“…this hierarchy of victimhood based on political pressure”

The Superintendents Association NI has called for present investigations into the past to stop. Instead, they want government to establish a ‘public body’ that will examine the past.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Well, they would want that, woundn’t they?

    From the BBC piece…

    “It said inquiries and investigative teams established to probe murders and wrongdoing had put a disproportionate focus on police actions.”

    Well, duh. One expect wrong-doing out of wrong-doers. When those allegedly employed to keep the peace and maintain order are putatively involved in wrong-doing, should not the public be upset and demand an investigation?

    “Anti-terrorist methods had been exposed and officers and informants could be identified, the association added. ”

    Collusion and the protection of murderous felons has been exposed… which of these two items do you think the Superintendants are more concerned with??

    “Association president Stephen Grange said reports and investigations had been left open to misinterpretation and could cause confidence in policing to be undermined.”

    As would be the logical result.

    Last Updated: Wednesday, 9 May 2007, 16:02 GMT 17:02 UK

    E-mail this to a friend Printable version

    Officers call for past probe halt

    The association said an unfair focus had been put on police actions
    Senior police officers have urged the government to “pause for breath” in re-examining Northern Ireland’s past.
    The Superintendents’ Association NI said there was currently a hierarchy of victims based on political pressure.

    It said inquiries and investigative teams established to probe murders and wrongdoing had put a disproportionate focus on police actions.

    Anti-terrorist methods had been exposed and officers and informants could be identified, the association added.

    Association president Stephen Grange said reports and investigations had been left open to misinterpretation and could cause confidence in policing to be undermined.

    “We have grave concerns about the present management and focus of this process,” Mr Grange told the association’s annual general meeting.

    “Quite simply the present arrangements are not working.”

    He said the government should call a halt to the process, consult widely and create a public body to manage it in the best interest of all victims.

    “Only when such a body has been established and adequately resourced, with all involved having a clear understanding and expectation of what that body can deliver, can we properly contend with and learn from the past – without inhibiting our future opportunities.”

    Please, guv — we need more time to shred documents!!

  • Billy Pilgrim

    “The Superintendents Association NI has called for present investigations into the past to stop.”

    I f***ing bet they have….

    As for this line about a “hierarchy of victimhood” – the truth is, it’s the breaking down of the hierarchy of victimhood to which they object.

    You know the one: the hierarchy in which state-aligned victims got obituaries celebrating their “heroism”, with funerals involving dignitaries and flags and uniforms and recongition, reported with utmost reverence by the media, and followed by bereavement support for families and pensions and/or compensation, and a memory given due respect. And the murder followed up by police. (Admittedly, with a general lack of success.)

    As opposed to what the loved-ones of victims of the state had to look forward to – harrassment from the same state forces that had murdered their loved one(s), including at wakes/funerals/gravesides, an effective “double assassination” (the first literal, the second a character assassination), all reported with a wink and a nod leading to a thousand dinner-table conversations centring on the theme of “he/she/they must have been up to something”. Resulting in the families of state victims not only having their lives destroyed by grief, but also by stigma. (Leading in many cases, for example, to loss of jobs, business, social standing and so on.)

    That was the hierarchy of victimhood that was in place back during the good old days, when the Supers sat atop a murderous paramilitary police force, the crimes of which they are now seeking to cover up. (A cover up of benefit only to the one-eyed immovables still willing to buy the tired old “few bad apples” routine.) And it’s to the breaking down of this hierarchy of victimhood (let’s call it the Reavey Rules) that the Super’s Soc objects.

    Personally I can’t even bring myself to say anything in reply.

    A spit is all I can muster.

  • Bemused

    It’s pretty alarming that there still seem to be a variety of these supposedly representative police bodies who continue to spout sub-Willie Frazer-type rhetoric. Presumably this is just another case of the old guard bigots within the cops having one last sound-off for old times sake?

  • observer

    lets have investigations into all wrong doing including the Police and activities of M McGuiness and Adams and the rest of teh SF shower of murderers.

  • observer

    As for the deaths of terrorists during the troubles the only problem was there wasnt enough of them and too many were allowed to live and now rule over us

  • davey

    “As for the deaths of terrorists during the troubles the only problem was there wasnt enough of them and too many were allowed to live and now rule over us”

    Many of them are commemorated by the orange order and the rest of them are now wearing sashes.

