Durkan names three SB officers in Parliament…

Mark Dukan has used Parliamentary previlege to name three senior officers as having obstructed the Police Ombudsman in her recent investigation.

SDLP leader Mark Durkan has named three former heads of Special Branch who he said failed to cooperate with a Police Ombudsman investigation. Using parliamentary privilege he identified them as Chris Albiston, Raymond White and Freddie Hall.

,

  • Nationalist

    All three MUST be sacked and have theirpension rights removed. They are clearly through their unwillingness to co-operate guilty of perverting what should be the course of justice.

    The destruction of evidence and failure to co-operate with a legal investigation must be an offence of some discription and charges brought against all those involved.

    Clearly everyone who failed to answer questions that is still employed by the PSNI needs to be removed immediately. HOW are people going to or expected to have faith in a police force that retains personnel who have covered up murders and destroyed evidence to ensure that Unionist paramilitary killers do not face juctice and where free to continue killing?

    If these people are still in the PSNI then they clearly could still be turning a blind eye to the actions of the Unionist paramilitaries in their continuing killing, arms precurement, extortion etc. etc.

    There is no way that anyone could be sure that those PSNI members are still not alalowing the Unionist terrorists to commit crimes – they MUST be sacked one and all!!!!!

  • observer

    pity durkan wont name those in Sinn fein who colluded to murder protestants and catholics

  • gerry

    At least he did something which is more than SF.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    Why do this under the cloak of parliamentary privilege? If they didn’t co-operate with the enquiry then just say so out in the public domain and have these people attempt to rebut it also in the public domain.
    If Durkan is correct and I suspect he is, these people can hardly sue him for defamation or such like. The report (hidden part) will be able to substantiate his claims.

    The DUP and UUP have often used this privilege, Paisley senior did it to smear the Reavey Brothers in an attempt to justify their murders, only last week the HET apologised to the remaining brother as to the treatment the family received and the fact the brothers were simply innocent Catholics.

  • Nationalist

    Gerry,

    It’s a pity the DUP don’t do the right thing and name their members who asked the UVF in 1994 to continue their sectarian murder campaign and not declare a ceasefire.

    Maybe Paisley junior could re-write the DUPs version of history and tell the truth on DUPs actions and involement with the Unionist terrorist groups, at least David Ervine was able to stand up and tell the truth about the DUPs request.

  • Sean

    How come the unionists just cant see the difference between the actions of a public body and the actions of a private group.

    public bodies like the police service have certain duties to what is percieved as law and order (I say perceived because obviously Northern Ireland has never had law and order) and that when they transgress these laws then it is a much greater afront than when an individual does it.

    besides which any evidence provided about Sinn Fein would be likely entirely circumstantial unlike the hard evidence that should be available against the forces of unlaw and disorder.

  • Parliamentary privilege

    Anyone care to name these officers Durkan named?

    I remember when Parliamentary privilege was used against Republicans and then echoed on Slugger, names were posted.

  • gery

    Pat if Durkan knew, then Adams knew. adams has the same status as durkan. why didn’t adams do it? out in the public domain, where the hidden part of the report could back him up? at least durkan had the balls to do something, all the others did nothing.including sf.

  • one for the archives

    martin ingram be sure to file this one for the archives when the next sinn fein informer is named

    Why do this under the cloak of parliamentary privilege? If they didn’t co-operate with the enquiry then just say so out in the public domain and have these people attempt to rebut it also in the public domain.
    If Durkan is correct and I suspect he is, these people can hardly sue him for defamation or such like. The report (hidden part) will be able to substantiate his claims. – Pat Mc Larnon on Jan 24, 2007 @ 02:36 PM

  • sack them…bollocks. They’d just get a job in another agency like MI5 or some private security firm like Col Spicers and end up getting more money than they could receive from a pension.

    Keep them employed & bring them to court as serving RUC/PSNI salaried defendants. If there’s not enough evidence then bring them up against the Euro Court of Human Rights etc. Let their only option of getting off the hook be that they come clean as to how high up the ranks the collusion was known. John Major and Maggie, if responsible, should be tried as war criminals. No wonder Maggie was so understanding of poor ol’ Gen. Pinocet’s predicament ?!?!

    The present human rights abuses revealed by N. O’Loan weren’t featured on the Beeb internet ‘front page’ on Monday and are now lost in the ‘back pages’. None of their friends in the int’l media are highlighting the issue. The Newsletter is publishing articles by unionist politicos about the wonders done by the decent RUC men.

    Dermot Ahern has mumbled something about how collusion should be cleared out from the police. The world’s leading legal know-all, RoI Justice Min McDowell, has hardly spoken about the revelations.

    In a few weeks it’s be all forgotten about and it’ll be implied that the kilings are “… exceptions rather than the rule, it’s all republican propaganda, sure the RUC are lovely blokes all the same. English people and especially their government are decent folk who wouldn’t be engaged in such behaviour… it’s the Irish element. The English rule of law is the basis of law the world over… ‘terrible vista’ and all that.”

    I’m expecting the republicans, nationalists and the RoI government to drop the ball on the whole sordid affair and things will go back to normal within a month. A few SB’ers might have a tough few days (eg. R. Flanagan) and that’ll be the end of it.

