Nelson inquiry begins today

Whatever the doubts about the validity of the Finucane Inquiry, the inquiry into the alleged state collusion in the murder of Rosemary Nelson begins today. When there is such doubt about secretive operations there seems little alternative in post conflict situation, but to seek openness and transparency. Though some will argue that the same has not been forthcoming from any of the non-state actors in the conflict.

  • whatever

    Of the four proposed inquiries this will prove to be the waste of money. It was a murder plain and simple, no state conspiracy.

  • David Vance

    I entirely agree with “whatever” – this is a waste of tax-payers money aimed at providing republicans with more high media profile victimhood. The murder of Mrs Nelson was murder -plain and simple and barbaric – as were 2000+ others.

  • joe

    “murder plain and simple, no state conspiracy”

    I’m assuming you had nothing to do with this so without you being privy to all the information surrounding this act how can you state categorically what it was and wasn’t? And David is collusion just a figment of republican paranoia and if so why do the British government refuse to appoint a full public independent judicial inquirey into the Pat Finubcane case? I look forward to your answers.

  • maca

    Obviously it was murder, it was hardly suicide. The question is was it simply the RHD or was there state/security force involvement. Her death was just a few weeks after she helped lead demands for an inquiry into Finucanes killing. And just 2 weks before she was due to meet a police watchdog over alleged RUC death threats.
    I don’t know enough about the murder to say who was really responsible, and I suspect neither do you lads.

  • sean west

    We will never find out the truth.Period.

  • joe

    And the question is why will we never? And should this stop the families seeking the truth?

  • sean west

    I agree Joe but it si like banging your head against a wall.That is why the Brit government wasted 150 million on bloody sunday.I can give you the verdict right now.FUDGE.

  • Circles

    I think we can expect about as much truth to come out of this commission as you can expect straight talking to come from P O’Neil, a degree of compromise and conciliation in a DUPers speech, or a McDowell speech that doesn’t try and sink a back heeler into SF.

    All a waste of time and money.
    And whatever comes out of it, as an upcoming r-n-r album wisely advises “don’t believe the truth”.

  • David Vance

    joe,

    Republicans must dream about “state collusion” – I am certain no such thing existed and there is no evidence that the British Government “colluded” with terrorists. Oh, sorry – that’s not quite right. They’ve been colluding with them since 1997 in order to buy a phony peace. I suggest that republicans grow up and get over their little conspiratorial fantasies – but perhaps that is unrealistic given their ongoing support of terrorists?

  • whatever

    Joe

    I have read all the material in the public domain, including all the material produced by the campaign for an inquiry. It does not come close to proving collusion either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.

    The material on the other three is something different.

  • La Dolorosa

    David – crooked/bent coppers do exist you know.

  • Circles

    Dear David,
    Obviously you have just woken up from a beautiful dream where the bold Tommys stood up against the savage natives, wearing a white cowboy hat and thinking only of the Queen.
    Your certainty that, with respect to collusion, “no such thing existed” is probably only matched by a conviction that the world is flat and that the earth is at the centre of the universe.
    Congratulations on maintaining your delusions!!

  • joe

    David, mo chara,

    I suppose if YOU are certain that collusion didn’t exist then . . . Unfortunately collusion is a fact that people are still living with. I’m glad that it hasn’t pierced that cocoon that you’ve been living in and hope it never does. It also goes much deeper than a republican grievance and illustrates the extent of the British dirty war in Ireland. But again let me ask and I hope you and Whatever answer this.Why do the British refuse to act on the Corry recommendations into the Finucane case?

  • joe

    i.e a full public independent judicial inquirey…

  • Davros

    Here’s a hypothetical question:

    which is better ?

    to fight clean and lose to a dirty enemy

    or

    to fight dirty and beat a dirty enemy ?

  • Billy Pilgrim

    David

    “Republicans must dream about “state collusion” – I am certain no such thing existed”

    On what do you base this certainty?

    “there is no evidence that the British Government “colluded” with terrorists.”