  • Observer

    “too many were allowed to live”

    Who allowed them?

  • heck

    observer

    “As for the deaths of terrorists during the troubles the only problem was there wasnt enough of them and too many were allowed to live and now rule over us”

    if I were to say “As for the deaths of Brits during the troubles the only problem was there wasnt enough of them and too many were allowed to live and now rule over us” The comment would be as valid as yours but I would be accused of being full of hate.

    Luckily I have not as hatefull a person as you are

  • Dec

    This self serving-nonsense is almost beyond parody. However one classic in particular jumps out:

    “We have to abandon this hierarchy of victimhood based on political pressure… or the availability and willingness of a lavishly financed body to investigate just one organisation in particular.”

    Presumably Grange yearns for the days when there was a ‘lavishly financed body'(the RUC) set up to investigate all organisations, bar one (the RUC).

  • ingram

    What does any former or SERVING police officer have to fear from any properly constituted inquiry?

    Surely those that a charged with defending the community would welcome a full and comprehensive examination of the past thirty years and examine why the lowest criminal detection rate ( especially for murder) within any police force in the world was allowed to continue for decades .That is surely a lesson worth learning.

    I understand Sinn Fein and the UDA`s reluctance to become involved in a truth process? BUT these are public servants and should be told to wind their very long knecks in.

    Ding Ding Ding Ding a very long Dong

    Marty

  • Forecast

    Dec – ‘Presumably Grange yearns for the days when there was a ‘lavishly financed body’(the RUC)’

    Wonder why it was a lavishly funded body? Was it fantasically overbudgeted in 1968?
    Or was there are reason why so much dosh was thrown at the police, perhaps there was something EXTRAordinary about the type of threat they were facing.
    We may never know…………………….

  • bertie

    I suspect that the Superintendents Association know that it is just an elaborate and costly charade, partly down to professional judgment.

  • Dec

    Forecast

    I’m really not sure what point you are trying to make or responding to.

    Grange’s clearly just the latest in a long line of attempted backlashes against the Ombudsman in general and Nuala O’Loan in particular. Obviously the line of attack has now changed from ‘wrong’ to ‘unfair’.

    Ingram’s interjection is interesting given that he was bragging here a couple of months about impending revelations about Nuala O’Loan in that week’s Sunday Mirror. Needless to say, when that Sunday rolled round, squadoosh!

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Bertie

    “I suspect that the Superintendents Association know that it is just an elaborate and costly charade, partly down to professional judgment.”

    So the Supers are saying “stop investigating us, stop investigating our actions, leave us alone”, and your conclusion is that this is borne out of a desire not to waste taxpayers’ money?

    Get real Bertie.

    Truth is, the old official narrative of the Troubles is unravelling before our eyes. The truth is seeping out. Martin Luther King said that you don’t win an argument by getting the other guy to admit he was wrong – you win an argument when the other guy’s children grow up accepting your points as self-evident. You may continue to live in denial, and revere the memory of the dear departed RUC, but your children* won’t.

  • lib2016

    The same argument has been made about scientific advances viz. it takes 10/15 years for a new scientific theory to become accepted since the older generation of scientists has become ‘wedded’ to the ideas of their youth. Acceptance of new thought depends on the advent of new scientists – or the miraculous enlightenment of the 80-year-olds.

    Letmesee – when was the date of the GFA again?

  • bertie

    Billy

    “Bertie

    “I suspect that the Superintendents Association know that it is just an elaborate and costly charade, partly down to professional judgment.”

    So the Supers are saying “stop investigating us, stop investigating our actions, leave us alone”, and your conclusion is that this is borne out of a desire not to waste taxpayers’ money? ”

    Dear oh dear, Well I’m putting off doing some work so I will procrastinate by answering you.

    First of all I have not derived my comment from the Association’s statement. I think that many people suspect the same, so why not them?

    “Get real Bertie. ”

    I’m very real 😉

    “Truth is, the old official narrative of the Troubles is unravelling before our eyes. The truth is seeping out.”

    I don’t need the official narrative I have my own eyes and ears and brain.

