Return of the grass…

IT’S been mentioned on another thread, but maybe deserves its own – the Crown is to use “informer evidence” again. Informers are expected to provide witness evidence in court for the first time in 20 years against suspected paramilitaries in a case against six men facing UDA membership and drugs charges. Sharon O’Neill recalls why there may be raised eyebrows at such a move.

Quick question; if members of the PIRA can get membership charges dropped because PIRA is on a recognised ceasefire, isn’t the State leaving itself rather open here?

  • aquifer

    Many paramilitaries seem to have treated their contact with special branch as a form of insurance, making loyalists in particular “untouchable”. So how many paramilitary novices are working for an informer? And if both are involved in criminality, who will go to jail. The young idealist, or the old sinner? And what of the most dangerous of all, the idealistic informer? Not many of those needed to bring the house down.

  • Davros

    I’d like SF and the RM to be open about their version of collusion – and reveal the details of which public servants released details about policemen and UDR men for assassination.

  • canwebanulstermanplease

    whatabouttery?

  • Davros

    Yep. Unashamedly. They should come clean over who gave their killers inside information.

  • Rebecca Black

    “Yep. Unashamedly. They should come clean over who gave their killers inside information.”

    is that really a good idea Davros? If that happens then there will quite rightly have to be an investigation into collusion between police and loyalists terrorists. It’ll open up way too many cans of worms and reawaken all the old hatred and bitterness. Might be best just to leave it all alone and conclude and both sides have much to be sorry for without going through the gory details.

  • Davros

    Parity Rebecca. There’s no hierarchy of victimhood, therefore if there’s to be a door opened into what happened to victims of state collusion, then there should be the same rights accorded to the families of the police and UDR victims of Republican terrorism.

  • Rebecca Black

    yes parity of esteem is all well and good in theory but my concern would be in a place as volotile (spelling?!) it wouldn’t work.

  • Mike

    Don’t think you’ll ever catch the republican leadership conceding that Davros.

  • Davros

    Any more than I’ll ever see them set an example by revealing who was involved in the Claudy and La Mon atrocities Mike….

  • DerryTerry

    Davros, are you establishing parity between the IRA and the British Government?

    Are you saying that the actions of the British Gov. and the IRA should be viewed and judges in the same manner?

  • Davros

    Fair comment Derry Terry. Parity only in the sense that both “sides” were guilty of crimes. I’m arguing for light to be shone on all of them. Crimes committed by some within the British Side and Crimes committed by some within the RM.

  • Hmm…

    A hierarchy of victims is repugnant, but isn’t there a good reason to focus attention on the actions of the state? While the provos will hopefully be going away, the state won’t be. If citizens are to view the state as a legitimate authority, then it must be seen to be acting within the law and part of this involves having transparent mechanisms for investigating failures in this regard.

    Presumably even the most die-hard republicans don’t suppose that Unionists are obliged to recognise the actions of the IRA as legitimate: the state must be held to a higher standard because we’re all supposed to accept its authority.