Police Ombudsman’s statement on Operation Ballast

The Police Ombudsman has issued a statement on the findings[pdf file] of the three-and-a-half-year investigation into a series of complaints about police conduct in relation to the murder of Raymond McCord Junior in November 1997 and other matters. There’s also a summary here Adds The BBC’s Vincent Kearney reports And Peter Hain’s statement

Mrs O’Loan has concluded that her investigation has established collusion between certain officers within Special Branch and a UVF unit in North Belfast and Newtownabbey.

From the full public statement[pdf file]

CONCLUSIONS OF THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN IN RELATION TO THE COMPLAINT MADE BY MR RAYMOND MCCORD

33.1 This investigation began as a consequence of a complaint made by the father of Raymond McCord Junior who was murdered in 1997. Mr McCord’s complaints were extensive and the initial enquiries rapidly led to a decision to conduct a lengthy investigation, an investigation which was expanded as a consequence of the emerging findings of the initial enquiries. The conclusions to Mr McCord’s complaint are articulated in paragraph 9 of this Report. They are as follows:

Allegation number one:
That a senior UVF figure had ordered the murder of his son, and that this individual was a police informant;

Finding
The Police Ombudsman can confirm that a police informant is a suspect in the murder of Mr McCord’s son. She cannot confirm or deny who that individual is.

Allegation number two:
That police failed to carry out a thorough investigation of his son’s murder, and failed to keep him updated about their investigation;

Finding
The Police Ombudsman has identified failures in the investigation of Mr McCord’s son’s murder. These failures may have significantly reduced the possibility of anyone being prosecuted for the murder.
The Police Ombudsman has also substantiated the claim that police failed to keep Mr McCord updated about the investigation.

Allegation number three:
That no-one had been arrested or charged with the murder of his son. Mr McCord alleged that this was because the man who ordered the murder was a police informant, and that this individual, and those working for him, had been protected from arrest and prosecution for a number of years.

Findings
• A number of people were arrested for Raymond McCord Junior’s murder. No one has been charged with the murder. There is no evidence that anyone has been protected from arrest for the murder of Raymond McCord Junior.
• With reference to Mr McCord’s allegation that a police informant had ordered his son’s murder, and that this individual and those working for him had been protected from arrest and prosecution for years the Police Ombudsman conducted an extensive investigation which is to be found in paragraphs 10 et seq.

• Whilst there had been some arrests of informants over the years, it is clear that much intelligence was disregarded and not properly managed by police. They continued to use Informant 1 despite his criminal record and the extensive intelligence they held in respect of alleged serious criminality. This allegation is therefore substantiated with the exception, firstly, of that part of which it refers to police failure to arrest anyone for Raymond McCord Junior’s murder, and secondly, of the fact that whilst the Police Ombudsman can confirm that an informer is a suspect in the murder of Mr McCord’s son, she cannot confirm or deny who that individual is.

Allegation number four
That unidentified police knew something was going to happen to Raymond McCord Junior, but that they did not warn him or his family about this danger to protect the police informer who was responsible for the murder.

Finding
The Police Ombudsman has found no evidence or intelligence to support this allegation. It is not substantiated.

OTHER CONCLUSIONS OF THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN IN THIS INVESTIGATION

33.2 Operation Ballast analysed a small part of the informant handling of Special Branch RUC/PSNI. The investigation examined the activities of a number of Special Branch officers of all ranks in relation to Informant 1, and also the other informants who were associated with him. There is no reason to believe that the findings of this investigation are isolated. Indeed given that many of the failings identified in the course of the investigation were systemic, this is highly likely and the implications of this are very serious.

33.3 There have been various reviews and enquiries over the years into intelligence and informant handling by the RUC. Recommendations have been made. Some of these enquiries have been very high profile enquiries, such as the Stevens and Stalker enquiries. The Patten Independent Commission on Policing also made recommendations about the reform of Special Branch and its proper integration into crime operations. Prior to 2002, when Mr McCord made his complaint, the various reports had had very little impact on policies and practices within Special Branch.

33.4 In the course of this investigation it has emerged that all of the informants at the centre of this investigation were members of the UVF. There was no effective strategic management of these informants, and as a consequence of the practices of Special Branch, the position of the UVF particularly, in North Belfast and Newtownabbey, was consolidated and strengthened.

33.5 The handling of informants by Detective Sergeant M and Detective Constable A was not satisfactory. There was no management intervention to ensure that informants were registered properly, and no review of the officers’ performance as handlers. PSNI have provided no evidence that any action was taken by the RUC to deal with this.

33.6 Special Branch systems for information management, dissemination and retention were seriously defective. In effect handlers, and on occasion controllers, determined what information went into such systems as did exist. Those systems which did exist were not effective. There is evidence that information was withheld by handlers. Instructions were given that matters should not be recorded. The general absence of records has prevented senior officers, who clearly have significant responsibility for the failings, from being held to account. It is abundantly clear that this was not an oversight, but was a deliberate strategy and had the effect of avoiding proper accountability. The former ACC Crime Operations has described this situation as one of “plausible deniability”.

33.7 The senior management of the RUC/PSNI would have been well aware of the various statutory and policy requirements relevant to the handling and management of informants. The RUC/PSNI was represented on national working parties formulating such policy. There was however a disregard for such policies and for the law. This had the effect over the years of ensuring that individuals could not be held to account for significant decisions made.

33.8 Police officers at all levels working in Special Branch very often determined the future dissemination, if any, of intelligence held within Special Branch, to officers outside Special Branch. Had the necessary systems of accountability been in place the situation which is described in this Report should not have arisen. However the reality was that a Constable or a Sergeant could, and did, refuse to divulge information even to senior officers, and the mechanisms by which the decisions of individual Special Branch officers could be challenged were not used effectively by senior officers. The Special Branch liaison officer for any particular investigation, who was responsible for the verbal passing of information, was very often the handler of an informant who was a prime suspect for the particular crime. The Police Ombudsman also identified abuses of the existing controls for dissemination which often resulted in the failure to disseminate information at an appropriate time. There was no documented record of the reasons for the decision making in this area.

33.9 It would be easy, and indeed tempting, to examine and severely criticise the junior officers’ conduct in dealing with the various informants. These officers are not blameless. However they could not have operated as they did without knowledge and support at the highest levels of the RUC/PSNI. Chief Officers should have been aware of the processes used. The most serious failings are at Chief Officer level, particularly those Chief Officers who were responsible for Special Branch, since they are responsible for ensuring that training and systems are put in place to meet legal and policy requirements.

33.10 A culture of subservience to Special Branch developed within the RUC. Officers in the rest of the RUC have articulated quite clearly that Special Branch maintained control over those normal ethical policing activities which might affect either Special Branch informants or Special Branch operations. The consequence of this was that, in the absence of effective Chief Officer Management of Special Branch, it acquired domination over the rest of the organization which inhibited some normal policing activities.