    On the contrary there is a mountain of evidence. The purpose of the inquiry is supposed to be to drag as much of that evidence into the public domain as possible.

    “Oh, sorry – that’s not quite right. They’ve been colluding with them since 1997 in order to buy a phony peace.”

    This is irrelevant. And kinda hormonal.

    “I suggest that republicans grow up and get over their little conspiratorial fantasies – but perhaps that is unrealistic given their ongoing support of terrorists?”

    Yah boo.

    Whatever

    “I have read all the material in the public domain, including all the material produced by the campaign for an inquiry. It does not come close to proving collusion either on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.”

    But the whole point of the inquiry Whatever, is to bring into the public domain the crucial evidence that has hitherto been hidden.

    (I have a friend – a non-partisan one I should add – who is an expert on the collusion cases. He tells me the evidence of state collusion in the Nelson, Hamill, Wright and Finucane cases is beyond doubt. Trouble is that the crucial documentary evidence is in the hands of the guilty parties – that’s why the demand for an independent inquiry with powers of sub poena is unwavering and less-than-independent inquiries are so freely offered by the government.

    The reason why the British government has agreed to the Nelson, Hamill and Wright inquiries is because they are ring-fenced into Northern Ireland and point the finger at, respectively: police, army and special branch; police; and prison service and secret service. There’ll be blow-back, sure, but only for agencies in Northern Ireland. And no-one in Britain cares about Northern Ireland.

    The reason why Finucane was postponed and why – during the stay of execution, the government changed the law so they wouldn’t have to disclose the evidence they are sitting on – was because it goes all the way to Downing Street and the cabinet table. The Finucane case holds the key to an official government policy of targeted assassination going back to the 1980s – long before the Israelis ever thought of it.

    Will any of this ever come out? Yes – but I doubt there’ll be many of us around to see it. Still, nobody said that wrenching justice from the hands of a powerful enemy was easy.

  • crow

    Why should the British act on Corrys recommendations.What would they gain from this.If proved there was no collusion republicans would still call it a cover up.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Davros.

    Tough choice – but remember, it works both ways. If it’s okay to massacre civilians (a la Derry 1972) and if it’s okay to assassinate lawyers (Finucane, Nelson) and if it’s okay to run with lynch mobs (Hamill) and if it’s okay bomb towns and cities (Dublin, Monaghan, McGurk’s bar) and if it’s okay shoot enemies even when they’re unarmed (Gibraltar), if it’s okay to install hanging judges in kangaroo courts (Diplock) – let’s just be sanguine about all of the above and accept that war is a dirty business.

    But in what way is the enemy your moral inferior? Sure he shoots, bombs, oppresses, maims and murders – but so do you.

    which is better: to fight clean and lose to a dirty enemy; or to fight dirty and beat a dirty enemy?

    Either way it’s a shower of evil murdering bastards who come out on top – so you stick with your own evil murdering bastards.

    Does that sound to you like a reasonable synopsis of the troubles? Or are you still blind to the nature of your boys in uniform?

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Crow.

    “Why should the British act on Corrys recommendations.What would they gain from this.If proved there was no collusion republicans would still call it a cover up.”

    It’s called justice. There’s no way to prove there was no collusion in the Finucane case – because Downing Street’s finger prints are all over it. The British government are guilty as hell of the Finucane murder, and if they choose to run from their guilt, it’s absolutely just that they should face accusations from those they have wronged – their Banquo – all they way either to an independent inquiry or to the gates of hell – whichever comes first.

  • crow

    Dublin,Monaghan bombs have not been proved to have been the work of the British.In Gibraltar they were a clear and present danger, only there for one thing (not to get a suntan).

  • Circles

    “In Gibraltar they were a clear and present danger”
    Crow – lets forget the trash spy novel references and consdier the facts.
    All three were unarmed, the car they were driving contained neither weapons nor explosives. Shots were fired into people after they put up their hands, and further shots fired into their heads when they went down.
    Now you may agree with executions – fair enough. But don’t try and disguise it as some kind of Boys Own SAS adventure.

