Collusion claims ‘were not properly investigated’…

FAMILIES of some of eight men murdered by the notorious Glenanne Gang of loyalist terrorists, soldiers and police officers in the South Armagh area in the 1970s are expected to respond later today to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that alleged security force collusion in loyalist murders was not properly investigated. The cases were taken after claims made by ex-RUC officer John Weir (pictured) claimed to the BBC a group comprising UVF terrorists, UDR soldiers, RUC officers carried out a series of shootings and bombings. Weir’s affidavit in 1999 (in support of, but completely tangential to, Sean McPhelimy’s somewhat obfuscatory collusion claims) is one of the most explosive documents on collusion in the public domain, although whether he understood the bigger picture of what the slaughter he was involved in was promoting remains unknown.

  • Briso

    I knew we weren’t imagining it all.

  • Bemused

    Just wait Briso – there’ll be a raft of posters here telling you that (a) this stuff never happened, (b) that anyone who says it happened is a terrorist or a supporter of terrorism, (c) that the R.U.C. is a ‘proud’ and ‘noble’ force etc., etc., ad infinitum……

  • rubin

    I wonder will Willie Frazer and his FAIR group be supporting the families ?

  • Glenanne

    Since these dreadful murders took place in Armagh, would it not be beneficial to the families to involve Willie Frazer and FAIR as part of their campaign to get to the truth?

    I’m sure Willie would be more than willing to help them…

  • RepublicanStones

    Willie will be either strangely silent or call it all lies.

  • RepublicanStones

    oh and i can’t wait to see who the moron is whose gonna be the first to use the ‘few bad apples’ nonsense or something similar.

  • Briso

    >Just wait Briso – there’ll be a raft of posters here telling you …

    Personally, I’d rather not put words in their mouths.

  • moron

    it was a few bad apples……there!

  • Briso

    Posted by oh yeah on Nov 28, 2007 @ 09:51 AM
    >..and the jim doherty fan club will still be telling us how wrong it is to terminate the
    >vermin. nothing has changed

    Are you saying it is right to ‘terminate the vermin’? Are you saying Jim Doherty is not a human being but ‘vermin’? Just trying to get a handle on your considered opinion.

  • Briso

    Are his children vermin too?

  • Briso

    And postmen, are they vermin?

  • Briso

    >as for his children, as they were spawned by vermin theres a good chance that it is genetic,
    >but i hope not

    That’s what I thought. Vermin spawn vermin, no?

    Postmen serve the crown too. What’s so special about the PSNI?

  • joeCanuck

    Good news. Two men have been arrested and are being questioned about the Jim Doherty shooting.
    arrests

  • joeCanuck

    Admin; why has oh yeah been allowed back?

  • Perhaps the most telling thing is the fact that none of us is shocked when we read of cases such as this.

  • joeCanuck

    Everyone (except oh yeah of course): Repeat after me: “I will not feed the troll”.

  • Briso

    Hey oh yeah, why aren’t postmen vermin? I have family in the civil service, administering British rule. Are they vermin? Their children? Actually, my father worked for the British Government. Perhaps I’m vermin too?

    If not, what is so special about the PSNI?

  • deezle beezle

    Ireland will never be free with idiots like ‘Oh Yeah’ on the streets……honestly, shouldnt they be registered or licensed… or euthanaesd (humanley ofcourse).

  • Dec

    Perhaps the most telling thing is the fact that none of us is shocked when we read of cases such as this.

    For me the most telling aspect is that, outside of Nationalism (who’ve long known Britain applied the winning techniques learned in Kenya to the North – albeit with a bit of tweaking), nobody actually cares.

  • joeCanuck

    Remember: Do not feed the troll.

  • deezle beezle

    Even the Republican murder clubs supposedly had there dissidents!!!!! Look at Omagh!

    The fact is that any collusion by the forces of law and order is extremely wrong, but isn’t it just a symptom of a very dirty conflict? of a group of individuals who feared a very efficient, ruthless and Cruel enemy.

    I am not excusing what happened, it is inexcusable.

    But as our republican friends are constantly reminding us, in regards to other atrocities, may be we need to view it in relation to the conflict as a whole.

    I Know form personal experience, that the Vast Majority of Serving RUC and UDR personnel that served hated all terrorists, Loyalist and republican. But, unfortunately there will always be an extremely dangerous idiot fringe….as with society itself

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘Few bad apples’ excuse wasn’t too long in coming. collusion isn’t a recent (‘Troubles’) situation. violence of and for the british state/govt/monarchy pre-dates irish resistance to it.

  • Dec

    am not excusing what happened, it is inexcusable.