33.11 The effect of that dysfunction was that, whilst undoubtedly Special Branch officers were effective in preventing bombings and shootings and other attacks, some informants were able to continue to engage in terrorist activities including murders without the Criminal Investigation Department having the ability to deal with them for some of those offences.

33.12 On occasions this also resulted in crimes being committed by informants with the prior knowledge of Special Branch officers. Informants engaged in such crimes were not subject to any of the controls inherent in the system for the use of Participating Informants devised by the Home Office for use by all police forces. On occasion, despite the fact that they had not given informants Participating Informant status, police nevertheless watched as serious terrorist crimes were committed by their informants.

33.13 The Police Ombudsman was concerned also at the attitude of some Special Branch and CID officers to their obligations as police officers. Some officers have articulated the belief that they had no function beyond intelligence gathering. Successive Police Acts have provided that the primary duties of a police officer are to protect life and property, and to prevent and detect crime.

33.14 Whilst acting as an informant, and with the knowledge of some Special Branch and some CID officers, informants moved through the ranks of the UVF to senior positions. The evidence clearly shows that Informant 1’s behaviour, including alleged murder, was not challenged by Special Branch, and the activities of those who sought to bring him to justice were blocked repeatedly. Records were minimized, exaggerated, fabricated and must also have been destroyed. Informant 1 would have been well aware of the level of protection which he was afforded.

33.15 It is also the case that whilst he was engaged in drug dealing and other money making activities, Informant 1 was not only protected by Special Branch but he was also given large sums of public money in return for such services as he provided. Indeed on one occasion he is recorded as having provided information which led police to stop a car containing him and two other leading UVF men, all of whom were police informants. No arrests followed and Informant 1 was paid £3,000. The total amount estimated to have been paid to Informant 1 over 12 years is in excess of £79,000.

33.16 This investigation demonstrates graphically the dangers of a separated and effectively unaccountable specialist intelligence department with extensive and largely uncontrolled powers. No effective analysis could have been made by the RUC/PSNI over the years of the implications of the totality of the information about, and activities of, the informants who have been identified during this investigation.

33.17 In many other crimes described in this report there were witnesses, who either drew police attention to a crime or volunteered to give evidence, some of it quite specific. There was also one occasion on which the victim of a punishment shooting gave extensive information to the police about what had happened to him. In all these situations the individuals involved were either seeking to assist the police or to be protected by the police. The Police Ombudsman has found that on a number of occasions the police did not use these opportunities to further their investigations. This had two consequences: firstly the investigation did not proceed, and secondly failure by police to use evidence tendered by witnesses to paramilitary shootings and other activity, must have given rise to a lack of confidence among the people that there was any point in assisting the police when such crimes were committed. The consequence of this would inevitably have been that the police became less effective and the community confidence in policing was reduced.

33.18 This investigation demonstrates that one of the greatest dangers to any anti-terrorist work is that, if those charged with intelligence gathering and investigation do not abide by the rules, and if those who manage them do not operate effectively to ensure compliance with both law and policy, the risk of terrorist attacks is enhanced, not reduced.

33.19 It remains the case that there are many officers within the RUC/PSNI who served bravely and honourably, some even making the ultimate sacrifice. On many occasions in the course of the work of the office, the Police Ombudsman has identified examples of excellent policing. This is in stark contrast to the activities and systemic failures identified in this report.

33.20 Since 2003 the PSNI has made significant changes and introduced new policies and working practices in relation to its strategic management of Crime Operations Department, which now incorporates Special Branch (now Intelligence Branch) under a single Assistant Chief Constable. A description of those changes is contained in Appendix A of this Report. It is hoped that the further necessary changes consequential upon this Report will combine with the change already made, to ensure that never again, within the PSNI, will there be the circumstances which prevailed for so long in relation to informant handling and intelligence management and which are articulated in this Report.

33.21 It is evident that the arrangements for ensuring compliance by the PSNI with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act were ineffective between 2000 and 2003. Before the Police Ombudsman drew these matters to his attention, the Surveillance Commissioner had not been able to identify the misleading documentation which was created by some Special Branch officers. Recent Surveillance Commissioner reports have identified very significant improvements but the most recent report still identifies areas for development. It is essential that in the arrangements for the future strategic management of National Security issues in Northern Ireland, there will be accountability mechanisms which are effective and which are capable of ensuring that what has happened here does not recur.

And here are the recommendations from the Police Ombudsman, with responses from the Chief Constable

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Police Ombudsman presented her recommendations to the Chief Constable prior to the publication of this report. His response is as follows:
“We welcome the opportunity to respond to these recommendations. Our response to the report itself will be made when we have had sight of the full text and its conclusions. We have detailed below our acceptance of the recommendations and the actions which have been or will be taken in respect of each one.”

34.1 This investigation has shown that within the UVF in North Belfast and Newtownabbey there was a network of informants, some of whom held senior positions. There should be a thorough investigation of all crimes with which those informants have been associated, in the course of which PSNI should re-interview the Special Branch handlers and controllers who are responsible for them. These officers may have further information about the informants’ criminal offences, which has not been officially documented. Any indication of criminal behaviour by a serving or retired officer which emerges in the course of the PSNI investigations which are initiated, following this Report by the Police Ombudsman, should be referred to the Police Ombudsman for investigation.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted and its implementation is already underway. The Historical Enquiries Team (HET) became operational in January 2006. The McCord case was one of the first cases to be given to HET to re-examine, at the direction of the Chief Constable. (This was under one of the exemption criteria from the normal chronological process, as a matter of serious public interest).
When HET examines a case, it also looks at others linked to it. The McCord case is one of those examined in this report, and is linked to a number of other incidents. HET will be undertaking a thorough re-examination of these cases contemporaneously because of linking factors.
The HET has a good relationship with the Office of the Police Ombudsman, including regular meetings between senior colleagues. A protocol exists for the referral of relevant matters to the Office of the Police Ombudsman from HET if investigations uncover evidence that points to the involvement of police officers in serious crime.

34.2 As a matter of urgency the PSNI must investigate Informant 1 as a suspect for all the unsolved murders, attempted murders and other serious crime for which he remains a suspect. The PSNI should consider these crimes as linked incidents. The PSNI has the responsibility to restore public confidence in what has been a number of seriously flawed investigations.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted and in fact the Police Service commenced this process in January 2006, with the referral of the McCord case to HET. Other linked cases are gradually being adopted into the investigation in a structured and managed fashion. HET will be assisted by the analytical work conducted by the Office of the Police Ombudsman in the preparation of their report.

34.3 Twenty-four percent of informants were cancelled, following the Police Ombudsman’s intervention in March and September 2003, and the recommendations made by Lord Stevens. Twelve percent of all informants were cancelled, because of their ongoing involvement in serious criminality. Those informants should now be investigated for their suspected serious crime.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. At the time of the CHIS review in 2003/04 CHIS suspected of involvement in Serious Crimes were referred to CID investigators for investigation. In the light of this recommendation relevant cases will be referred to the Historical Enquiry Team for further review and investigation.