  • feismother

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6295053.stm

    I assume if the BBC are carrying them there’s no problem here. Mark Durkan’s naming of them was broadcast on Talkback and the Radio Foyle news a number of times so the dogs in the street have probably heard by now!

  • Art Hostage “Anyone care to name these officers Durkan named? ”

    if you care to click on the provided link to the Beeb you can see the names in the second paragraph. Geez

  • Ingram

    one for the archives.

    quote martin ingram be sure to file this one for the archives when the next sinn fein informer is named

    It has been filed but for the record I would like to make this point.

    The secret(100 pages) report will in my opinion never see the light of day because no charges will be officially layed and they will rest.I find it difficult to argue against the public interest position argued by Mark Durkan .

    The DUP and other have previously used Parliamentary previlege to name Mooch Blair and Martin Mcguinness and others equally deserving of that tactic.I cannot with all honesty say that I do not approve, afterall what is good for the goose is good for the gander..

    Regards.

    Ingram

  • Jesus Christ

    These names can hardly come as a surprise and the Sinn Fein trolls do not change the fact that Durkan named them. But the names of the Bloody Sunday killers and the Dublin bombers are wqell known so what difference does it make?
    There there is Claudy, human car bombs, La Mon etc. Read Kevin Myers today……….

    http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=36&si=1761324&issue_id=15157&printer=1

    I HAVE had some revolting experiences in my life before, but few to compare with hearing the murderers and torturers of Sinn Fein-IRA denounce the “human rights abuses” by the RUC. To listen to the man who was in charge at the time of the abduction, murder and secret burial of the widow, and mother of 10, Jean McConville, condemn the RUC for collusion is surely the most nauseating banquet of humbug and cant that the peace process has served up to us so far.

    Martin McGuiness, to be sure, had nothing to do with Jean McConville’s death, but he is a self-confessed leader of the IRA. So how is it possible that on The One O’Clock News on RTE, Sean O’Rourke could have interviewed him about allegations of RUC collusion with UVF killers without even once mentioning this fact? Instead, he was treated as if he and Sinn Fein had spent the past decades peacefully campaigning for police reform. The rewriting of history proceeds apace: Provisional Sinn Fein, apparently, was actually a civil rights organisation which merely sought justice for the nationalist peoples of the North. And if anyone is going to challenge that fiction, it’s apparently not going to happen on RTE radio.

    Now it is true that late in the interview, Sean O’Rourke did point out to Martin McGuinness that the alleged collusion between UVF men and RUC officers occurred during an IRA campaign. But he didn’t even once advert to the known truth that a primary engine for that IRA campaign was his guest of honour, the fine fellow denouncing the RUC.

    So let us consider the activities of Martin McGuinness, police reformer. I do not know if he was personally involved in the murder of two police officers – Peter Gilgunn, a 26-year-old Catholic, and David Montgomery, a 20-year-old Protestant – in Derry, in January 1972. But we do know from the Saville enquiry that he was second in command of the IRA in Derry at the time, so he cannot be innocent of all legal and moral responsibility for their deaths.

    Moreover, within two weeks, he was promoted to be in charge of the IRA in the city – at around the same time as a Catholic bus driver and off-duty UDR man, Thomas Callaghan, was abducted from his vehicle in Derry, bound and gagged, and then murdered by the IRA.

    No doubt poor Thomas Callaghan was shot as part of the Sinn Fein campaign for policing reform.

    We might ask the families of RUC constables David Dorset and Mervyn Wilson whether they were murdered as part of that same campaign for police reform. They were certainly re-formed, which is usually what happens to human bodies when they are blown up, as these two young men were, by an IRA bomb in January 1973.

    As the IRA’s commanding officer at the time, it is, I suppose just about possible that Martin McGuinness knew nothing whatever about this operation, and that when he heard about it on the news he cried: “What! Two peelers dead? Now how the flip did that happen?” But do you know, I somehow doubt it. …..

    Now I know nothing whatever about the activities of RUC Special Branch. No doubt they were murky indeed – but not nearly as murky as the deeds of the Provisional IRA, which was alone responsible for the deaths of almost 50pc of the people killed in the Troubles.

    Members of the RUC were directly responsible for 1.4pc deaths, and I’m certainly prepared to concede that some collusion probably increases that proportion, but not very much, for most loyalist paramilitary murders were of innocent Catholics, and no collusion was required to kill these poor wretches.

    However, I’m more than ready to have my mind changed. So let’s hear it all. Let’s hear how many Special Branch and MI5 agents were allowed to remain as active loyalist terrorists. And let’s hear about the last days and hours of the 50 or so alleged informers murdered by the IRA.

    And then, let’s hear how many of their interrogators and executioners were also working for the British. Scapaticci and Donaldson we know about: but who else? Half the army council, probably. And who knows? Maybe Martin McGuinness was not just a police reformer, but a police informer, too. Then let’s hear about Bloody Friday, and Jean McConville and Patsy Gillespie, Ireland’s first, though involuntary, suicide bomber, and all those other atrocities that their authors are never confronted with on RTE and the BBC, even as they are so freely denouncing the RUC.