    Funny, you just did in the preceding paragraph.

  • deezle bezzle

    Dec,
    Theres a difference between understanding and excusing

  • Dec

    Theres a difference between understanding and excusing

    Not when you’re talking about sectarian murder.

  • parci

    actually this news is more likely to play to the wider world; as the British Gov’t was very successful in portraying the IRA as the only “bad guys” in the conflict.

  • Briso

    Posted by oh yeah on Nov 28, 2007 @ 10:18 AM
    >yes briso, when he put on that uniform and served that crown then he became vermin imho

    Posted by oh yeah on Nov 28, 2007 @ 11:44 AM
    >its got nothing to do with administering british rule…..did i mention that anywhere?

    Well, I thought so, but thanks for clearing it up.

    >why dont you respond to what ive written not what you would like me to have written…………..

    I’m doing my best.

    >if your family are in the ruc/psni then i wont lose any sleep if they die, in fact ill probably
    >have a celebratory drink

    But what is so special about the PSNI? Why are they vermin while the rest of us get off with our humanity intact? Surely you agree it’s a serious matter to kill someone, so how about addressing the question?

  • deezle beezle

    Theres a difference between understanding and excusing

    “Not when you’re talking about sectarian murder.”

    And theres been plenty of them on both sides.

    Is’nt conflict resolution about seeing the point, realising why things happened, what the driving force was!
    If thats making excuseses then god help us all.

    A murderer is a murderer, no matter what there motive was.

  • picador

    I think it’s a disgrace that oh yeah is allowed to ruin this thread with his idiotic trolling. Kind of ironic that he is distracting attention from British misdeeds.

  • joeCanuck

    Picador,
    Just ignore him. Trolls, with their extremely low self esteem, act badly so that someone will pay them attention.
    If you ignore them, all but the dumbest of them finally realize that they are just talking to themselves and they wither away.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    deezle beezle: “The fact is that any collusion by the forces of law and order is extremely wrong, but isn’t it just a symptom of a very dirty conflict? of a group of individuals who feared a very efficient, ruthless and Cruel enemy.

    I am not excusing what happened, it is inexcusable. ”

    No, you’re ratonalizing it. Whether that’s better or worse, that remains to be seen.

    deezle beezle: “Is’nt conflict resolution about seeing the point, realising why things happened, what the driving force was! If thats making excuseses then god help us all. ”

    Ah, but you’re not talking “conflict resolution.” You’re trying to rationalize away the illegal activities of the supposed forces of law and order, as if by mouthing a few dry platitudes, they’ll disappear in a puff of rhetoric. You’re pretty much making excuses for them, saying they were scared and just doing what they thought they had to do.

  • deezle beezle

    Its Not a point of rationalisation. These people are criminals who need to feel the full force of law and order.

    These few dry platitudes, as you call them, are veiw to contextulising some horrific events, that took place in a bloody and cruel war, in order to stop them being used by the republican majority in here unjustly using it to beat those who served in the name of Law, Order and the Common Good. Which i know to be the majority, and who would agree with me on this

  • Deezle Beezle

    Damn that was a long and badly written sentence!!!!!

  • Quagmire

    I’m surprised that people are surprised.

  • RepublicanStones

    deezle beezle if you know ‘that the Vast Majority of Serving RUC and UDR personnel that served hated all terrorists, Loyalist and republican’ can you give me a link to your research and the interviews you held with this vast majority? thankyou.

  • Shawn

    that the Vast Majority of Serving RUC and UDR personnel that served hated all terrorists, Loyalist and republican’

    If the vast majoirty were so morally minded why did they do NOTHING about those that werent?

  • “a group of individuals who feared a very efficient, ruthless and Cruel enemy.”

    Weir’s account would suggest that there is more to it than that, and it seems that ECHR, like the Barron Inquiry, found that acccount credible.

    One aspect worth considering is Weir’s mention of Robert Nairac, whose unit was descended from the MRF established by Frank Kitson, author of the counter-gang concept.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    deezle beezle: “These few dry platitudes, as you call them, are veiw to contextulising some horrific events, that took place in a bloody and cruel war, in order to stop them being used by the republican majority in here unjustly using it to beat those who served in the name of Law, Order and the Common Good.”

    Again, you seek to rationalize their behavior. You lionize the criminals, who commited their crimes “in the name of Law, Order and the Common Good” when they did no such thing. They undermined their own alleged role as peace officers by, among other things, siding with mudering, drug-dealing Loyalist hoods. As a result, *every* police officer was tarnished.

    Your “contextulising” is, if you’ll pardon the double entendre, a “cop-out.” You are seeking to create a “veiw” that excuses their crimes.