34.4 Following the recent changes made by PSNI, they should continue to ensure that all officers in Intelligence Branch (formerly Special Branch) receive full training, consistent with national policing standards in the area of informant handling, in all their responsibilities and legal obligations, and that that training is regularly updated.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. Training is an ongoing commitment and is carried out to national standards. During the past 12 months 290 C3 personnel received relevant intelligence training. All staff involved in CHIS management will undergo further training in 2007.

34.5 As PSNI acquires sufficient trained detectives those appointed to Intelligence Branch in the future should have detective training, to enable them to carry out their functions efficiently and effectively, as a consequence of their enhanced ability to understand the specific requirements of Investigating Officers.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. All detectives in Intelligence Branch are in the process of being provided with detective training. All Police Officers appointed to CHIS handling duties are now required to have CID detective experience prior to appointment.

34.6 The Chief Constable should continue to review current process with a view to ongoing effective dissemination of intelligence received by the PSNI Crime Operations Department.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. We agree that continuous review is important and it is core to the way we do business. The procedures for the dissemination of intelligence to investigators is covered by way of a written protocol. Following the transfer of National Security lead to the Security Service intelligence will continue to be disseminated to investigators according to the PSNI protocols. This is one of the 5 principles outlined at a previous Policing Board meeting.

34.7 The Chief Constable should review the continued deployment in Intelligence Branch of those few officers who appear, by virtue of this investigation, to be uninformed of critical issues in relation to the role and functions they are required to carry out, to determine their suitability for the difficult work of informant handling, management and supervision.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted and we agree that it is critical that all officers are clear on any critical issues relating to their role and function. The PSNI will examine in detail the content of the PONI report and, should it be ascertained that an office is deemed unsuitable for a particular Intelligence Branch function, appropriate management action will be taken.

34.8 PSNI should operate processes to ensure that informant handlers change at sufficiently regular intervals and that Intelligence Branch remains integrated within Crime Operations Department in accordance with best practice for specialised and vulnerable posts in United Kingdom policing.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. A policy is in place requiring that handlers should not remain with a CHIS for a protracted period.

34.9 The PSNI and the Police Ombudsman experienced significant difficulty in retrieving intelligence for the purposes of this investigation. Part of that difficulty derives from the current processes for the recording and identification of information as it is received as intelligence. Those processes have been reviewed to ensure that in the future intelligence will be more readily accessible and retrievable. However it is essential that the process and information technology changes arising from this review are completed as rapidly as possible.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. We acknowledge that intelligence retrieval is essential. To that end Intelligence Branch continues to review and update its records management processes. A specific IT strategy for Intelligence Branch to address the Branch’s needs in the short, medium and long term is currently in draft form. It will be approved for action shortly.

34.10 This investigation, like others, has identified a total absence of operational records in respect of certain intelligence operations. Although there are now new procedures in place, PSNI should review the effectiveness of those processes to ensure there is total compliance with the requirements of the law, administrative processes and a high level of professionalism under the new arrangements.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. Records pertaining to operations and investigations are now retained in accordance with PSNI policy and in compliance with CPIA legal requirements. The effectiveness of these procedures will be monitored to ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

34.11 The Police Ombudsman is aware that many officers and retired officers may have police materials and documentation in their possession. The Chief Constable should ensure that every effort is made to recover all such materials and documentation.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. In fact, instructions have already been issued to police officers prohibiting the retention of journals by officers currently serving or those who are retiring. A renewed request will be made to retired police officers to report and return any police material in their possession building on previous work in this area.

34.12 The Chief Constable must remind all officers of their legal obligations under Section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and Regulation 8 of the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2000.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. PSNI officers have already been reminded of this legal requirement. Furthermore a Memorandum of Understanding between the Police Ombudsman’s Office and Crime Operations was signed on 17 August 2005. This document outlines the above legislative obligations. We will use internal communication tools to further heighten awareness among officers of their obligations.

34.13 The Chief Constable must ensure that there is no continued obstruction of the Police Ombudsman such as experienced in this investigation.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted and is linked to the previous recommendation. Police Officers have been made aware that the Ombudsman’s powers as set out in Section 66 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and Regulation 8 of the RUC (Complaints etc) Regulations 2000, supersede those in other legislation that restrict the sharing of information, eg Regulation of the Investigatory Powers Act.

34.14 The PSNI should consider the introduction of the practice of Operational Risk Advisors, as used by the Serious Organised Crime Agency, or introduce a sensitive policing desk / department to provide consistent advice on sensitive and covert policing issues, to ensure that such operations comply with all the requirements of the law.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. In preparation for the transfer of National Security to MI5 the introduction of operational risk assessors will be considered. The PSNI will liaise with other agencies to identify any other good practice in this regard.

34.15 PSNI should review procedures for the provision of confidential information to the Public Prosecution Service in order to ensure the accuracy of the information provided in compliance with the Criminal Proceedings and Investigations Act.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. PSNI has already amended procedures to ensure that all relevant material, including sensitive material is revealed to prosecutors. Given the importance of this issue, it is subject to continuous monitoring to ensure the procedures are observed.

34.16 The PSNI are required to introduce and to monitor the effectiveness of new systems for the gathering of intelligence from prisons.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. A new Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared in consultation with the prison service. This sets out the procedures for sharing intelligence between PSNI Intelligence Branch and Prison Service. Additional dedicated staff are being appointed to these duties.

34.17 Although the Surveillance Commissioner is not within the jurisdiction of the Police Ombudsman, the Police Ombudsman nevertheless recommends that the Chief Surveillance Commissioner considers whether the current processes adopted by his Office are sufficient to ensure that the service offered by the Surveillance Commissioner is adequate to ensure compliance with the law, at this unprecedented period of threat to the National Security of the United Kingdom.

34.18 During the course of this investigation, and others, the Police Ombudsman has identified inadequacies in the procedures for the dissemination of all levels of information between the PSNI and An Garda Síochána. The two organisations should ensure that there are clearly described and auditable processes to enable effective policing operations in both jurisdictions.

Chief Constable’s response:
This recommendation is accepted. Procedures are already in place to ensure intelligence passed to An Garda Siochana by PSNI Intelligence Branch is fully documented. In the light of this recommendation PSNI will liaise with An Garda Siochana and carry out a review of those procedures to identify any areas upon which PSNI can improve.

34.19 In light of the forthcoming transfer of National Security matters to the Security Service MI5, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary should conduct a thematic inspection of the new PSNI processes for informant handling, controlling and management, with a view, particularly, to identifying any legislative or administrative changes which may be required to enable the effective handling and management of Covert Human Intelligence Sources within terrorist networks.

This recommendation is accepted by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary.

34.20 The Northern Ireland Policing Board should establish a mechanism to review the PSNI response to the recommendations made in this Report within a period of six months and at appropriate intervals thereafter.