  • DWong

    Raymond White, a former assistant chief constable who was head of
    CID at the time of the McCord murder, said: “Just because someone
    was registered as an informant or agent, it did not mean we had
    complete control of him.

    “People with relevant intelligence might hold back information to
    suit their own agendas or protect friends.”

    Indeed…..

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    The idea of getting the names out into the public domain is a good one, although I believe parrotting the discredited tactics of unionists should be avoided.
    They didn’t co-operate with the enquiry, just say so.

  • observer

    How come the unionists just cant see the difference between the actions of a public body and the actions of a private group. –

    A CRIME IS A CRIME IS A CRIME,
    an innocent victim, is an innocent victim

    Lets get ALL the collusion out in the open espically from those in SF who wish to be in government

  • Jesus Christ, nice attempt at trying to deflect form the issue but haven’t you noticed that the Brit govrn. and the media has spent how many years in trying to paint republicans as being the one and only source of the problems with the Sick Cos and that the unionists, their one party gov as being whiter than white. Likewise Westminster as a impartial mediator.

    If we didn’t believe that sh1te and this has been justified by the Euro Court of Law, Stalker & Steven reports and now N O’Loans reports then why would be take note of your ramble. There are two sides to the whole of the dysfunctional society that is NI. The present discussion is about one issue only – the RUC SB official accomadation and assistance to murder ie. the Brit Gov’s policing representatives are OFFICIALLY involved in manslaughter.

    Your attempt to deflect and / or won’t work.

  • observer

    anonymous – so crimes committed or ordered by martin mcguinnes as IRA leader , or Gerry Adams head of the Army council are to be ignored? FFS wise up.

    Time the DUP ran away for powersharing until SF remove all those involved in murder , kidnap and torture. Surely that has got to be a test of any party who say they support policing and law and order

  • curious

    Pat, the majority of the provisional leadership have been agents for decades that is why SF negoiated a formal and unaccountable role for MI5 so as they wont be exposed by the Obundsman’s office and that is why they exchanged that for disbanding the ARA so as they could keep their wealth they were allowed to accumulate by MI5 for their services to the crown. Well done Sir Gerry and Sir Martin, knighthoods on the way but unofficially!!!

  • dublinsfsupporter

    A stunt by the SDLP to try to make themselves relevant while they still exist.

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    curious,

    back under the bridge for you.

  • the other one

    The three officers mentioned have given a very different view of their contact with the ombudsman. They did engage on specifics but were not going to engage in Nuala’s fishing trip across the past 40 years of anti-terrorist activity.

  • heck

    I see a lot of “whataboutery” from unionists, and even the normally very fair Mick Fealty in the CIF article, with out any objection. (What about IRA/GARDA collusion bla bla bla!!)

    This proves my previous comments that the term “whataboutery” is only used when nationalists object to unionist claims of moral superiority and back it up with examples.

  • [i]Now I know nothing whatever about the activities of RUC Special Branch. No doubt they were murky indeed – but not nearly as murky as the deeds of the Provisional IRA, which was alone responsible for the deaths of almost 50pc of the people killed in the Troubles.[/i]

    As usual, this unionist poster combines civilian and security force victims to a single figure instead of posting and discussing them as separate categoruies

    During a war — and the Troubles WERE a war, a civil war or an armed rebellion — members of the military and the paramilitary forces of the State are legitimate targets and such killings are NOT terrorism. Deliberate attacks on non-combatants ARE terrorism. That’s the definition until HMG decided to unilaterally chage it.

    Sutton has made an extensive analysis of the those killed during the the Troubles, identifying some 3,523 victims. The results are available for all on the CAIN website at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk.

    Sutton identifies 1,707 vicitims killed by the Provisional IRA, of which 517 — or slightly more than 30% — were civilians. The other 1,190 were combatants of one sort or another, i.e. 1,011 members of the British security forces, 140 Republican paramilitaries, 32 Loyalist paramilitaries and 7 members of the Irish security forces.

    So your statement about the PIRA’s activities is really propaganda instead of a reasonable contribution to the discussion.

    [i]Members of the RUC were directly responsible for 1.4pc deaths, and I’m certainly prepared to concede that some collusion probably increases that proportion, but not very much, for most loyalist paramilitary murders were of innocent Catholics, and no collusion was required to kill these poor wretches.[/i]

    Again, it seems to me that you deliberately propagandize here. But, note that of the 55 Sutton identifies as killed by the RUC, 31, or about 56%, were civilians. Seems to me that the RUC itself made war on civilians, not combatants.

    Let me point out that British security forces, including both the Army and RUC among others, were credited with 362 killings by Sutton, of which 190, or 52.5%, were civilians.

    Furthermore, the O’Loan report covers only North Belfast and the RUC’s record there. Now, while North Belfast was the hottest area of the Troubles, there are an awful lot of other areas where it is hardly unreasonable to expect the RUC’s criminal record to be very similar.