    Tell, DB, how does covering up for Loyalist murders, condoning Loyalist extortionists and drug dealers and participating in random murder of Catholic — how do these thinggs serve “The Common Good?” Likewise, how did those brother officers permitting collaberation with Loyalist hoods serve this “Common Good?”

  • barnshee

    “If the vast majoirty were so morally minded why did they do NOTHING about those that werent”

    Well of course they should have done somthing after all the “badies” put up signs on notice boards eg

    “Collusion meeting in canteen at 5.30–bring balaclava and list of suitable targets”

    emailsand circulars were sent out
    “join us in a shooting eveneing next wednesday Boyne Tavern 7.30 sharp (own transport please)

    Well maybe not– perhaps some cops etc got pissed off being shot by “volunteers” who (unless they were shot dead )had 100 witnesses to prove they were in Bolivia at the time. Got further pissed off by a government that faffed about like a one legged duck and they then took matters into their own hands

    Or maybe they sat down and wrote to the chief constable /secretary of state and said hey how about a bit of collusion here (nudge nudge wink)

    That they took matters into there own hands is to quote St Gerry “regrettable”

  • RepublicanStones

    ok barnshee, so all those vast majority who were good and who knew nothing, decided to carry out scandalously inadequte investigations time after time, and not arrest or question known suspects time after time not because they were colluding, and didn’t wanna get their mates in shit, or were intimdated by others to not carry out proper investigations. but because they were bone idle, and too lazy? is that their excuse?

  • cut the bull

    Not wanting to stray away from this thread, I beleieve that people are well arae now of the reality of collusion between the RUC and loyalist murder gangs.

    I would ask ahs much changed since the formation of the PSNI.

    Collusion was only one aspect of bad policing there are other aspects.

    Consider the input of members of the PSNI in the trial of Seán Hoey.

    Fiona Cooper a scenes of crime officer claimed a statement had been changed at the request of, Detective Chief Inspector Philip Graham Marshall.

    Det Ch Insp Philip Greer Marshall made the admission during the trial of Sean Hoey, of Jonesborough, County Armagh.

    DCI Marshall admitted in court that the statement had been “beefed up”, and acknowledged it must have been a member of the Omagh bomb inquiry team who asked for that to be done.

    I must point out at this point in the trial both Fiona Cooper and Philip Graham were members of the PSNI

    Asking that statements be falsified in a murder trial is that proper professional policing.

    Questions about the PSNI and Mark Haddock and Denis Donaldson remain unanswered.

    According to former CID detectives Jonty Brown and Trevor Mc Ilwrath, Mark Haddock worked as informer within the UVF as informer for CID from 1985 until 1991. Haddock was then taken over by the RUC special branch while the Mountvernon UVF was allowed to get away with murder.

    Several murders in fact, the majority of the Mountvernon UVF victims were Protestants all this was happening while haddock was in fact being protected by the RUC Special Branch.

    In December 2002 Trevor Gowdy was almost beaten to death having his hands nearly severed by a hatchet in Monkstown.

    Mark Haddock was later charged with involvement in this attack. Was Mark Haddock working for the Special Branch at this time?

    The reason I ask this is because the PSNI were formed in November 2001 and Haddocks last known murder attempt for which he was arrested happened in December 2002.

    At the time Denis Donaldson revealed that he had been working for the Special Branch during what the media termed Stormont Gate, he would have been working for the PSNI Special Branch who had helped collapse the Assembly and attempted to distabalise the peace process.

    It is now public knowledge that these men were working not only for the RUC Special Branch but for the PSNI Special Branch under the direction and leadership of PSNI Chief Constable Hugh Orde.

  • Dec

    Got further pissed off by a government that faffed about like a one legged duck and they then took matters into their own hands

    . Nothing vents frustration so much as shooting a load of unarmed catholics in the back or pumping 22 bullets into a prone showband singer’s face. Heroes, one and all.

  • Shawn

    Got further pissed off by a government that faffed about like a one legged duck and they then took matters into their own hands

    Is this not the IRA’s own reason for existing? So you have now legitimized the IRA!

    Good on you!

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Shawn: “Is this not the IRA’s own reason for existing? So you have now legitimized the IRA! ”

    (Standard expected boiler-plate Rant = ON)

    Arugably, it was the excesses of the state following the end of the border campaign and prior to the start of the most recent edition of “the Troubles” ™ that legitimized the IRA, with a certain international rationale being provided by television cameras capturing the “zany antics” of B Specials and finalized and affirmed with Bloody Sunday’s body count, just to be technical.