, , ,

  • Bemused

    Wonder where Trevor Ringland is today? Wonder how all this fits into his “the Crown forces were a great bunch of lads” theory?

    Just heard that corpulent oaf Ken Maginnis on BBC news 24 – the silly twat has obviously spent the last number of years in the Lords eating himself into oblivion.

    Needless to say that he trotted out an even more asinine chain of dishonest tripe than Finlay Spratt had managed earlier today (and that’s some achievement).

    What is it about fat, bum-faced Northern Unionists? Think about it…Ken Maginnis, Jimmy Spratt, John Taylor, Paisley, a whole assortment of DUP bog-trotters like Gardiner Kane et al….What way do their minds work?
    Do they think – “O.K. I’m a pretty unpleasant and offensive bigot. I’m quite ugly. I don’t get a lot of sex…and my penis is quite small… I know! I’ll stuff my face with lard burgers for the next couple of years and see where that gets me.”

  • jone

    David re. Rev Templeton not being named as one of the victims – my understanding is that O’Loan only named the 10 people she was absolutely certain Haddock had a hand in killing – in the report she says she makes this judgement on the basis of intelligence which was graded ‘usually reliable and probably true.’

    She refers to a further six killings which he might have been involved in – in these cases the intelligence is a bit weaker, Rev Templeton falls into this category as does ‘Candy’ Greer. Anyone else know how the other four are?

    Picador re. the BBC so far as I can see it’s been the lead on the UK front page since first thing this morning till time of writing. And it’s the lead on the TV 10.

    And here’s one for Ingram. The means were gruesome but what the hell was the end that the SB had in mind for the Mount Venon Op?

    O’Loan states clearly that she had no evidence that of a plan to incite murder, using Haddock’s gang as a state proxy.

    The gang were involved in a series of basically pointless killings of Catholics and some loyalists – it wasn’t as if they were left on the street ‘to take the war to the Provos’. Furthermore there was as much intelligence being provided on Haddock’s crimes as Haddock was providing on other crimes.

    Was it just a malign self-perpetuating bureaucracy which just kept running this shit because that’s what it had always done? Or is that too generous an interpretation.

  • Pablo

    It never ceases to amaze me, the long line of individuals prepared to defend the indefensible when it comes to this sorry excuse for a country.

    An expose such as that revealed today would shake any civilised country to its foundations..not so norn iron.

    The IRA need not have fired a single bullet; a country established and maintained on the poison of sectarianism was destined to poison itself.
    Those who defend the actions of special branch and their puppetmasters betray the very attitudes that ensure this rotten state will ultimately destroy itself from within.

  • moyle rover

    Question for ingram. You state that HMG were running very high ranking agents in IRA/SF Scap, donaldson + many others??? and they were running the loyalists lock stock and barrel by the sound of things. If that was the case why could they not at a time of their choosing close down the troubles. They could easily have put away all major players in loyalism and by your account the vasy majority of provos, why didnt they?

  • Ingram

    Jone,

    quote And here’s one for Ingram. The means were gruesome but what the hell was the end that the SB had in mind for the Mount Venon Op?

    What you first must understand is this is not isolated to the Mount Vernon unit! it was systematic and an institutionalised method of operating which was in universal use in Portadown, Lurgan, all sections of Belfast, Larne, Antrim and beyond.

    I have written and spoken on many occassions about these activities ( Collusion) and nothing in this report surprises me nor do I expect it to change anything.

    The core point you ask is WHY?

    In my experience this activity is generated from a desire for mutual benefit! I can assure you that the some of these Handlers involved will have materially proffited from these criminals activities! bank robberies, insurance rip offs etc

    Drug dealers, extortion,etc operate for one reason and one reason only to make money. Money that is required for the Organisation(UVF/IRA), the individual, and the Handler.

    The state( Police) in turn gains by having reliable informants who can be reined in and used for tactical reason if / when they are required. You can summarise by saying these units are on stand by.

    Nothing unusual in relation to Terrorists making money from crime! ask Spike to authenticate his wealth?

    The difference in this case is more acute and damaging although I caution all to remember this pendulam swings both ways.

    Good night.

    Ingram

  • Damien Okado-Gough

    Adams on the BBC:

    [i]Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said republicans would “not be surprised or shocked by the revelations”.

    “We think that it’s an incentive that the mechanisms which were put in place for accountability, which we put in place and which we have argued for, now need to be deployed, not only to make sure that this does not happen (again), but if it does, that those guilty will be dealt with properly,” he said. [/i]

    And if the OTR legislation had gone through, as Sinn Fein had argued it should, then would those responsible ever had reason to worry?

  • Ingram

    Moyle Rover.

    In relation to Loyalism.

    That organisation posed no threat to the UK national interest and was viewed as an ally in the fight against Republicansism.They were controlled by and large and let off the leish as and when it was needed.Disgusting I know but true.

    An effective tool.

    In respect to Republicanism.

    The organisation from the begining of the present troubles was not corrupted per se from day one unlike Loyalism.

    In a long drawn out conflict it takes time to subvert an enemy! it takes time to manourvre them into positions where influence can be applied and direction achieved.

    If you analyse the exposures of most Republican Agents they have all been career agents ie for twenty or more years.

    The reason for that is simple. From small acorns grow and it those small acorns than can destroy an whole crop.

    The Republican movement could be described as one large oil tanker! it could not be turned around in five miles! NO! it needed 30 miles to bring it to a position were it poses no substantial risk to the UK National interest.

    A rather simplistic reply but I hope I have conveyed the point. It takes time and Intelligence.

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • Aaron McDaid

    Damien Okado-Gough,
    Even if the OTR legislation had went through, there is still the outstanding issue of these criminals that are still in the PSNI today, having committed post-GFA crimes. Whether or not the OTRs go to prison, they shouldn’t still be working in the PSNI.

  • plus ca change

    What about the Castlereagh break-in and the theft of top secret PSNI/RUC Special Branch files in 2002? Todays relevations throw the spotlight firmly back on the police as the most likely suspects. One can only imagine the links to crime contained in those files! I know its in the past, but does that mean we criminals in the police or security forces remain in situ?

  • Aaron McDaid

    Ingram,
    This collusion didn’t help the British Government, or Loyalism for that matter, unless killing innocent people was the sole end goal. Killing IRA members decreased the IRA ranks, but killing civilians (which was the main item on the agenda) increased IRA support and membership. The end goal appears to have been to prolong the war, not end it.

  • Ingram

    Aaron Mcdaid,

    This collusion didn’t help the British Government, or Loyalism for that matter, unless killing innocent people was the sole end goal. Killing IRA members decreased the IRA ranks, but killing civilians (which was the main item on the agenda) increased IRA support and membership. The end goal appears to have been to prolong the war, not end it.

    It depends which period of collusion you are refering to?

    If you are refering to Haddock and his activities ie 1990 through till the year 2000.

