed immediately. HOW are people going to or expected to have faith in a police force that retains personnel who have covered up murders and destroyed evidence to ensure that Unionist paramilitary killers do not face juctice and where free to continue killing?
If these people are still in the PSNI then they clearly could still be turning a blind eye to the actions of the Unionist paramilitaries in their continuing killing, arms precurement, extortion etc. etc.
There is no way that anyone could be sure that those PSNI members are still not alalowing the Unionist terrorists to commit crimes - they MUST be sacked one and all!!!!!
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:30 PMpity durkan wont name those in Sinn fein who colluded to murder protestants and catholics
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:30 PMAt least he did something which is more than SF.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:31 PMWhy do this under the cloak of parliamentary privilege? If they didn’t co-operate with the enquiry then just say so out in the public domain and have these people attempt to rebut it also in the public domain.
If Durkan is correct and I suspect he is, these people can hardly sue him for defamation or such like. The report (hidden part) will be able to substantiate his claims.The DUP and UUP have often used this privilege, Paisley senior did it to smear the Reavey Brothers in an attempt to justify their murders, only last week the HET apologised to the remaining brother as to the treatment the family received and the fact the brothers were simply innocent Catholics.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:36 PMGerry,
It’s a pity the DUP don’t do the right thing and name their members who asked the UVF in 1994 to continue their sectarian murder campaign and not declare a ceasefire.
Maybe Paisley junior could re-write the DUPs version of history and tell the truth on DUPs actions and involement with the Unionist terrorist groups, at least David Ervine was able to stand up and tell the truth about the DUPs request.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:37 PMHow come the unionists just cant see the difference between the actions of a public body and the actions of a private group.
public bodies like the police service have certain duties to what is percieved as law and order (I say perceived because obviously Northern Ireland has never had law and order) and that when they transgress these laws then it is a much greater afront than when an individual does it.
besides which any evidence provided about Sinn Fein would be likely entirely circumstantial unlike the hard evidence that should be available against the forces of unlaw and disorder.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:41 PMParliamentary privilege
Anyone care to name these officers Durkan named?
I remember when Parliamentary privilege was used against Republicans and then echoed on Slugger, names were posted.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:47 PMPat if Durkan knew, then Adams knew. adams has the same status as durkan. why didn’t adams do it? out in the public domain, where the hidden part of the report could back him up? at least durkan had the balls to do something, all the others did nothing.including sf.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:51 PMmartin ingram be sure to file this one for the archives when the next sinn fein informer is named
Why do this under the cloak of parliamentary privilege? If they didn’t co-operate with the enquiry then just say so out in the public domain and have these people attempt to rebut it also in the public domain.
If Durkan is correct and I suspect he is, these people can hardly sue him for defamation or such like. The report (hidden part) will be able to substantiate his claims. - Pat Mc Larnon on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:36 PMPosted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:54 PMsack them...bollocks. They’d just get a job in another agency like MI5 or some private security firm like Col Spicers and end up getting more money than they could receive from a pension.
Keep them employed & bring them to court as serving RUC/PSNI salaried defendants. If there’s not enough evidence then bring them up against the Euro Court of Human Rights etc. Let their only option of getting off the hook be that they come clean as to how high up the ranks the collusion was known. John Major and Maggie, if responsible, should be tried as war criminals. No wonder Maggie was so understanding of poor ol’ Gen. Pinocet’s predicament ?!?!
The present human rights abuses revealed by N. O’Loan weren’t featured on the Beeb internet ‘front page’ on Monday and are now lost in the ‘back pages’. None of their friends in the int’l media are highlighting the issue. The Newsletter is publishing articles by unionist politicos about the wonders done by the decent RUC men.
Dermot Ahern has mumbled something about how collusion should be cleared out from the police. The world’s leading legal know-all, RoI Justice Min McDowell, has hardly spoken about the revelations.
In a few weeks it’s be all forgotten about and it’ll be implied that the kilings are “… exceptions rather than the rule, it’s all republican propaganda, sure the RUC are lovely blokes all the same. English people and especially their government are decent folk who wouldn’t be engaged in such behaviour… it’s the Irish element. The English rule of law is the basis of law the world over… ‘terrible vista’ and all that.”
I’m expecting the republicans, nationalists and the RoI government to drop the ball on the whole sordid affair and things will go back to normal within a month. A few SB’ers might have a tough few days (eg. R. Flanagan) and that’ll be the end of it.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:55 PMhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6295053.stm
I assume if the BBC are carrying them there’s no problem here. Mark Durkan’s naming of them was broadcast on Talkback and the Radio Foyle news a number of times so the dogs in the street have probably heard by now!