    (Standard expected boiler-plate Rant = OFF)

    Now, with that bit of “kool-aid” out of the way, at no point did PIRA (or OIRA, CIRA, RIRA, INLA, et al and ad nauseum) present themselves as peace officers. The RUC did so claim. And, yet, they were, at best, selective in their enforcement of the law, permitting, in the case of Haddock and others, Loyalist gangsters, pardon — “defense associations and volunteers” — to deal drugs, run extortion rackets and commit random murder, commit premeditated murder and a host of other criminal activities.

    Once the cops started picking sides — regardless of which side they picked and / or why they picked that side, the police lost any claim to the moral high ground, especially once it exceeded “a few bad apples” — a sectarian cop on the beat meteing out wall-eyed justice — and went “corporate” — SB covering for their informants in multiple cases of murder, drugs, etc., much in the same fashion that the US FBI office in Boston was corrupted through its collusion with Irish mobsters in order to “get” LCN mobsters.

    The main difference, in NI, apparently, crooked cops are lauded and protected and, in the US, they are prosecuted.

  • gareth mccord

    who cares??

  • topdeckomnibus

    (1) Concerning “oh Yeah”. It is condescending to say that a person understand another. However I have heard former Kent mining friends speak the same way. That the thing they will never forgive police for, over the 84 strike, is that they were taught to hate. It was not previously in their blood but the way the strike was policed taught it to them. And it don’t go away.

    For our small group. We have a long and bitter history now of taking on Kent Police. Why did they not act on breach of security warnings given before the 1989 Deal Barracks bombing was the start of it. Then it got more bitter.

    When a Pc Odell was killed by a hit and run driver at Margate a few years ago, one of our number phoned around us to tell us a Kent copper had been killed. He had been one of a stop group of seven.

    Apparently every one of us said “Why didn’t he swerve and get the other six”. And it was a strange moment when he told us all and we realized how much we meant it. Yes we would kill them like vermin.

    yet we started as men who variously raised warnings about barracks security, tried to make crime complaints of unlawful paramilitary live fire training at a Kent range etc.

    It was very sad to see the late john Allen whose version of reality was shattered in his terminal years. He had served from 39 to 45. Later in the 40s as a ships master he supported the Paras in the Haifa zone. he was a Freemason. In retirement he became chair of his residents assn in ramsgate. He began taking up cases for people against Kent Police (including the matter of their armed support group training persons unknown in live fire training at the gun range). Eventually, blocked by Chief constable Daviod Phillips in all thirty complaints against police, he wrote that he had not fought through the war in order to see a Gestapo in his own land.

    he deteriorated too quickly with lung cancer to be able to carry out his despairing final plan. He would have gut shot a few senior Kent Police.

    This is the despair of a man who for years was denied justice for those whose causes he championed.

    (2) Gonzo refers to a bigger picture. I believe there was one and that the allegations re Nairac (playing both sides) would fit into that bigger picture. The first attempt I made to see if my rationalization resonated with the bloggers here (who have greater knowledge of the Ireland specifics)was when I floated the idea that Bloody Sunday questions should include an examination of the Army Job Evaluation Exercise of 1969.

    I am trying to see a bigger picture if one exists.

    When I issued proceedings against Suffolk Chief constable last year he won summary judgment that I was out of time to sue. he got that judgement with no disclosure, no disclosure statement, no defence on the facts filed, no declaration of expert he consulted before briefing civilian solicitors. He retired aged 53 seven months after the summary hearing.

    My case includes the allegation that Airey Neave was the beneficiary of an unlawful police no go area (IE Placed above the law where no man should be)involving every police forces Special Branch liaison.

    I will go a little further than before. I do not necessarily believe that Neave was entirely involved in allegedly being put above the law. In other words even at that political level someone was playing two sides …. before 1969.

    I pray that truth and justice does emerge over the collusion judgement in ECHR.

  • topdeckomnibus

    Mick

    I should add that General de Chasterlain did check his terms of ref to see whether he could deploy to Kent to investigate to whom Kent Police issued firearms certs and the matter of evidence of paramilitary live fire training at the 6th Thanet Rifle Range Birchington (closed by MOD range licensing over the heads of and against the wishes of Kent police 1995).

    His terms of ref preclude his investigation of members of the security services.

    But he chose to make a report, of concern, to the NI Office.

    The detail of this is that the arrests in Kent (mentioned in Pat Monteaths works of “Faction”) of TA soldiers in 87 was under the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819. The offence being to act militarily without Crown or Sec of State authority. (IE That the exemption from being investigated as a paramilitary group could not apply as they were demonstably acting without Crown authority ?)