    The war was over by then. It did not prolong the war because the IRA had effectively caved in by then.

    The Police and other security agencies had under their control an effective tool to utilise when and if they had to .

    If you are refering to pre 1990 -1980 then collusion was an extremly damaging and psychological tool. The Nationalist community was terrorised by these criminals and although they suspected collusion they could not prove it. That caused fear and concern within the Nationalist communities. That was state terrorism. It caused war weariness and unlimately it led to peace.

    Peace at a price though.

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • Damien Okado-Gough

    Aaron,

    There were people murdered before the Peace Process began. Had the OTR legislation gone through then their families would never see the Special Branch people involved in court.

    Therefore, Adam’s statement about people being brought to book due to mechanisms that his party asked for strikes me as being somewhat hypocritical.

    Again, had the OTR legislation gone through then Special Branch members would be protected by that very law from prosecution. Sinn Fein argued for the OTR legislation even after they saw that the British govt was trying have Special Branch members like the ones in this report protected from prosecution.

    So the human rights abusers in the combatant organisations were looking after themselves and the ordinary people can whistle for justice.

  • Aaron McDaid

    Damien,
    I hope everyone agrees that these people should be removed from the PSNI? You can attack SF all you like, I might even join you, but the urgent matter is to get them out of the PSNI right now. The public deserve this. Do non-SF voters deserve to have these people forced upon them as police just to spite SF?

  • Ingram

    Aaron,

    I think all right thinking people would agree with you.They should not be employed as policemen and women.

    Regards

    Ingram

  • Damien Okado-Gough

    Aaron,

    You can take it from my previous posts that I want the families of the murdered to have their day in court. Convicted criminals cannot be members of the PSNI.

  • Dympna

    My late father was an RUC officer. Guess what? he was not a bigot, nor an idiot, nor a black bastard nor was he a policing obscenity (to quote a local provo hack). He was a decent man and by all accounts a good police officer.

    I am very angry after reading this report. These SB officers effectively colluded in murder by letting a bunch of low life criminals get away with murder. I hope that the bereaved families eventually see justice. Of lesser importance is the fact that these officers have sullied my fathers name and the many others like him in the RUC/PSNI. Shame on them and shame on you Ronnie for your memory lapses.

    Dympna

  • seamus deery

    Damien
    your former ? party, the SDLP, I assume you haven’t got a branch in Japan, for over 20 years poured scorn on Sinn Fein’s claims on collusion. Mark, your leader, only took up this issue very late in the day. maybe that’s one reason the SDLP are no longer the majority party on the Nationalist side. Given your support for hoods in Derry later on I think you were always more anti republican than pro SDLP. Did something happen you in Belfast when you were young??? Is that where your virulent anti republicanism stems from???

  • PeterBrown

    Heck – if I am a holocaust denier (look I can even spell it) what have you to say about my comments about republicanism? This report points out that a number of officers in SB didn’t play by the rules but that most people in uniform had no idea what was going on. At least the RUC had rules to play by – PIRA shot who they liked hwere they liked when they liked, going to church, at the hospital even crossing the yard to go for a bath. I condemn those who don’t play by the rules and those who claim there are no rules equally – can you say the same or are there degrees of murder?

    This is a bad day for those in SB who had anything to do with Mt Vernon UVF and those who allowed them to do so(and those in the UUP who continue to associate with them – don’t forget I left the UUP over that association)but let those who are with put sin cast the first stone and no-one associated with physical force republicanism falls into that category.

  • Heck

    Is anyone really surprised that Collusion occured? Did we need Nula O Loan to tell us what we already knew?

    Republicans have been screaming about this for decades, despite the sdlp calling it “Republican propoganda”.

    What is significant is the timing of this report and the leaking of it, the week of the Sinn Féin Ard Fheis on Policing.

    It’s quite obvious that certain members of the security services are not too keen on Sinn Féin becoming involved.

    Should those serving members be removed, of course!

    The question is who is going to do it, will it be the mighty sdlp?

    I don’t think so, they have been complicit in this for years. They have refused to meet with the families on this issue when they attended Stormont and Westminster. They have been on the Policing board for 8 years and they have done nothing.

    We need to get the proper mechanisms in place where by we can root out these rat b******s once and for all.

    That is the only way that we can get a new start to Policing, the British government needs to lift the lid on their dirty war.

    So much for the RUC recieving the george cross, it must be dripping in blood.

  • I’ll be blogging on this tomorrow, after completing my reading of the report. But so far as I can see this raises many more questions than it answers.

    Not least how the unilateral handing of oversight and power over such activities to a locally unaccountable MI5 can be construed as a proper mechanism for rooting out this kind of behaviour!

  • John East Belfast

    What is all this righteous indignation from Republicans about ?

    One minute they are singing the praises of David Ervine and the next they are foaming at the mouth at his fellow travellers in the UVF and their shady dealings with elements of the police.

    Not to mention the fact that they are perfectly happy to have Martin ‘human bomb’ McGuinness in charge of our children’s education and god knows what other collection of criminals make up the ranks of SF.

    We all expect a high standard from our police service and undoubtedly certain elements have been corrupt.
    However militant republicanism and so called loyalism are corrupt to the core.
    Not to mention Hugh Orde washing his hands of the matter while rubbing shoulders with UVF godfathers at the funeral last week.

    Criticism from the SDLP, Alliance Party and most elements of constitutional Unionism are justified but to hear Republicans on here and Dawn Purvis on the radio is just too much to bear.

    Why not let Nuala O’Loan loose on SF and the PUP and their respective collusion with PIRA and UVF ?

    Is SF’s main gripe in all this that the police did not play by the rules ? Is there some kind of Geneva convention for terrorism or something ?

    For those of us who cherished the rule of law this matter is an abomination but I cant work out what SF’s problem was exactly considering they considered themselves at war ?

  • latcheeco

    Nothing to do with SF John. To do with state sanctioned murder of innnocent citizens and no prosecutions to follow.

  • Bono

    John East Belfast,

    This may have gone over your head but Nuala O’Loan is the police ombudsman, and her remit does not extend beyond that.

  • Token Dissent

    Although I totally agree with John East Belfast with regard to the confused morals of Sinn Fein, I am in dismay at the reaction of unionism to the report.

    By going to Ken Maginess Channel Four/Newsnight obviously wanted a considered unionist opinion. What they got instead was another example of unionism in a state of denial. Unionism has to face up to uncomfortable historical realities if they are to lead the community forward.

    Although we are never going to have an agreed history in this place, some basics have to be accepted. For unionism that means accepting:

    1) that discrimination pre-1968 was a reality.

    2) that the mainstream parties’ relationship with loyalist paramilitary violence was often shamefully close.

    3) that the state did commit murder and also colluded with terrorists.