    “Martin Luther King said that you don’t win an argument by getting the other guy to admit he was wrong – you win an argument when the other guy’s children grow up accepting your points as self-evident. You may continue to live in denial, and revere the memory of the dear departed RUC, but your children* won’t.”

    You may continue to make assumptions about people Billy but that is not my problem. I will revere the memory of the departed RUC and their sacrifice and so will anyone with sufficient information and brainpower.

    I have no problem with truth coming out, (far from it) and that includes anything relating to the security forces, whatever it is. I just do not accept that the current investigations are doing that and yes I do think that is is disproportionately dorected to them and away from those in the current political limelight because that is what suits “the official narrative”

  • lib2016

    Surely it could just as well be argued that the investigations are being targetted at low level local commanders so as to distract attention from the actions of their superiors at national level?

    The RUC will rank with bodies like the Selous Scouts and other colonial forces. Whether you find that flattering or not is your choice.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Bertie

    “First of all I have not derived my comment from the Association’s statement. I think that many people suspect the same, so why not them?”

    Can you clarify what you have based your comments on? Wouldn’t you accept the possibility that one of the reasons the Supers want to prevent investigations of alleged wrongdoing in their past, is because they have, well, been involved in wrongdoing?

    Either way, this isn’t the issue. The issue is this: it’s not up to a policemens union to decide whether their members should face investigation for alleged wrongdoing, and they have no business arguing that their members should be given a free pass from the law – and it’s quite astonishingly arrogant (though quite consistent) that they would try to do so.

    (Put it this way: say a suspected burglar is taken in for questioning relating to a burglary. He says to the arresting officers: “Lads, honestly, I’d love to help you, but it’s my opinion that it’d be a waste of your time and taxpayers’ money, so I’m not going to bother coming to the station and answering your questions. And besides, aren’t there other crimes you could be looking at instead?” How successful do you think that line of argument would be?)

    “You may continue to make assumptions about people Billy but that is not my problem.”

    On the contrary Bertie, what we’re seeing is the “assumptions” held by the “law-abiding community” throughout the conflict being overwhelmed by reality. Your heroes turn out to have had feet of clay. The terrible charges made by the enemies of the state were true all along, and it’s getting harder and harder to deny. You may continue to live in denial, but the next generation of Berties won’t.

    “I will revere the memory of the departed RUC and their sacrifice and so will anyone with sufficient information and brainpower.”

    Ah, I see: so those who don’t revere the RUC as the finest body of men and women ever to grace a uniform are ignorant and mentally deficient? Even if they have a mountain of documentary evidence demonstrating RUC collusion in murder, they are “lacking sufficient information”? Even if they are, say, world-leading human rights lawyers, they lack “brainpower”?

    What you mean is, they are not emotionally committed to the narrative to which you are emotionally committed – therefore, “they just don’t understand”.

    Whereas your understanding is total, unsurpassable, impregnable….

    “I have no problem with truth coming out, (far from it) and that includes anything relating to the security forces, whatever it is.”

    Fair play.

    “I just do not accept that the current investigations are doing that…”

    Why so?

    “…and yes I do think that is is disproportionately directed to them and away from those in the current political limelight because that is what suits “the official narrative”.”

    In fairness, people like McGuinness, Kelly et al have spent years in jail/on the run/suffering harrassment etc. I can well understand why many people don’t think they have paid for their crimes, but I think the truth is that, though they mightn’t have paid in full, they have at least paid SOME price. All the senior SF players from the “war era” have come through huge personal ordeals – quite right too, you might say. Fair enough. But step out of the official narrative for a moment and you’ll see that their direct counterparts on the other side got uniforms, big salaries, shameless expense accounts, new cars, new houses, social standing, Knighthoods etc. When Gerry Kelly was living under floorboards, where was (Sir) Ronnie Flanagan?

    The official narrative is changing, because it has to. Because the one you were used to hearing was a lie. It was always a lie and it will be seen by future historians as a lie. You can choose to accept that, or not, but the future is taking shape whether you like it or not – and part of that future is likely to be a harsh historical verdict on your beloved RUC.

  • bertie

    Billy

    I wll try not to cut and paste from your post excessively as it is getting unweldy to read. But I may need to.

    I base my comments on what I have seen on terms of the lack of scientific rigour of many investigations, not just those in relation to NI. coupled with the incentives that people have with regard to the outcome.