    A witness to events at the Kent range was, at the time, a permanent staff Regular Army instructor attached to another TA centre. That centre, apparently raised queries when their PSIs saw Kent TA soldiers conducting military training with “Weapons they were not entitled to” at Mereworth Woods Mlitary Training Area Kent.

    The range was planning consented in 72 for change of use from a chalk pit to a .22 rifle range. So how did Kent Police issue firearms certs for 9mm and even 303 and 762 allegedly to members of that range ?

    The history appears to be that in WW2 Corpus Christi College, through the influence of Earl Selborne, availed land to the SOE for their training.

    Whether someone in 72 wanted to keep the spirit of the SOE alive ? But the freeholder of that range was Corpus Christi who, must be said, were very helpful to the neighbouring landowner in 1995 in bringing in MOD Brigadier Hague to withdraw the range licence.

    What did those arrested TA men get up to who believed themselves to be “Honorary members of the UDR” ?

    That is a bit of the detail.

  • billymac

    Does it spoil the party to point out that the ECHR have not established collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries? They have only established “that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to the lack of independence of the RUC during the initial stages of the investigation begun in 1999”.

    Furthermore, the Court notes:

    “The Court considers that the RUC took up inquiries without undue delay. If the matter has dragged on from 1999 to 2007 this has largely been due to the lack of any strong leads and difficulties in interviewing Weir, who remained outside the jurisdiction. It is not apparent that there has been any wilful foot-dragging or prevarication. The Court also takes into account that a considerable number of other cases were being simultaneously reviewed over this period. While there might nonetheless be a question mark as to the slowness of progress in the early stages when the RUC were in charge, the Court notes its finding of lack of independence above and finds no separate issue arises in the circumstances. No breach of these requirements has been made out.

    d. Effectiveness

    79. As regards the adequacy of the steps taken, the Court is not persuaded by the applicant that there have been any significant oversights or omissions. The key traceable witnesses have been interviewed, and the available evidence collected and reviewed. The Court is not persuaded that the apparent errors or shortcomings of the RUC identified by the applicant (see paragraph 55) can be regarded as rendering the investigative process inadequate when viewed as a whole.”

    Collusion = Fact? Not on this Court’s judgement.

  • RepublicanStones

    don’t worry billy, collusion has been established as fact a while ago, so welcome to the present. and tell me why it is you think the stalker report is still under lock and key?

  • billymac

    RS,

    I refer you to my final paragraph. Facts are like statistics in this context, subjective and prone to skewed interpretation depending on your perspective. I simply point out that the ECHR has not established collusion.

  • RepublicanStones

    billy, you seem unaware of previous seperate investigations. collusion is a fact, what is open to debate is how widespread it was and how high it went. Stalker report?…..im waiting.

  • Dave

    A terrorist organisation SF/ IRA murders members of a British community, members of the R.U.C/U.D.R. the British Army and civilians who had the audacity to provide services (e.g.) Baker or Plumbers or Painters , etc. in Army camps or police stations and the same community collude and strike back, unbelievable, but true.

    The likes of loyalists paramilitaries, the British Army and the R.U.C. have a common enemy, SF/IRA. A case of my enemy enemies are my friends.

    This does not make it right but what would you expect? Collusion was not required to defeat SF/IRA so should never have taken place, however it did. Those who have committed unlawful acts will be punished by due process of law to expect any less or more would in itself also be wrong.

    To state or believe that the Government or the British Army condoned or authorised collusion beggars believe. The British people of Northern Ireland are not that well thought of by the establishment.

    Seeing as we are on the subject of collusion surely a person supporting any terrorist organisation either by turning a blind eye to the beatings of its own community members or by putting money into the (tin behind the bar) to finance the purchase of weapons. Worst still voting terrorists into Government is also collusion and support of acts of terrorism?

    Neither side comes out smelling of rose’s. It was a dirty war and the British won.

    The British Government. the British police service and the British Army along with the British people should stand together against terrorists where ever they come from. And by all lawful means defeat cowardly terrorists and their supporters.

    Those without sin of collusion may comment on the above statement. I know this should narrow the field a little.

  • billymac

    RS

    I prefer the judgement of the highest court on the continent to the ramblings of a garage door salesman. Once more,
    READ……THE……JUDGEMENT
    It does not establish collusion.

  • RepublicanStones

    keep screaming at the facts billy. few points dave, if you admit it was a war, why did the hunger strikers have to go down the route they did to achieve political status? how exactly did the british win. the IRA decommisioned weapons to an independent international commission, not a british army quatermaster, which would be surrendering them. post 9/11 violence for political aims isn’t ‘cool’, loyalists have yet to cop onto this, although they never had any political aims above croppy lie down. and since when are the losers of a war in such a position to ensure the removal of state agencies of the victor???? bye bye RUC ! and to refer to an earlier comment of mine, collusion is not a recent (troubles) event, violence of and for british state/govt/monarchy here in ireland pre-dates irish resistance to it.