  • DMCM

    I feel almost sick reading this. What a sad day for Ireland.
    My gut instinct is for the SDLP and Sinn Fein to stand together and DEMAND the immediate removal of the British government from Ireland.
    Let it be known that Unionism in Ireland is at it’s end stages. The Irish people will unite behind the shocking exploitation that British elements put into the north east of Ireland.
    How dare they allow the so called police to murder people. For those who havent realised, I am sure that senior members of the British government were also aware of this. Have you no shame?

  • Wilde Rover

    If accounts by He Who Dings are to be taken at face value then all the players on this perfidious stage must be sweating under their masks as the performance draws to a close and the lights come up on an enraged audience.

    But one suspects the audience will find that the Producer/Director/Stage Manager will have moved on to another production.

    Regardless of whether or not “Death on the Euphrates” is The Next Big Thing, “The Troubles” seems to be facing the Final Curtain.

  • Damien Okado-Gough

    Seamus,

    I posted on a previous thread that I was member of the SDLP in Derry, but that I left that party in the late 90s. It would be wrong to assume that I give the SDLP blanket support, or Sinn Fein none.

    I am not virulently anti-republican. I have been a republican since I was a teenager on the Falls Road, joining Sinn Fein in the 1980s. However, I left because I developed serious doubts that the use political violence could bring about independence. I am not anti-republican, I am anti-violence.

    Regarding the help I gave the McGinley family in Derry. The McGinleys were treated very badly by the IRA and Sinn Fein in Derry and I’m very
    happy that I gave them the help that I did. There is no shame in fighting for justice.

    Lastly, I cannot understand why you feel inclined to write about my personal details when they have no bearing whatsoever on what I posted earlier on the thread. Where I live now and where I grew up are of no consequence whatsoever here.

    I’m more than happy to debate the issues with you, but I’m asking you kindly not to post my personal details on the internet.

  • Crataegus

    This is an opportunity for some Unionist Politicians to stand up to the mark and demand that the findings of this be accepted and remedial action ensue forthwith.

    It is an opportunity for Unionists, Nationalists and Republicans to find common ground. It is not, and should not, be a party political issue. It is essential that this boil is lanced and we unravel as much of this part of the past (and present) as possible. It is a two edged sword and many in all communities will feel the blade.

    We need to relentlessly seek the truth on this one it is of fundamental importance.

  • Ingram

    Crataegus,

    I could not agree more with you post above. The primary problem though we are debating subjects and matters which are interwoven and public positions adopted by political parties do not reflect the reality of each real parties position.

    This information will just deed the margins.

    Regards

    Ingram

  • Ingram

    That should have read FEED.

    Oops sorry.

    Ingram

  • joeCanuck

    Martin

    You and I have had some disagreements in the past but i think your more recent comments have displayed that you are a decent man.
    You also have to be credited for being the first to try to expose some of the ugly aspects of state policy during this disgraceful little war.

  • To echo Dympna’s post, as a unionist (small ‘u’) and the son of an ex-RUC man (a plod on the beat, not SB), I’m ashamed that these scum in SB and their superiors have done this and seemingly will be allowed to get away with doing it.

    I’m even more ashamed of the way Unionist politicians have reacted – what planet are they living on? Anyone with an ounce of sense in their head was well aware that rules were being bent all over the place during the Troubles, and to deny it just makes you look like a complete imbecile.

    And unfortunately, this is more than just rule-bending. This is murder, sanctioned by serving police officers.

    DUP/UUP/etc, wake up – a large majority of the Protestant community would say that, despite the fact that a large number of RUC officers provided exemplary service, there is absolutely no excuse for the kind of thing Nuala O’Loan has uncovered. There is no excuse for police officers allowing known murderers to escape justice, and actually paying them for their activities.

    Everyone involved in this sordid affair must be investigated and brought to justice if at all possible, and the families, and particularly the CID officers who *didn’t* collude but tried to investigate Mount Vernon should actually be *listened to* for a change.

    On behalf of those RUC officers who did their best, the families of all those who died or suffered as result of these morons have my sympathies.

    This must never happen again.

    (and by the way, both sides, stop the silly political point-scoring. People died as a result of this, leave the recriminations to the families)

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    ‘You also have to be credited for being the first to try to expose some of the ugly aspects of state policy during this disgraceful little war.’

    He was never anywhere near being the first. This report refers to a small area of North Belfast and refers to a time from the early 1990’s onwards.
    Collusion by British Forces against the Catholic population has taken place right across the northern 6 counties and beyond from the start of the outbreak of hostilities in 1969.

    Very many people were ‘first’ to highlight this collusion and suffered greatly for doing so. All suffered ridicule and exclusion, others intimidation, torture and ultimately paid with their lives long before this individual arrived on the scene.
    They highlighted these cases because they cared and out of points of principle, not over some sordid argument relating to payoffs or remuneration.

  • Ingram

    Joe C,

    Thank You.

    Let us look forward and hopefully others will follow.

    Regards.

    Martin

  • Henry94

    Ingram

    I’m all for looking forward. But in a lot of your comments you give support to those who are opposed to actually moving forward. You appear to embrace both the DUP and republican dissidents. Anybody, once they oppose Sinn Fein.

    I know you’re not a fan of the leaders and even suspect their real motivation. But if they were gone tomorrow the policy would still be right and it is policy that matters.

  • Ingram

    Pat,

    Joe was making the point in relation to an insider breaking cover.I was certainly one of the first.I am the only insider to have named individuals who have comitted crimes.

    e.g The ex FRU officer now PSNI officer who went on national TV with Peter Taylor and admitted requesting Brian Nelson to conspire to kill with others.

    He remains on police bail await the PP decision to prosecute or not. Mr Adams made the point yeterday about those approximately ten individuals who have been waiting two years to await their fate. No doubt they are waiting for Sinn Fein and HMG to agree to another NI offences bill.

    In relation to pay offs/remuneration.

    The Newspapers have made it clear that on principle I do not seek payment. The J118 payment was made to charity as the Newspaper made clear.

    I received my full pension entitlement from HMG, I have never sought nor been offered increased rights. I have campaigned for others to be offered protection and an income but only in respect to a contract enterd into by the state on recruitment of those individuals.

    I did make money from the best selling book Stakeknife but that was not till 2004 some five years after my first story in the papers about the FRU saving Mr Adams life in 1999.

    You are confusing my own personal position with other ex HMG agents within the IRA who are currently in a legal dispute with the British state.

    I have helped both sides of this conflict as Danny Morrison of Sinn Fein can testify and will show no fear nor favour.

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • Ingram

    Henry 94,

    quote”I’m all for looking forward. But in a lot of your comments you give support to those who are opposed to actually moving forward. You appear to embrace both the DUP and republican dissidents. Anybody, once they oppose Sinn Fein

    Ok, let me be crystal clear.

    The route Sinn Fein is currently moving towards ( P&j)is to be welcomed and I have made that clear on this site on more than one occassion recently. It is the right thing to do. Change will only be effected by politics and persuasion.It is a shame it took so long to see the reality of the situation though!