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:55 PMArt Hostage “Anyone care to name these officers Durkan named? “
if you care to click on the provided link to the Beeb you can see the names in the second paragraph. Geez
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:59 PMone for the archives.
quote martin ingram be sure to file this one for the archives when the next sinn fein informer is named
It has been filed but for the record I would like to make this point.
The secret(100 pages) report will in my opinion never see the light of day because no charges will be officially layed and they will rest.I find it difficult to argue against the public interest position argued by Mark Durkan .
The DUP and other have previously used Parliamentary previlege to name Mooch Blair and Martin Mcguinness and others equally deserving of that tactic.I cannot with all honesty say that I do not approve, afterall what is good for the goose is good for the gander..
Regards.
Ingram
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:06 PMThese names can hardly come as a surprise and the Sinn Fein trolls do not change the fact that Durkan named them. But the names of the Bloody Sunday killers and the Dublin bombers are wqell known so what difference does it make?
There there is Claudy, human car bombs, La Mon etc. Read Kevin Myers today..........http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1761324&issue_id=15157&printer=1
I HAVE had some revolting experiences in my life before, but few to compare with hearing the murderers and torturers of Sinn Fein-IRA denounce the “human rights abuses” by the RUC. To listen to the man who was in charge at the time of the abduction, murder and secret burial of the widow, and mother of 10, Jean McConville, condemn the RUC for collusion is surely the most nauseating banquet of humbug and cant that the peace process has served up to us so far.
Martin McGuiness, to be sure, had nothing to do with Jean McConville’s death, but he is a self-confessed leader of the IRA. So how is it possible that on The One O’Clock News on RTE, Sean O’Rourke could have interviewed him about allegations of RUC collusion with UVF killers without even once mentioning this fact? Instead, he was treated as if he and Sinn Fein had spent the past decades peacefully campaigning for police reform. The rewriting of history proceeds apace: Provisional Sinn Fein, apparently, was actually a civil rights organisation which merely sought justice for the nationalist peoples of the North. And if anyone is going to challenge that fiction, it’s apparently not going to happen on RTE radio.
Now it is true that late in the interview, Sean O’Rourke did point out to Martin McGuinness that the alleged collusion between UVF men and RUC officers occurred during an IRA campaign. But he didn’t even once advert to the known truth that a primary engine for that IRA campaign was his guest of honour, the fine fellow denouncing the RUC.
So let us consider the activities of Martin McGuinness, police reformer. I do not know if he was personally involved in the murder of two police officers - Peter Gilgunn, a 26-year-old Catholic, and David Montgomery, a 20-year-old Protestant - in Derry, in January 1972. But we do know from the Saville enquiry that he was second in command of the IRA in Derry at the time, so he cannot be innocent of all legal and moral responsibility for their deaths.
Moreover, within two weeks, he was promoted to be in charge of the IRA in the city - at around the same time as a Catholic bus driver and off-duty UDR man, Thomas Callaghan, was abducted from his vehicle in Derry, bound and gagged, and then murdered by the IRA.
No doubt poor Thomas Callaghan was shot as part of the Sinn Fein campaign for policing reform.
We might ask the families of RUC constables David Dorset and Mervyn Wilson whether they were murdered as part of that same campaign for police reform. They were certainly re-formed, which is usually what happens to human bodies when they are blown up, as these two young men were, by an IRA bomb in January 1973.
As the IRA’s commanding officer at the time, it is, I suppose just about possible that Martin McGuinness knew nothing whatever about this operation, and that when he heard about it on the news he cried: “What! Two peelers dead? Now how the flip did that happen?” But do you know, I somehow doubt it. .....
Now I know nothing whatever about the activities of RUC Special Branch. No doubt they were murky indeed - but not nearly as murky as the deeds of the Provisional IRA, which was alone responsible for the deaths of almost 50pc of the people killed in the Troubles.
Members of the RUC were directly responsible for 1.4pc deaths, and I’m certainly prepared to concede that some collusion probably increases that proportion, but not very much, for most loyalist paramilitary murders were of innocent Catholics, and no collusion was required to kill these poor wretches.
However, I’m more than ready to have my mind changed. So let’s hear it all. Let’s hear how many Special Branch and MI5 agents were allowed to remain as active loyalist terrorists. And let’s hear about the last days and hours of the 50 or so alleged informers murdered by the IRA.
And then, let’s hear how many of their interrogators and executioners were also working for the British. Scapaticci and Donaldson we know about: but who else? Half the army council, probably. And who knows? Maybe Martin McGuinness was not just a police reformer, but a police informer, too. Then let’s hear about Bloody Friday, and Jean McConville and Patsy Gillespie, Ireland’s first, though involuntary, suicide bomber, and all those other atrocities that their authors are never confronted with on RTE and the BBC, even as they are so freely denouncing the RUC.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:11 PMRaymond White, a former assistant chief constable who was head of
CID at the time of the McCord murder, said: “Just because someone
was registered as an informant or agent, it did not mean we had
complete control of him.“People with relevant intelligence might hold back information to
suit their own agendas or protect friends.”Indeed.....