  • Donnacha

    “stand together against terrorists where ever they come from. And by all lawful means defeat cowardly terrorists and their supporters.”

    Dave the whole point of the collusion claims is that it was not lawful. You appear confused; either you are for the rule of law or you are for teh use of whatever emans necessary to achieve your aims. Which is it?

  • billymac

    RS,

    Okay, exactly what’s in the Stalker Report then, what “facts” are revealed? And where, by the way, did you get the key to the locked drawer? Believing that there was state collusion is one thing, proving it is another. Still, I admire your unshakeable faith with regard to these matters.

  • RepublicanStones

    billy, its precisely because the british govt never released that raises serious questions. tell me why you think they never released it? oh and i am worried at your unflappable belief in the integrity of the british establishment. i suggest you read a little on general frank kitson and the very ‘noble’ policies he advocated for the british army. once again, why do you think the stalker report is under lock and key by the british govt?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Dave: “The likes of loyalists paramilitaries, the British Army and the R.U.C. have a common enemy, SF/IRA. A case of my enemy enemies are my friends. ”

    Not true, insofar as the loyalist paramilitaries, hip deep in drugs and extortion, weren’t interested in fighting the IRA. For example, the vaunted UDA killed about 112 individuals: 78 civilians (mainly Catholics), 22 UDA members, 7 other Loyalists, 3 law-enforcement personnel and 2 Republican paramilitaries. Say what you will, but whomever, they were fighting, it certainly wasn’t the IRA.

    billymac, re: Collusion.

    From the Stevens Report:

    “4.6 I have uncovered enough evidence to lead me to believe that the murders of Patrick Finucane and Brian Adam Lambert could have been prevented. I also believe that the RUC investigation of Patrick Finucane’s murder should have resulted in the early arrest and detection of his killers.

    4.7 I conclude there was collusion in both murders and the circumstances surrounding them. Collusion is evidenced in many ways. This ranges from the willful failure to keep records, the absence of accountability, the withholding of intelligence and evidence, through to the extreme of agents being involved in murder.

    4.8 The failure to keep records or the existence of contradictory accounts can often be perceived as evidence of concealment or malpractice. It limits the opportunity to rebut serious allegations. The absence of accountability allows the acts or omissions of individuals to go undetected. The withholding of information impedes the prevention of crime and the arrest of suspects. The unlawful involvement of agents in murder implies that the security forces sanction killings.

    4.9 My three Enquiries have found all these elements of collusion to be present. The co-ordination, dissemination and sharing of intelligence were poor. Informants and agents were allowed to operate without effective control and to participate in terrorist crimes. Nationalists were known to be targeted but were not properly warned or protected. Crucial information was withheld from Senior Investigating Officers. Important evidence was neither exploited nor preserved.”

    as republicanstones averred, collusion has been amply demonstrated elsewhere, such as the Stevens report (unless you’d care to believe that the fire in his office within police headquarters was a coincidence…

  • billymac

    RS,

    I don’t know. And I also don’t know what’s in it. And I also don’t think that a coherent explanation of events can be built around a series of allegations, assumptions, extrapolations and self perpetuating myths. Coherent explanations can be built around credible evidence and forensic examination of proper facts. In this case the ECHR has stated that the initial RUC investigation was flawed in that it was not independent. I have to say I agree. What is called for now is a proper forensic investigation of the allegations of collusion. What is less than helpful is a round of unsubstantiated allegations masquerading as true accounts of what actually occurred. My belief is not unflappable, I simply rely on some convincing evidence before I am prepared to consider that the word of (in this case) a convict can be accepted. Read the judgement again RS… it finds no fault with the investigation or the actions of the police. And let’s not forget that it was the same police force that stands accused of collusion that brought McCaughey, Weir etc to justice. I have to go now – I’ve got Spooks to watch on SKY+. And no, I don’t believe it’s factual either.

  • RepublicanStones

    the fact remains as dread and i alluded to earlier. Collusion is a fact, the only issue open for debate is how much and how far up the foodchain it ran. you have convieniently ignored dread’s last post as well as answering why you think it is the british govt won’t release a report into collusion. surrely if there was none then they have nothing to fear from said report? i would like your opinion? and if you believe a full investigation should take place, what should happen to those who hindered previous investigations? and why did they do so?
    once more for the back of the class. collusion is a fact, how far and how much are the issues.