    My primary problem though is with the leadership of Sinn Fein not Sinn Fein the political party. That leadership is corrupt and responsible for many hundreds of deaths. I will hound them and expose them as I have done corrupt police officers, corrupt soldiers and the biggest criminal of all HMG.They are common criminals, NO different in my eyes to Haddock who I despise with every breath of my body.

    In relation to the DUP. I am on record as saying they are cute whores. They raised the McGuinness case in Parliament well before I released the J118 document.

    They know much much more than they are letting on at this moment in time.I am no friend of the DUP because they are playing politics with a serious subject.

    I hope that makes my position clear Henry. I want to go forward but on a foundation that is strong and reflects integrity and honesty of both the past and the truth about the present situation.

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • Henry94

    Ingram

    Fair enough. But the same points could have been made about leaders in the War of Independence many of whom went on to become normal politicans and even world figures.

    If there are some facts to come out about any Sinn Fein leader that would cause people to stop supporting them fine. Let them come out. But as of now people vote for them to lead us to peace in the knowledge of the struggle they were part of.

    If you bring them down you will change the footnotes of history but not its direction.

    It is a shame it took so long to see the reality of the situation though!

    In those terms there are some who still don’t see it. Let’s not encourage them. And holding out the prospect of bringing down the Sinn fein leaders in some kind of spy-scandal does just that.

  • abucs

    “This report refers to a small area of North Belfast and refers to a time from the early 1990’s onwards.
    Collusion by British Forces against the Catholic population has taken place right across the northern 6 counties and beyond from the start of the outbreak of hostilities in 1969”.

    Well said Pat.

    Truth is imoportant, but so is moving on. Personally, I think SF now have showed the right balance. Full credit to them on this issue.

  • abucs

    I would add as well that such a situation in policing (although not universal as NIRsucks says) could only come about with one party rule.

    Where one party rule exists in just about all such countries, that political group also “owns” the security forces.

    I would ask anti-agreement unionists to think about that, and see why power sharing is a bottom line for nationalists, the two governments and some of their fellow unionists.
    You may think all will be well under majority rule, but history shows different for political entities where one group rules in perpetuity.

  • Ingram

    Henry ,

    quote If you bring them down you will change the footnotes of history but not its direction unquote

    Henry , I do not want to change Sinn Fein`s direction in moving towards P&J indeed I want to help them take that step.

    In relation to certain corrupt individuals. They have no role in Government , the party does but not those individuals.

    We shall agree to disagree on this one aspect Henry.

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • PeterBrown

    Couldn’t agree more with NIRsucks and I believe he accurately sums up the mood of the unionist community – and asks a pertinent question about why the politicians aren’t reflecting that mood. Presumably because the UUP are in bed with Mount Vernon’s mouthpieces in the UVF and because the DUP cannot be seen to endorse O’Loan. There was some sympathy for security forces fighting fire with fire in sahoot to kill scenarios because there was a view that PIRA never had to wave a yellow card before opening up or placing an under car booby trap but when you bank roll the gangsters in Mount Vernon the unionist view of that organisation is reflected in its electoral support – virtually nil and watch it fall after the demise of the main reason why some with short memories voted PUP.
    Equally others with short memories are choosing to ignore the Reports priase for the others in RUC who did good work though so as NIRsucks says this is a human tragedy more than a political football

  • Henry94

    ingram

    In relation to certain corrupt individuals. They have no role in Government , the party does but not those individuals.

    The voters think otherwise and that is the only way to decide.

    If there is some piece of information you have that could change their minds about an individual then you could influence the voters decision.

  • joeCanuck

    Pat

    I don’t disagree with what you say.
    Martin is totally correct, howver, when he points out that I was referring to him “breaking cover”.
    Given the apparent willingness of HMG and agents to indulge in extra-judicial “executions”, that took a lot of courage.

  • Ingram

    Henry 94,

    The voters will indeed make up their mind on Sinn Fein`s direction, hopefully they will agree with me and you .

    In respect to the leadership. The general public are not the ones who will remove the leading shinners. It is well over two decades since a leadership challenge was mounted within Sinn Fein.That is unique in the western world. The party is not structured to facilitate one ! without bloodshed as happened in the last one.

    The core electorate that I am aiming at is the same that removed Freddy from the scene! if you take my meaning. That electorate play by different rules and consequently so must I.

    Time and circumstances(Inquiries) will dictate movement as it did with Scap.

    Handlers/Intelligence Operatives tend to be by nature very patient people and can wait for the opportune moment to play the killer card as we did with Freddy unless of course the DUP make a first strike. I am nothing if not predictable.

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • mount vernon resident

    Back to what this post is really about….I, as a resident of Mount Vernon, am deeply disgusted by this report, though it comes as no shock, and am seriously glad that it has all been confirmed. Although I, and many others here, believe that all the ‘informers’ should be named & shamed as for all we know, they are still living among us! Does anyone else agree with me? OK, if they are, we all know what would happen but if they have been responsible for 15 or so murders, then justice will truly be done in my eyes!!

  • gareth mccord

    mount vernon resident
    fair play
    we have always stated that the majority of people in mount vernon are good people who want rid of the rats that invest their community. there is more informers like haddock in your community and those around. Nobody can get away with the crimes they have commited and are commiting without being a tout. NOBODY believed us when 9 years ago we said haddock was a tout but now they do. we have never told a lie about raymonds death and will not. so believe me when i tell you that w.y.(muscles), j.b.(bonzo), g.h.(cowhead) d.m.(judas) s.l.(squealer) are confirmed touts(by documents sent to orde and relevent authorities) who have commited as much and some more crimes than haddock. But like all rats they end up in the gutter were they belong. the sooner the better im sure you are saying. it is just a matter of when not how now . good luck

  • susan

    Ingram
    “Henry , I do not want to change Sinn Fein`s direction in moving towards P&J indeed I want to help them take that step.”

    Ingram, I have to ask you a personal question, simply because I can’t not ask it any longer.

    You have posted here (at Slugger) that it is your belief SF’s refusal to join the Policing Board when the SDLP cost many lives.

    You have posted here that when you went public with the information about the FRU in general and Stakeknife in particular, one of your prime motives was to save lives.

    Your own statements here would lead me to expect that you would want to see SF back policing, yet for weeks here you’ve tirelessly belittled, ridiculed, taunted, ding-ding-ding-dinged, etc. any SF posters favourable to a “yes” vote on policing.

    What’s up with that?

  • I am immensely cheered to see my suspicion confirmed that the general Unionist population of Northern Ireland (or at least those who have posted here) are as disgusted at the realities revealed by the O’Loan report as I am.

    It reiterates my lifelong belief that that population of good, law-abiding people are shoddily and disingenuously represented by their political leadership.