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:12 PMThe idea of getting the names out into the public domain is a good one, although I believe parrotting the discredited tactics of unionists should be avoided.
They didn’t co-operate with the enquiry, just say so.Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:18 PMHow come the unionists just cant see the difference between the actions of a public body and the actions of a private group. -
A CRIME IS A CRIME IS A CRIME,
an innocent victim, is an innocent victimLets get ALL the collusion out in the open espically from those in SF who wish to be in government
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:21 PMJesus Christ, nice attempt at trying to deflect form the issue but haven’t you noticed that the Brit govrn. and the media has spent how many years in trying to paint republicans as being the one and only source of the problems with the Sick Cos and that the unionists, their one party gov as being whiter than white. Likewise Westminster as a impartial mediator.
If we didn’t believe that sh1te and this has been justified by the Euro Court of Law, Stalker & Steven reports and now N O’Loans reports then why would be take note of your ramble. There are two sides to the whole of the dysfunctional society that is NI. The present discussion is about one issue only – the RUC SB official accomadation and assistance to murder ie. the Brit Gov’s policing representatives are OFFICIALLY involved in manslaughter.
Your attempt to deflect and / or won’t work.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:26 PManonymous - so crimes committed or ordered by martin mcguinnes as IRA leader , or Gerry Adams head of the Army council are to be ignored? FFS wise up.
Time the DUP ran away for powersharing until SF remove all those involved in murder , kidnap and torture. Surely that has got to be a test of any party who say they support policing and law and order
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:31 PMPat, the majority of the provisional leadership have been agents for decades that is why SF negoiated a formal and unaccountable role for MI5 so as they wont be exposed by the Obundsman’s office and that is why they exchanged that for disbanding the ARA so as they could keep their wealth they were allowed to accumulate by MI5 for their services to the crown. Well done Sir Gerry and Sir Martin, knighthoods on the way but unofficially!!!
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:35 PMA stunt by the SDLP to try to make themselves relevant while they still exist.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:39 PMcurious,
back under the bridge for you.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:56 PMThe three officers mentioned have given a very different view of their contact with the ombudsman. They did engage on specifics but were not going to engage in Nuala’s fishing trip across the past 40 years of anti-terrorist activity.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 04:06 PMI see a lot of “whataboutery” from unionists, and even the normally very fair Mick Fealty in the CIF article, with out any objection. (What about IRA/GARDA collusion bla bla bla!!)
This proves my previous comments that the term “whataboutery” is only used when nationalists object to unionist claims of moral superiority and back it up with examples.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 04:13 PMNow I know nothing whatever about the activities of RUC Special Branch. No doubt they were murky indeed - but not nearly as murky as the deeds of the Provisional IRA, which was alone responsible for the deaths of almost 50pc of the people killed in the Troubles.
As usual, this unionist poster combines civilian and security force victims to a single figure instead of posting and discussing them as separate categoruies
During a war—and the Troubles WERE a war, a civil war or an armed rebellion—members of the military and the paramilitary forces of the State are legitimate targets and such killings are NOT terrorism. Deliberate attacks on non-combatants ARE terrorism. That’s the definition until HMG decided to unilaterally chage it.
Sutton has made an extensive analysis of the those killed during the the Troubles, identifying some 3,523 victims. The results are available for all on the CAIN website at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk.
Sutton identifies 1,707 vicitims killed by the Provisional IRA, of which 517—or slightly more than 30%—were civilians. The other 1,190 were combatants of one sort or another, i.e. 1,011 members of the British security forces, 140 Republican paramilitaries, 32 Loyalist paramilitaries and 7 members of the Irish security forces.
So your statement about the PIRA’s activities is really propaganda instead of a reasonable contribution to the discussion.
Members of the RUC were directly responsible for 1.4pc deaths, and I’m certainly prepared to concede that some collusion probably increases that proportion, but not very much, for most loyalist paramilitary murders were of innocent Catholics, and no collusion was required to kill these poor wretches.
Again, it seems to me that you deliberately propagandize here. But, note that of the 55 Sutton identifies as killed by the RUC, 31, or about 56%, were civilians. Seems to me that the RUC itself made war on civilians, not combatants.
Let me point out that British security forces, including both the Army and RUC among others, were credited with 362 killings by Sutton, of which 190, or 52.5%, were civilians.
Furthermore, the O’Loan report covers only North Belfast and the RUC’s record there. Now, while North Belfast was the hottest area of the Troubles, there are an awful lot of other areas where it is hardly unreasonable to expect the RUC’s criminal record to be very similar.
Posted by on Jan 24, 2007 @ 04:17 PM