  • Sam Hanna

    It is very odd that MORE loyalists ended up in jail than catholic terrorists.

    Still why let the facts get in the way of a good chance to slander the RUC. For a 95% Protestant Police Force they managed to keep remarkably free from sectarian violence despite the intense pressure from the IRA who murdered Protestants at will in border areas.

    Let the ECHR investigate the links between the IRA and the Catholic CHurch and the Eire Government and a certain Belfast Solicitor if they want to be taken seriously!

  • Dave

    keep screaming at the facts billy. few points dave, if you admit it was a war, why did the hunger strikers have to go down the route they did to achieve political status?

    Ans. They were caught perpretrating acts of terrorism abainst the British community and banged up in jail. The Government met their demands to political staus. The republican movement would not decided they wanted more than the prisoners ask for hench they dide in prison though choice. Should you wish for further detail i suggest you ask Gerry Adams you should be able to find something of the Blanket.

    how exactly did the british win.

    Ans. Open your eyes. is there a United Ireland?

    the IRA decommisioned weapons to an independent international commission, not a british army quatermaster, which would be surrendering them.

    Ans. SF/IRA sought an end to the war, it was SF/IRA who handed over their weapons for destruction not the British Army.

    post 9/11 violence for political aims isn’t ‘cool’, loyalists have yet to cop onto this, although they never had any political aims above croppy lie down.

    SF/IRA realised the Americans would not put up with terrorists after their country was attacked, clever auld SF/IRA. The political aim of the British community is to remain just that, British.

    and since when are the losers of a war in such a position to ensure the removal of state agencies of the victor???? bye bye RUC !

    Ans.The losers SF/IRA are not in a position to ensure anything. The British were magnanimious to a defeated enemy nothing more nothing less and yes it was Bye bye R.U.C. although many would say the new P.S.N.I. is nothing more than a revamped R.U.C. who knows?

    and to refer to an earlier comment of mine, collusion is not a recent (troubles) event, violence of and for british state/govt/monarchy here in ireland pre-dates irish resistance to it.

    Ans. I don’t understand the above, what collusion took place before irish resistance to it?

    Posted by RepublicanStones on Nov 28, 2007 @ 08:49 PM

  • Dave

    “stand together against terrorists where ever they come from. And by all lawful means defeat cowardly terrorists and their supporters.”

    Dave the whole point of the collusion claims is that it was not lawful. You appear confused; either you are for the rule of law or you are for teh use of whatever emans necessary to achieve your aims. Which is it?

    Posted by Donnacha on Nov 28, 2007 @ 08:52 PM

    Ans. This is a very clear statement, try reading it.

    “stand together against terrorists where ever they come from. And by all lawful means defeat cowardly terrorists and their supporters.”

  • Shawn

    Yes dave it is a very clear statement

    What apears you can not grasp is that collusion is NOT legal therefore they are in contravention of this very simple statement

  • Dave

    Dave: “The likes of loyalists paramilitaries, the British Army and the R.U.C. have a common enemy, SF/IRA. A case of my enemy enemies are my friends. “

    Not true, insofar as the loyalist paramilitaries, hip deep in drugs and extortion, weren’t interested in fighting the IRA.

    Ans. SF/IRA, hip deep in drugs and extortion, weren’t interested in murdering anyone who stood in their path to a united Ireland

    For example, the vaunted UDA killed about 112 individuals: 78 civilians (mainly Catholics), 22 UDA members, 7 other Loyalists, 3 law-enforcement personnel and 2 Republican paramilitaries. Say what you will, but whomever, they were fighting, it certainly wasn’t the IRA.

    Ans.The IRA leadership was forced to hold an emergency summit less than 24 hours after the murder of Sinn Fein official and British spy Denis Donaldson. The Collins, Donaldson, McCartney and Quinn cases highlight the fact that the IRA has not gone away and if the IRA did not authorise the murders they are aware of who the murderers are, or could it be a case of collusion between IRA activists and criminals. Say what you will, but whomever, they are murdering, it certainly wasn’t members of the British Army. (not to sure about Donaldson tho.)

    That is how silly your argument is, I could insert thousands of names of innocent people murdered by SF/IRA

    Posted by Dread Cthulhu on Nov 28, 2007 @ 09:37 PM

  • RepublicanStones

    sam hanna what exactly is your defintion of remarkably free? and what are the periods of the demography of prisoners being weighed in loyalists favour?

    dave -Ans. SF/IRA sought an end to the war, it was SF/IRA who handed over their weapons for destruction not the British Army.

    correct dave, and the british govt reciporcated by abolishing the ruc, they are also on record as saying they had no wish to remain in the north, the south now have a substanial input into the affairs of the north. your beloved british army are also on record as stating they could not defeat the IRA militarily. watchtowers dismantled in south armagh, bye bye home service battalions. so you can claim victory over the IRA for the british army when they haven’t even claimed it themselves? your also right, there is no united ireland, but we are well on the way. after all your beloved british govt is on record as saying they have no wish, economic, strategic or otherwise in remaining in the north. and if you don’t understand my last comment, i suggest you read a little more.