  • Sinner not a Saint

    I can assure anyone reading this republican or otherwise that Martin McGuinness has no repeat no Security Forces kills acredited to him directly, though he has fired a number of rounds at fortified installations

  • time will tell

    Anyone care to make a wager that the Sinn Fein leadership let this slip by with the usual nod and a wink to the muppets about how “they will be made to pay in the long run” and how “they can use this case as leverage to implement the stuff from patten that was cut” rather than “pursue criminal charges and make unionist dig their heels in out of spite”

    Reality check the Sinn Fein leadership won’t persue this because the Brits will threaten them with an inquiry into SCAP and DENIS and oh god they NEVER EVER want that, or worse one of these VERY VERY senior people with ulta sensitive information starts NAMING NAMES….. then the shit would hit the fan

  • dublinsfsupporter-

    “A stunt by the SDLP to try to make themselves relevant while they still exist.”

    I didn’t realise they had internet connections in borstals. Interesting how you ignore efforts to highlight the heinous activities of Special Branch, instead opting to score cheap political points.

    the other one-

    “…not going to engage in Nuala’s fishing trip across the past 40 years of anti-terrorist activity.”

    Clearly you haven’t read Mrs. O’Loan’s report- it was actually an investigation into 12 years of pro-terrorist activity.

  • observer on Jan 24, 2007 @ 03:31 PM wrote,” anonymous – so crimes committed or ordered by martin mcguinnes as IRA leader , or Gerry Adams head of the Army council are to be ignored? FFS wise up. …”

    why don’t you read what I wrote and not what you want to get from what I wrote. FFS, I didn’t say anything about MMcG but pointed out, that subject has been discussed many, many times previously., This present discussion is about state sponsored crime unveiled by Nuala O’Loan. You are trying to deflect discussion from Brit gov crimes against their own citizens. We’ve spoken about SF, and McGuinness for 25 years or more, let shine the light on Spec Branch terrorists.
    FFS you are so stereotypical…. SF, MMcG, Gerry & the IRA seem to no worse than the Spec Branch and their paymasters but you still want to only hate the green side.

  • Sam Flanagan

    To all writing on this topic/thread.
    “Raymond McCord is not going to go away you know”
    There is a saying amongst the real right wing in Israel.
    LoNoslat, LoNashcat. It means “We shall not forgive, We shall not forget”.
    Why is almost everybody on this site to spineless to identify themsleves openly?

  • Yokel

    Parts of West Belfast seems to have been hit by an outage to Orange mobile phones according to a colleague….whats the Ombudsman going to do about it?

    Oh wait, wrong Ombudsman…

    Thats how relevant the SDLP’s calls will be right now. Too much at stake.

  • Irish Republican in America

    “anonymous – so crimes committed or ordered by martin mcguinnes as IRA leader , or Gerry Adams head of the Army council are to be ignored? FFS wise up.

    Time the DUP ran away for powersharing until SF remove all those involved in murder , kidnap and torture. Surely that has got to be a test of any party who say they support policing and law and order”

    Sounds like another DUP precondition….

  • BonarLaw

    anonymous

    “This present discussion is about state sponsored crime unveiled by Nuala O’Loan. You are trying to deflect discussion from Brit gov crimes against their own citizens”

    What crime(s) exactly? Is anyone going to face a court over this?

  • Plum Duff

    ‘All three MUST be sacked and have their pension rights removed’. Nationalist – Ist post.

    I presume you would include R.Flanagan, Esq. in this as well?

    Unfortunately, much as I admire your sentiment it will never happen. Not a snowball’s chance in hell. If the Ombudsman’s report is true, based as it is upon the small amount of evidence *NOT* hidden or destroyed, can you imagine the volume of singing from the main protagonists which would occur, ie, those who were in command in SB and obeying covert orders from No. 10 Downing St., if they were all hung out to dry? Do you think Downing St. wants the whole story out? Ronnie Flanagan, according to this morning’s Irish News is due to receive, on retirement, a lump sum of £431,405 and around £86,000 a year *for life*. Do you think Ronnie is going to allow that to be taken from him without a word or two to the press as to what *REALLY* went on, who knew about it and when did they know about it? Obviously the same goes for the others also.

    BTW, ‘Jesus Christ’ tried the same diversionary tactic (posting Myers’ one-eyed view on the conflict) on another thread. Does JC have a single point of his own to make or does he just wish to throw others’ snowballs? We’re engaged in a discussion, in case you didn’t know. Any moron can cut and paste.

  • The Devil

    Plum Duff said
    ” Any moron can cut and paste ”

    I refute this, why only last week Mrs Devil spent the family allowance money on new wallpaper, she sent me into the spare bedroom armed with 8 rolls of wallpaper 2 buckets of paste and a big pair of sissors.
    I dare you to come and have a look at the complete bollox I made of it and then have the brass neck to repeat your statement.

    P:S I’m now living in the spare bedroom, that’s when I’m not in coventry.

  • Bono

    Sean wondered:

    ‘How come the unionists just cant see the difference between the actions of a public body and the actions of a private group.’

    It is because the unionists CAN see the difference that either their silence is deafening or their denial is damning.

    To condemn the collusion and demand (as they of course should) a public inquiry would lead, in their eyes, to a further erosion of ‘their’ state, in the shape of an erosion of ‘their’ police force, already hollowed out somewhat in the wake of Patten.

    They may cloak their motives in well-sounding ‘reasonable’ comment, and the expected whataboutery, but whom do they think they’re fooling?