    There is nearly always the possibility amongst any group of people that some of them have done wrong and therefore that they would not want an investiaion into that. That however does not negate my comment. I am not a superintentent wrong or rightdoing.

    “Either way, this isn’t the issue. The issue is this: it’s not up to a policemens union to decide whether their members should face investigation for alleged wrongdoing, and they have no business arguing that their members should be given a free pass from the law – and it’s quite astonishingly arrogant (though quite consistent) that they would try to do so. ”

    That is not what the article says. It says that the current arrangements arn’t working. A totally valid comment for them to make (regardless if you agree or disagree with it)

    Your burglary analogy is not applicable. Anyone can challange the effacacy of police procedures.

    No Billy on the contrary IU was refering to your assumption in “and your conclusion is that this is borne out of a desire not to waste taxpayers’ money? “ your staetment and your conclusions.

    “On the contrary Bertie, what we’re seeing is the “assumptions” held by the “law-abiding community” throughout the conflict being overwhelmed by reality.” More assumptions about what the ssumptions of the law abiding community are!!

    “Your heroes turn out to have had feet of clay.” My heros have in the most part not turned out to be anything more or less than I thought they were. I suspect (but I will not assume) that you asssume yu know exactly what that is.

    “The terrible charges made by the enemies of the state were true all along, and it’s getting harder and harder to deny. You may continue to live in denial, but the next generation of Berties won’t. ”
    Are they? The “charges” differ in tone and scale depending on who states them.

    “Ah, I see: so those who don’t revere the RUC as the finest body of men and women ever to grace a uniform are ignorant and mentally deficient?”

    Tut Tut Billy you’re putting words in my mouth – more assumptions. Even just on the basic knowledge if you can make a cup of tea with hot water and teabags then not being able to make a cuppa doesn’t prove you haven’t got either, so your “and”, well ???

    “What you mean is, they are not emotionally committed to the narrative to which you are emotionally committed – therefore, “they just don’t understand”

    You seem to like these assumptions.

    “Whereas your understanding is total, unsurpassable, impregnable…. ”

    Now that’s just silly. I could as well turn that arround on you and it would be as daft.

    ““I just do not accept that the current investigations are doing that…”

    Why so? ”

    Because there is nothing to convince me otherwise. I have seen far too many reports where incompetance and neglect has been decreed intent.

    “The official narrative is changing, because it has to” Ah so you like this one??

    “But step out of the official narrative for a moment and you’ll see that their direct counterparts on the other side got uniforms, big salaries, shameless expense accounts, new cars, new houses, social standing, Knighthoods etc. When Gerry Kelly was living under floorboards, where was (Sir) Ronnie Flanagan? ”

    They are not the direct counterpoints. Kelly was in an illegal terroist organisation which had no right to exist. Flanagan was in the legitimate Police Force. The direct counterpoints were Gusty Spence, Adams, Shankhill butcher etc.

    My beloved RUC is my beloved RUC because of the bravery and sacrifice of so many of its officers trying to keep all of us safe. I understand the dark necessity of having to have informants and infiltrators and having to make the decison whether to save a life (sometimes another member of the force) and thus put may others in danger and having to let the act occur. This is an issue regarding a murder in my own family circle. (Knowing about a planned murder and not acting on that knowedge in these circumstances is a different matter than actually being involved in one). For another murder close to home, the investigation was totally inadequate. I suppose if I was so minded I could say that that was deliberate. I am not so minded.

  • Davy McFaul

    “Knowing about a planned murder and not acting on that knowedge in these circumstances is a different matter than actually being involved in one”

    Really? Maybe that should be tried in a court of law next time someone is up on a chargs ranging from withholding information to joint enterprise to conspirancy to accessory etc.

    Wonder how many nationalists have been convicted and sentenced “In these circumstances” over the years?.

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    (Knowing about a planned murder and not acting on that knowedge in these circumstances is a different matter than actually being involved in one)

    Thats complete Bollix knowing about a future and not stopping it especially as a police officer is exactly like being involved in it, Its called collusion (sound familiar). The silence of the police is tacit approval of the action and therefore paticipating

    the RUC were murderers, The bad bit is the innocent get tarred with the guilty but as a force they are guilty.