  • crow

    Justice can also come from bussiness end of a gun.

  • maca

    “Justice can also come from bussiness end of a gun”

    Which i’m sure many have used to justify terrorism!!

  • whatever

    BP

    On Nelson, we are not going to agree.

    Threats are not proof of collusion, it gives ground for suspicion. If a threat automatically led to a death the death toll in the conflict would have been substantially higher – I’d be one of them.

  • maca

    whatever
    “Threats are not proof of collusion, it gives ground for suspicion

    Yes, therefore the need for an inquiry. If there is ground for suspicion why have you made up your mind already?

  • Crow

    “Justice can also come from bussiness end of a gun”
    No don’t tell me…. did you get that one from Tom Clancey? or is that a quote from Arnie in Red Dawn.
    As much fun as it might be to play spot the cliché with you crow, such remarks display a frighteningly spectacular ignorance of reality, and a massive disregard for human life.
    Now who might you have that in common with?

  • Circles

    sorry that was me – not crow!!

  • fair_deal

    Maca

    I’ve read the material by the Nelson campaigners etc and the prima facie evidence of a link between the threats and the murder is not there. All smoke and mirrors to push towards the conclusion of collusion but utterly lacking in real substance.

  • crow

    It confused me.

  • whatever

    maca

    Look at the material there is no evidence of cause and effect in this particular case and this is based on going over the material in the public domain. A lot of it is one person’s against another, if’s buts and interpreatations lacking in substantiation.

  • maca

    Whatever,
    you keep mentioning material in the “public domain”. Do you honestly believe there would be evidence to prove collusion in the “public domain”. I mean seriously. Saying there is no evidence in the public domain which proves collusion is really saying nothing at all. The point if an investigation is to dig out the evidence.

    fair_deal
    “I’ve read the material by the Nelson campaigners etc and the prima facie evidence of a link between the threats and the murder is not there.”

    It may not be. And perhaps there was no collusion. The point is, there could have been collusion, if there are suspicions then surely an investigation is warranted.

  • fair_deal

    Maca

    For there is to be a public inquiry into anything I think there needs to be more to it that “There were threats”.

  • Gerry Kelly

    I wish this family would just give it a rest! You would think this was the only person ever murdured the way they are never out of the press. There are people out there using this for political grounds.

    Oh whoops, I thought this was a Robert McCartney thread!

  • maca

    Fair_deal
    “For there is to be a public inquiry into anything I think there needs to be more to it that “There were threats”.”

    There was more than threats. There was a murder.

  • whatever

    Maca

    Public domain – I have read the material in the public domain about each of the four cases. From that material i can see why inquiries were agreed to in the other cases. There is more substance to the cases in the publicly available information. IMHO the Nelson stuff doesn’t meet the same grade

  • maca

    Whatever
    That’s fine, you’ve read the material and drawn your own conclusion, fair enough. But do you not think others might draw a different conclusion? Once there are open questions people will want answers.

  • maca

    Whatever, just a question, if there was no substance to this case why do you think Cory recommended an inquiry?

  • whatever

    Maca

    IMHO
    1. I think Cory chose to be generous rather than arbitrary in his decisions about enquiries. It was clear from early on in his work that he was of a mind to support all four.
    2. Politics played a role in the decision-making.

  • fair_deal

    maca

    A+b+c can = d but the stuff I read is ‘a’ must = ‘d’. You need more than that for an inquiry.

  • Solomon

    Thought there was’nt supposed to be a heirarchy of victims?

  • fay-ree

    Fair deal:

    1. Cory recommended inquiries into five cases;

    2. “It was clear from early on in his work that he was of a mind to support all four.” Where’s your evidence for this assertion?

    3. Have you actually read Cory’s reports?

  • barnshee

    I have just seen the make up of the “panel” for Nelson and the name V Strachan has appeared

    Would this be the same Strachan whose supervision of Lottery payments were so bizarre that the Fund was closed down?

    Before that there was some problems when she was in charge of the Customs which resulted in it being shut down and given to the Inland Revenue?

    Boy they can pick `em