  • Yokel

    Unionists know very well whats been going on and maybe they just dont quite care so much.

    They know theres been dirty tricks and all kinds going on with both sides and the security forces. Sure I grew up being told that Gerry Adams was being protected by the cops, that such and such loyalist was a tout. There were the stories that there were a million cops and troops in an area then suddenly they all disappeared just before something kicked off be it an attempted Provie attack on a passing patrol that never came or a loyalist hit on someone. Then there was the opposite, the place was quiet then tons of cops & troops poured into the area for no apparent reason.

    There’s constant calls by people for moving on in NI, maybe thats what many Unionists are doing, leaving it where it lies, maybe because they are just tired of the digging.

    Sorry everyone but it is, very probably, just like that for many unionists. Politicians can say what they want…

  • observer

    anonymous

    “This present discussion is about state sponsored crime unveiled by Nuala O’Loan. You are trying to deflect discussion from Brit gov crimes against their own citizens”

    It sounds that you have evidence to convict people of the crimes you speak of, i wish you would give it to the SDLP, i mean Nuala Oloan because she cant find ANY evindence to convict ANYONE OF ANYTHING.

  • observer

    Bono –

    condemn the collusion and demand (as they of course should) a public inquiry would lead, in their eyes, to a further erosion of ‘their’ state, in the shape of an erosion of ‘their’ police force, already hollowed out somewhat in the wake of Patten.

    I have no objection to rooting out collusion, but who willroot out the collusion of MMcGuiness who wants to be DFM and Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly etc.

    The SF top brass colluded ,and much more, in murder, kidnap and torture. Until they are brought to book for that then the current process should be parked

  • parcifal

    very good The Devil.

  • Bono

    Observer, let’s start with the police, shall we? Then the others.

    Or would you rather we ignored the report and went after SF? And who’s going to do it? SF don’t have their own Ombudsman.

  • observer

    Observer, let’s start with the police, shall we? Then the others.

    Or would you rather we ignored the report and went after SF? And who’s going to do it? SF don’t have their own Ombudsman.
    Posted by Bono on Jan 24, 2007 @ 06:46 PM

    Why start with the police? why not investigate everyone, especially those who wish to be ingovernment here? I have NO PROBLEMS with anyone being taken to court over collusion be they police or politicians. Nationalists of course want to protect their murderous leadership

    Bono, as I said If you have evidence, which OLoan clearly doesnt, I think you should let her see it

  • SDLP to the core

    Thank God we have the best party leader in Ireland, and with the balls to match, I don’t think the Shinners would have dared to revel the names of these people.
    As someone said earlier maybe a few names would come back at them.
    Well done Mark.

  • observer

    lets remember that both oloan and durkan lied. The officers named did not fail to cooperate but, as reported on UTV,”however, Mr Albiston says they did give information to the Police Ombudsman and offered to answer specific questions. ”

    It seems even the ombudsman is in collusion with the SDLP rather than the truth

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Yokel

    “Unionists know very well whats been going on and maybe they just dont quite care so much. They know theres been dirty tricks and all kinds going on with both sides and the security forces.”

    Would that it were so Yokel, but I think there’s something much more profound at stake here that dredging up the past. These revelations do not depict “dirty tricks” – they depict a terrorist police force, and strongly suggest a terrorist state backing them. (More revelations will surely follow to back that suggestion.)

    What’s at stake here nothing less than the moral narrative of the troubles – and the reason why most sentient unionists have been keeping their heads down these last few days is that they know these revelations mean the old unionist narrative of the troubles (forces of law and order vs terrorists engaged in mass outbreak of criminality) is now and forever in tatters.

    “There’s constant calls by people for moving on in NI, maybe thats what many Unionists are doing, leaving it where it lies, maybe because they are just tired of the digging. Sorry everyone but it is, very probably, just like that for many unionists. Politicians can say what they want…”

    I think you probably have a point that most people out there (apart from politicians and we anoraks) have other things on their mind, but the thing is, even many of unionism’s politicians and anoraks have been uncharacteristically reticent since all this came out.

    They haven’t “moved on” – so what can it be?

  • observer

    heres abit of the truth thats strangely lacking from the SDLP and its muppet , the Police Ombudsman

    BBC NEWS:However, Mr Albiston added: “What we were not prepared to do was to be led into making statements in a form designed by the ombudsman, because we know the form of that office.

    “We have seen as the result of previous inquiries the way that those who try to help can be frustrated and indeed we know of three officers who appear to have tried to help the office and ended up finding themselves being arrested.”

    Mr Albiston said for 18 months after supplying information the Special Branch officers heard nothing from the ombudsman and were not given the chance to respond to the allegations made against them.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Observer

    “I have no objection to rooting out collusion, but who will root out the collusion of MMcGuiness who wants to be DFM and Gerry Adams and Gerry Kelly etc.”

    McGuinness, Adams and Kelly’s collusion with whom? The IRA? They hardly colluded – they were fully-fledged members. I know Adams denies it but the other two don’t. What exactly is it that you want investigated about them that isn’t already known?

    “The SF top brass colluded ,and much more, in murder, kidnap and torture. Until they are brought to book for that then the current process should be parked.”

    So that’s never, then? Why not just have the courage of your convictions and say so?