    I am heartened to hear posters of the Unionist persuasion express their outrage at the activities ascribed to SB, and I hope with all my heart that they will take that outrage to their political representatives and demand that their voice be heard, the voice of Johnston Brown and the thousands of good and honest RUC officers who sought to police in extraordinary circumstances while being simultaneously undermined by their own SB colleagues.

    I hope that the entire population of North Belfast will rally round Ray McCord senior in his election campaign, and that the Unionist community will unite with the Nationalist community in demanding a full inquiry into ALL aspects of collusion in Northern Ireland, whether it be RUC/Loyalist collusion, MI5/PIRA collusion or indeed some other permutation.

  • PeterBrown

    ….and indeed collusion in RoI between the Garda and PIRA and why so many terrorists were not extradited back to NI from RoI sometimes on the basis of justifications that the guns they used were too big?

  • Henry94

    Ingram

    The general public are not the ones who will remove the leading shinners. It is well over two decades since a leadership challenge was mounted within Sinn Fein.That is unique in the western world.

    Really? When was the last time there was a leadership challenge in the DUP. Or the SDLP before John Hume retired. What is unique in the Western world may just be the north.

    As for the rest it is clear that you don’t like certain leading figures and I think you would bring them down if you could. That you haven’t suggests you can’t.

    If at some future point you manage it then I’ll be happy to stand corrected. It will change nothing.

  • mount vernon resident

    Gareth McCord…

    When ur father said this 9 years ago, we did believe him, honestly, there were just far too many ‘coincidences’ & when approached Haddock would just shrug it off. Whereas if it had have been me, I would’ve done anything in my power to clear my name. But in reality, who was going to do anything about it?? U & I both know what would’ve happened if anyone stood up to him. Glad it’s almost over now, though I don’t believe all of the above are informers, I do believe there are a few u have mentioned ie B, CH for sure, how will we ever know though???

  • gareth mccord

    MOUNT VERNON RES
    the before named informers have handlers in s.b. even as we speak i have seen the proof and intel to confirm. also past and present officers have confirmed it. as for joe public knowing they will find out soon enough just as soon as the relevent authorities have dealt with the intel that was not made public in the report for the reasons to nail them. remember haddock was untouchable but look at now and because of who? the same is in motion for the rest believe me .

  • mount vernon resident

    Gareth…

    I do believe you are enthusiastic about bringing them all to boot but am slightly dubious about whether or not you have actually seen this intelligence. I don’t think you’d lie per se, but you do understand me thinking this way don’t you?

    If only we could all see this intelligence, how great would that be?

    I am not the only resident in Mount Vernon that feels this way btw, the majority feel the same, apart from those related to the touts obviously!!

  • north belfast resident

    Mount vernon resident

    I am glad u have spoken out but who do u think r the touts in Mount Vernon? Or even anywhere (shankill) I hav my own theories re them, including touts being in much higher positions than most ie c-of-s & brig. We need 2 do something 2 get rid but what??

    Gareth, any suggestions??

  • talon

    DUP defends police who hampered collusion inquiry Belfast telegraph 25Jan 07
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/article2184080.ece
    What is the rule of law for Obstruction of justice in England as it pertains to Northern Ireland?

    Quote: The DUP is defending the senior police officers who refused to co-operate with the Police Ombudsman’s inquiry into collusion between the RUC and loyalist paramilitaries.
    Does this make Ian Paisley Jr. and them culpable under the Terrorist act & Obstruction of justice in precluding a minister from carrying out her duties under the law of Her Majesties Government should be remanded to the courts.

    Quote: The DUP’s Ian Paisley Jnr claims they were within their rights to withhold co-operation because Ms O’Loan was engaged in a “fishing exercise.”

    He has also rejected suggestions that they (The police officers) had moral obligation to co-operate, saying: “At the end of the day, it boils down to what is your legal right.”

    What is legally right? Is not what Mr. Ian Paisley Jnr. doing illegal? If it is his right to object then it is his right to be remained to a judge where they can educate him in the laws of his Country.

  • gareth mccord

    north belfast res and mount vernon res
    i do find evidence stories etc hard to believe even now but as history proves it in this country . EVERY DOG HAS ITS DAY!
    if anyone you know has info or wants these people out tell me face to face and i can gaurantee total trust honesty safety and secrecy.

  • loyalist

    Gareth McCord

    I wud like 2 know y ur father Raymond Snr wud’ve been meetin Mark Harbinson (as was revealed on the Insight prog UTV) Mr Harbinson, after the ’94 ceasefires is well known 2 b one of 2 men who formed the RHD. Y was Mr Harbinson took away by the police that day, & ur father allowed 2 WALK away 2 his car after an hour (as he stated on TV)
    Ur father spoke of the meeting, on TV, but never got round 2 saying wot they were REALLY there 4.

  • Ingram

    Henry,

    quote”As for the rest it is clear that you don’t like certain leading figures and I think you would bring them down if you could. That you haven’t suggests you can’t.

    Its just a matter of time! and?

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • gareth mccord

    loyalist(uvf)?
    watch it again and listen properly . people wonder why u.v.f. loyalists have no brains?
    harbinson wanted the same as us HADDOCK AND TEAM LOCKED AWAY FOR LIFE AND TO GIVE MY DAD INFO ON THEIR ACTIVITIES! i wonder why mark was released first and didnt persue wrongful arrest? and who is persuing it?
    also why did some s.b. and cid tip my dad off that the police were trying to “get him out of the picture”
    ask yourself i mean mark why the people of portadown suspect he is aligned with haddock?
    so many questions eh?
    remember you fool nobody with the uvf black propaganda KEEP SPINING

  • gareth mccord

    anyone?
    a simple question and answer even for the uvf!
    WHY HAS THE DOUBTERS OF THE REPORT ONY SEEN THE WATERED PUBLIC REPORT? AND WHY HAS THE BELIEVERS AND QOUTED BELIEVERS SEEN THE PROPER “TOP SECRET REPORT”? I.E. TONY BLAIR, HAIN, ORDE, WHEN THEY WOULD BE THE LAST PEOPLE TO WANT OR SAY ITS TRUE AND ACCEPT THE RECOMMADATIONS?
    WHY WHY WHY?
    yes folks that right has the penny dropped
    arrests will follow and charges brought we are promised!!

  • loyalist

    Gareth

    So your father was happy to meet RHD/OC Mark Harbinson, what would he have known about Mount Vernon’s activities? [text removed – moderator] Never mind Mark Harbinson, why wasn’t Mr Harbinson (no relation) and family invited to the Ombudsman Report reading on Monday?

    Answer me why they weren’t invited…

  • gareth mccord

    are the harbinsons going to the ombudsman so she can investigate his real scummy killers?

  • loyalist

    Does that include ur brother?

  • gareth mccord

    why are the harbinsons not or have not spoken out against haddock who told haggarty to get a team to do harbinson in for beating his wife after she phoned haddock for help? or why do the harbinson and supporters not persue the death squad who killed mr harbinson.? why is the only person they believe killed mr harbinson dead?