Failings lie with Military Intelligence…

The Newsletter picks up on the UDR controversy, see the Irish News coverage here. They quote Michael Copeland, who argues that “The failures, if any, lie at the door of British military intelligence, who, if they harboured such suspicions, should have taken action.” And Jeffrey Donaldson, who said that Sinn Fein was ”in no position to point the finger at the UDR” and should ”concentrate in putting their own house in order'”

,

  • pauljames

    “The Newsletter picks up on the UDA controversy”

    freudian slip or collusion with the Irish News

    Tut Tut Mick!

  • Mick Fealty

    Oh bugger!

  • Occasional Commentator

    “The failures, if any, lie at the door of British military intelligence, who, if they harboured such suspicions, should have taken action.”

    Perhaps they didn’t fail. Perhaps they succeeded in their goal – stirring up sectarian conflict.

    The international ‘community’, such as the U.N., avoids internal issues as much as possible, not least because most U.N. countries want free reign in their own borders and have much to hide. So it may have suited the British state to stir up sectarian conflict, to attempt to replace the war between (what some see as) two national armies – i.e. a war between states, not within them.

    I’m not saying that many officials/bureaucrats/soldiers conciously thought this way, large corporations and states tend to have a mind of their own so to speak.

  • mickhall

    Michael Copeland as a former serving UDR officer is passing the buck, far from a failure of military intelligence what happened within the UDR was a success, for the outcome was exactly what they wanted viz a viz Brig Kitsons strategy.

    Former Senior UDR officers simply cannot pass the buck, if they did not know what their men where up to in their spare time they should have done. After all people like Mr Copeland demand of the PIRA leadership that they know exactly what their volunteers get up to at all times; and will not listen to Provo denials about not being aware of any criminality by there members. And they are correct on this. If the State, or even a paramilitary organization trains and arms people they bloody well better know to whom they owe allegiance to.

    regards to all

  • ingram

    Mick,

    They knew of that there is NO DOUBT. Mr Copeland could of course ask to see the 120 Security section P files on all the suspect individuals and the links to psara militaries and or political parties.

    Martin.

    PS. As for the military sharing the blame, give me a break, police had primacy and Box had control so how he works that one out I do not know.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    “The failures, if any, lie at the door of British military intelligence, who, if they harboured such suspicions, should have taken action.’’

    Okay… let me see if i have this right… the fact that UDR members were shifting weapons to and training Loyalist murder gangs — that’s not the problem,its that M.I. did stop them… *THAT’S* the problem?

    There are none so blind as those who chose not to see.

  • elfinto

    “The failures, if any ……..”

    Says it all about unionist politicians really.

    Denial, denial, denial.

  • Cahal

    “And Jeffrey Donaldson, who said that Sinn Fein was ‘’in no position to point the finger at the UDR’’ and should ‘’concentrate in putting their own house in order’”

    Isn’t that the ultimate in whataboutery?

  • Intelligence Insider

    McCartney murder, Northern Bank robbery, IRA criminality.

    Denial, denial, denial fintan.

    Says it all about sinn fein politicians really.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    “And Jeffrey Donaldson, who said that Sinn Fein was ‘’in no position to point the finger at the UDR’’ and should ‘’concentrate in putting their own house in order’”

    Cahal: “Isn’t that the ultimate in whataboutery? ”

    Better analogy would be the bought cop standing there saying “nothing to see here, move along…”

  • elfinto

    Oi Mr Securocrat,

    This thread is about the UDR collusion story. Take your whataboutery elsewhere.

  • Intelligence Insider

    Whataboutery fintan? A bit rich coming from a past master of it yourself.

    As for a UDR collusion story, as I’ve stated elsewhere these were unsubstantiated suspicions relating to a small percentage of UDR soldiers belonging to members of legal, though loyalist, organisations. The matters released under FOI related to M.I. briefings which they admitted where without evidence.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    II: “As for a UDR collusion story, as I’ve stated elsewhere these were unsubstantiated suspicions relating to a small percentage of UDR soldiers belonging to members of legal, though loyalist, organisations.”

    I’d not say they were “unsubstantiated.” Admittedly, the evidence was circumstantial and not something to hand off to a prosecutor, but it should have been enough for the folks running the UDR to introduce stronger controls on their armories and re-arming these peace-keepers in a fashion congruent to their putative mission.

    Also, the problem was not cross membership, per se, it was the sharing on intelligence, the transfer of arms, the provision of training and the participation of UDR personnel in illegal activities — or don’t those bother you? Doesn’t the rather large percentage of lost / stolen UDR weapons turning up in the hands of Loyalist thugs raise the briefest glimmer of suspicioun on your part?

  • Intelligence Insider

    Of course loyalists stole weapons from the UDR but the fact that most were recovered speaks for itself. It hardly backs up all these collusion claims does it?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    II: “Of course loyalists stole weapons from the UDR but the fact that most were recovered speaks for itself. It hardly backs up all these collusion claims does it? ”

    I wish you’d make up your mind. You alternate between trying to debunk the thesis that the UDR was wholly corrupt, a stance I haven’t heard anyone serious make, whilst putting forth the notion they were a bunch of angels falsely maligned by the nefarious MI report. If you’d take off your orange-tinted specs, you’d see its more complex than the black and white arguements you’ve been flogging.

    If we accept the thesis that 10% (the median of the range offered by the MI report) were in collusion, then, I would submit a healthy portion of the remaining 90% would be reasonable reliable (I’d shave a couple of points off of the 90% for those who were aware of the 10%, but did nothing). Ergo, *BOTH* the “loss” of arms and the recovery of arms have are explained and no bearing on one another — the “dirties” gave them away and the “cleans” recovered them.

  • Brian Boru

    “Failures”? Is that we have calls them?

    There was collusion and while I cannot be sure exactly how far up it went, I think it’s significant that so much of the Steven’s Report findings were censored. What has the Establishment got to hide?

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Is Michael Copeland the best politician to be defending the UDR from accusations of collusion?