    (You remember, like in the good old days: Nnnnnevvvaaarrrr!!! Nnnnnevvvaaarrrr!!!Nnnnnevvvaaarrrr!!! Nnnnnevvvaaarrrr!!!)

  • observer

    Billy Pilgrim – maybe you should to to the police and give your evidence regarding McGuiness, Adams et al because there are many people who want them brought to justice for their crimes

    NO ONE INVOLVED IN A TERRORIST ORGANISATION SHOULD BE PART OF GOVERNMENT HERE –

    Of course catholics dont like that – they would have no one left

  • observer

    Of course the fact that oloan and Durkan lied about the police officers named doesnt seem to bother any nationalist.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Mick

    Incidentally, in case you’re concerned about legal issues surrounding the identificatio of the three officers whom Durkan has named: parliamentary privilege extends to the reporting of things said in parliament.

    (ie: it’s not only Durkan’s statement but also the reportage of the statement that is covered by parliamentary privilege. So there are no legal reasons why you cannot report the names that Durkan identified. Your own editorial judgement is another matter of course…)

  • Bono

    Observer,
    I agree with Billy Pilgrim. You don’t seem to want progress otherwise you’d accept Ms O’Loan’s report, as Orde and other respected figures do.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Observer

    “maybe you should to to the police and give your evidence regarding McGuiness, Adams et al because there are many people who want them brought to justice for their crimes”

    I have no information regarding any of these people – or anyone else for that matter. However it is a matter of public record that McGuinness and Kelly were IRA members. Neither would deny it. As such they are morally aligned with the many crimes and atrocities committed by that organisation – which they chose to join. But more specifically than that? Sorry, I’ve got nothing.

    But when you name individuals and say you want them brought to justice “for their crimes”, you would need to be more specific about which crimes. Or are you crediting them, at corporate level, with all the IRA’s crimes?

    “NO ONE INVOLVED IN A TERRORIST ORGANISATION SHOULD BE PART OF GOVERNMENT HERE -”

    Would you regard the security forces as terrorist organisations? This report shows that the RUC was little more than a terrorist front. What’s your definition of a “terrorist organisation”? Who would you exclude from government here?

    “Of course catholics dont like that – they would have no one left.”

    Well, we see a lot of sectarianism around here, but it’s not often that people are so nakedly sectarian. Usually people are much more slick and maintain a sheen of deniability to their sectarianism. Congratulations on your forthrightness.

    “Of course the fact that oloan and Durkan lied about the police officers named doesnt seem to bother any nationalist.”

    Can you explain why you think they are lying?

  • observer

    Observer,
    I agree with Billy Pilgrim. You don’t seem to want progress otherwise you’d accept Ms O’Loan’s report, as Orde and other respected figures do.
    Posted by Bono on Jan 24, 2007 @ 07:12 PM

    BONO – parts of this report , and durkans statement today, has already shown to be a pack of lies. Why should i accept it ? Because a nationalist says so? Remember youve no more guns to threaten us with, so I dont think ill be accepting this biased report thanks

  • observer

    Billy Pilgrim – in case you missed the truth, Durkan claimed, based on the biased report of Oloan, that the named officers REFUSED to cooperate with her and her office;

    Now heres the truth part:

    Mr Albiston said they had given information to the ombudsman and had offered to answer specific questions.

    Her report said several high-ranking officers refused to cooperate with the investigation into collusion.

    However, Mr Albiston added: “What we were not prepared to do was to be led into making statements in a form designed by the ombudsman, because we know the form of that office.

    “We have seen as the result of previous inquiries the way that those who try to help can be frustrated and indeed we know of three officers who appear to have tried to help the office and ended up finding themselves being arrested.”

    Mr Albiston said for 18 months after supplying information the Special Branch officers heard nothing from the ombudsman and were not given the chance to respond to the allegations made against them.

    K, have you got it.

    THEY LIED

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Observer

    “parts of this report , and durkans statement today, has already shown to be a pack of lies.”

    Which parts?

    I grant you, one of the officers castigated in the report has contacted the press to dispute his flagellation, but that hardly amounts to even a meaningful rebuttal, let alone a question mark over the veracity of the report, let alone an exposure of the report as “lies”.

    “Why should i accept it? Because a nationalist says so? Remember youve no more guns to threaten us with, so I dont think ill be accepting this biased report thanks.”

    It sounds like nationalist acceptance of the report is reason enough for you to reject it. Perhaps you are not yet emotionally ready to deal with the implications of the report. To quote Col Nathan Jessop, “you can’t handle the truth”.

    But in answer to your question: why accept the report? Well, if the British and Irish governments and the present chief constable have all accepted the report in its entirety, on what qualifications do base your rejection?

  • Bono

    Observer,
    I’n not a nationalist. Please don’t confuse the voice of reason and justice with the voice of sectarianism (no offence to nationalists intended).

  • dublinsfsupporter

    I’m afraid this is a lot more to do with Durkan desperately trying to grab the media headlights away from Sinn Féin (towards his own vanishingly irrelevant party) than any belated sense of concern from the SDLP for the interests of nationalists in the six counties.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Observer

    “Mr Albiston said they had given information to the ombudsman and had offered to answer specific questions. Her report said several high-ranking officers refused to cooperate with the investigation into collusion.”

    These two sentences are not contradictory. If Albiston agreed to answer “specific questions” but refused to answer others which the Ombudsman asked, that might still amount to a refusal to co-operate. He was prepared to talk about the things he wanted to talk about – but co-operation means he is prepared to talk about whatever the Ombudsman deems relevant. Even in his statement he admits there were questions he would not answer.

    Turning up in person to say “no comment” is not co-operation.

    “However, Mr Albiston added: “What we were not prepared to do was to be led into making statements in a form designed by the ombudsman, because we know the form of that office.”

    A disgraceful statement. The office of Ombudsman is legally mandated to carry out investigations. It’s not the job of individual officers to decide whether they will deign to co-operate with it, regardless of their personal opinion of the office. It is their legal obligation to do so.

    “We have seen as the result of previous inquiries the way that those who try to help can be frustrated and indeed we know of three officers who appear to have tried to help the office and ended up finding themselves being arrested.”

    Is he suggesting these arrests were unwarranted? Sorry, but the belated recognition of some officers that they mightn’t be as far above the law as they once were is not reason to criticise the Ombudsman.

    Mr Albiston said for 18 months after supplying information the Special Branch officers heard nothing from the ombudsman and were not given the chance to respond to the allegations made against them.

    “THEY LIED”

    Albiston does not actually accuse the Ombudsman of lying, just throws up a smokescreen. And he was in a position of power for how many years? It’s no wonder the RUC was such an abomination, when men with such contempt for the law like Albiston enjoyed high rank.

  • observer

    Well, if the British and Irish governments and the present chief constable have all accepted the report in its entirety, on what qualifications do base your rejection? –

    You mean the same people who let convicted terrorist s out of jail? or the ones who told us the IRA would decommission its weapons by 2000? or the ones who said no one linked to terrorist organisations would be allowed into government.

    I think thats enough reasons to be going on with

  • observer

    Again, this whole report hasnt produced enough evidence to make a sneeze let alone a conviction. Just in time for the SDLPs election campaign too.

    Is mrs oloans husband running for the SDLP this year?

  • Bono

    Observer,
    You’ve had access to the second report? Wow! Do tell. Does it totally contradict Ms O’Loan’s ‘public’ report?

  • Peter Brown

    “During a war—and the Troubles WERE a war, a civil war or an armed rebellion—members of the military and the paramilitary forces of the State are legitimate targets and such killings are NOT terrorism. Deliberate attacks on non-combatants ARE terrorism. That’s the definition until HMG decided to unilaterally chage it.”

    Without wishing to go totally off topic that’s rubbish and the reason it was not a war was because the etrrorists on bith sides did not play by the rules of war. To be a war both sides have to wear uniforms and engage face to face whilst in uniform – not dress as Rag day students and shoot off duty policemen or soldiers at their places of work, hospitals churches and pubs.

    If it hd been a war it would have been a lot shorter and a lot fairer. Because it wasn’t a war the security forces didn;t have to play by all the rules either but they appaear to have been breaking rules they should have been keeping and those that did should be punished as severely as the terrorists.

  • Comrade Stalin

    There are only two really important facts here :

    – the Stoops are acting tough before an election to try to outshine Sinn Fein

    – using parliamentary privilege to name names in these circumstances was wrong. Innocent people have been threatened before because of that. Durkan should know better.

    I agree completely with Pat McL. Say it in public and let ’em sue.

  • Bono

    CS,

    The difference being that the named aren’t innocent. Also, they don’t risk a terrorist’s bullet (not more than usual anyhow) unlike the innocents that brave Ian Paisley fingered.

  • observer

    The difference being that the named aren’t innocent. Also, they don’t risk a terrorist’s bullet (not more than usual anyhow) unlike the innocents that brave Ian Paisley fingered.
    Posted by Bono on Jan 24, 2007 @ 08:19 PM

    once again Bono- please produce your evidence – not just rehashing Oloans/SDLP discredited claims

  • kensei

    “#

    There are only two really important facts here :

    – the Stoops are acting tough before an election to try to outshine Sinn Fein

    – using parliamentary privilege to name names in these circumstances was wrong. Innocent people have been threatened before because of that. Durkan should know better.

    I agree completely with Pat McL. Say it in public and let ‘em sue. ”

    Thirded. It is an absolute abuse of power. Everyone has a right to due process and we should remember at all times accusation is not proof, even in cases such as this.

  • Bono

    Who has discredited them, Observer? You?

    Or the discredited guys whom Durkan named today?

    Why are you in denial? Face up to a corrupt force and suggest ways we can salvage something from the wreckage.

  • dublinsfsupporter-

    Shouldn’t you be in your bed by now? I thought that was a condition of your ASBO.

    Observer-

    Ok, you’ve cracked us- we agree to nominate you for that Perrier Award you hanker for.

    Kensei-

    Are you ever happy?

  • Voltaire

    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

  • Sean

    Get it through the lager fueled haze. The supposed foce of law and order ALWAYS has to play by the rules or they are NOT law and order they are simple garden variety criminals

  • kensei

    “Are you ever happy?”

    I think I have at least been consistent. When Unionism has pulled similar stunts, I’ve said people deserve due process and it was an abuse of power. If they really believed it, they should have the balls to fight the potential legal action.

    The situation hasn’t changed just because the SDLP has done it. Nor would it if SF did it. It is an abuse of power and people do deserve due process. All my instincts tell me this is wrong, and I’m sticking with it.

    There is the potential some good will come out of it and people will be forced to explain themselves. I’m not holding much hope.

  • So Kensei, do you believe the victims’ families will see due process? Durkan stated a fact. When unionists used parliamentary privilege, it was simply and solely to cast aspersions on the character of innocent Catholics. Clearly such privilege, whether used in the Dáil, Westminster or any other similar forum, must be used sparingly. Durkan wouldn’t have taken his decision lightly, but given the whitewash attempts by ex-RUC chiefs, he clearly hadn’t much choice and ought to be applauded in this instance.

  • kensei

    “So Kensei, do you believe the victims’ families will see due process?”

    Probably not no, considering the prisoners are out and I don’t think the British Government will have paramilitaries released and policemen behind bars, however much they deserve it. Much of the trail is probably destroyed now too. An inquiry to get to the bottom of it and people losing jobs and pensions is probably the best that can be hoped for.

    “Durkan stated a fact. When unionists used parliamentary privilege, it was simply and solely to cast aspersions on the character of innocent Catholics. Clearly such privilege, whether used in the Dáil, Westminster or any other similar forum, must be used sparingly. Durkan wouldn’t have taken his decision lightly, but given the whitewash attempts by ex-RUC chiefs, he clearly hadn’t much choice and ought to be applauded in this instance”

    No he shouldn’t. If he had have had the balls to do it outside of Parliament he should have been applauded. If it was a fact, then he would have absolutely nothing to fear. What he has done is denied them the right to challenge his statements and weakened his own argument in doing so.

  • joeCanuck

    C’mon guys.

    The troll has one of the most serious bouts of denialitis I have ever seen
    Stop feeding him.

  • observer

    EL Mat – Durkan stated a fact.

    A fact needs to be backed up by evidence. If its a fact why hide behind parliamentary privilege.

    Time for Durkan to put up or shut up.

  • observer-

    “A fact needs to be backed up by evidence”

    Read the report.

  • high yard

    ‘the Stoops are acting tough before an election to try to outshine Sinn Fein’

    Agree about Durgan using the issue to try and forward the SDLP’s electoral chances.

    I’m a bit surprised considering his families police history.

  • High Yard-

    Or perhaps he’s trying to highlight a heinous series of acts of international importance which affects the whole community, in the face of British indifference and unionist political denial. Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not normal for politicians to represent the needs and interests of the people? If you’re going to operate by the ‘logic’ you seem to support, then every single act by any given poltician in the mouth of an election is electioneering.

    Collusion affacted the whole community- regardless of the source of the condemnation, it ought to be welcome.

  • observer

    Or perhaps he’s trying to highlight a heinous series of acts of international importance which affects the whole community –

    Dont hear too many catholics squealing about an IRA commander being elected as DFM…guess thats ok with them

  • Aidan

    quote [abridged]:

    ‘but wawawawa what about Martin Mc Guinness, IRA killer?!?!’

    Is Martin still the IRA commander? Some of these guys are still in the police force. Can we get rid of them please?

  • latcheeco

    it probably was the Branch who gave the dupers the names of catholics to name in parliament so, oh well, what goes around…?

  • Wilde Rover

    While I have commented on the demons on the green side of the divide on another thread, it must be time for those on the orange side of the divide to face their own demons.

    While I have already made reference on another thread to the clearly insane plan to love bomb unionists into a united Ireland, it is time for unionism to look at its own equally insane attempts to reassure nationalists that Norn Iron is, and always has been, a great wee country plagued by criminals.

    Clearly, there must be a move away from the mindset that everything is/was fine, and that anyone who disagrees with that is a criminal.

    Do unionists not see that this position further alienates the nationalist community from their NI/UK project?

  • Pat Mc Larnon

    El Mat,

    no one is arguing the fact that these people needed to be named, it is just that the naivety of Durkan is beyond the pale.
    Within a day or so of this report he has allowed these people to portray themselves as victims. The focus has shifted to the tactics of Durkan, not what he had to say. He has used a tactic that was discredited only last week by the Reavey family.

    Durkan could have stated quite clearly in an open forum that on the basis of the report these 3 people failed to co-operate. If the 3 disagreed then they would have had to attack the integrity of the report rather than Durkan. Thus their role could have been explored further.

    In a headlong rush to make a few headlines and play catch up on the collusion issue Durkan has made a real balls up. He makes Attwood look like a sure footed political heavyweight and that takes some doing.

  • prod

    ‘Well Done’ Mark I say….it’s about time sum1 grew a set henry’s!!

  • kerry thompson

    its interesting that mark durkan names these cops but has been sitting on the case of a young psni recruit for the past three years and has done nothing for them except play games,this girl was tortured and abused whilst going through training,has the evidence,as has mark but he wont go public on it.mark will know plenty about it,it refers to the o donnell family in derry,why not go public on this mark?