  • Dave

    Must apolgise for the typo errors in my posts,
    must use spell check mext time

  • cynic

    Shawn

    “If the vast majoirty were so morally minded why did they do NOTHING about those that werent? ”

    Errrrr well, lets see now.

    First, clearly there was collusion.

    Weir and other members of the Armagh SPG carried out a campaign of kidnap and murder in Co Armagh and Co Antrim as I recall. Leaving aside the morality of that for a moment, such was their organsiation and the quality of their intelligence, that their victims included a totally innocent shopkeeper and a catholic priest who was a war hero and later went on to become defacto the catholic chaplain to the RUC! Is this the hallmark of a campaign driven by MI5 Special Branch and the the highest ranks of the RUC? Errr…not really.

    Oh yes, and how do we know all this? Not because of John Weir’s statement made in 1999 or because of the ECHR but because in 1977 or 1978 (ie 30 years ago) the big bad corporately corrupt RUC found out what was happening and managed to get the evidence to put Weir and his headcase friends behind bars for their crimes before they could kill anyone else. Strange that, isnt it.

    Forgive the cynicism, but as I recall, when Weir went into Prison he suddenly ‘found God’ (a popular passtime in those days,) but it wasnt until the 1990s that God induced him to ‘tell his story’ and produce a new set of allegations.

    Dreadful times and dreadful crimes. Should the allegations be investigated? Of course they should, as should all the other allegations from all sides. But the pesky little problems of credibility and evidence will come up – just as they do in so many other cases of this vintage and history, no matter who the victims or villans

  • Shawn

    Cynic
    You took it totally out of context, that was a question to a poster who was claiming that the RUC were for the most part angels with dirty faces. I call bullshit they were colluding with their silence even if they werent directly involved

  • RepublicanStones

    cynic we all know how accurate britains intelligence services can be…(wry smile) and you neglect one crucial issue of kitson policy implemented in britains colonial wars, that is to try and draw the enemy into bitter sectarian tit for tat campaigns, thus nullifying the core support among its recruitment community. they do this not by taking out active people but by being blatantly sectarian.

  • dewi

    Pretty terrible thread.Really important stuff. I never understood where that times sectarian killings emerged from. Would be useful for the future to find out. Not being heartless but this bunch of killings were different.

  • cynic

    I agree Dewi. It’s an awful thread but welcome to the underbelly of NI’s ‘new politics’, the veneer over all the old attitudes and hatreds.

    Perhaps it will change but I have a horrible feeling that if you come back to this thread in 30 years little will have changed. It was always themmuns fault and ouruns was just forced to do it, so they was.

  • I just despair of any of you guys ever getting to the heart of anything.

    The big issue here is why was the RUC’s collusion covered up. And the simply answer is because it was working with the SAS, as anyone who bothered to read Father Raymond Murray’s The SAS in Ireland, pp. 163-246 would know. And why was this? Just to appease outraged loyalists.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Dave: “SF/IRA, hip deep in drugs and extortion, weren’t interested in murdering anyone who stood in their path to a united Ireland ”

    Actually, the IRA was hip deep in tax avoidance schemes and extortion, not drugs, per the IMC, the Gardai and the PSNI.

    Likewise, they have shifted to investment in legitimate businesses, although, given the provenence of their starting funds, that may not have been the best move.

    Dave: “The IRA leadership was forced to hold an emergency summit less than 24 hours after the murder of Sinn Fein official and British spy Denis Donaldson. The Collins, Donaldson, McCartney and Quinn cases highlight the fact that the IRA has not gone away and if the IRA did not authorise the murders they are aware of who the murderers are, or could it be a case of collusion between IRA activists and criminals”

    What a gloriously useless bit of filibustering, Dave. Utterly non-responsive to the point at hand, which was the UDA’s complete and utter unwillingness to engage the IRA and other armed Nationalist organizations, preferring instead to kill civilians, Loyalists and even police, yet having the pretension off actually saying something. Bravo.

    Dave: “That is how silly your argument is, I could insert thousands of names of innocent people murdered by SF/IRA ”

    Only because an analysis of the numbers, by category of victim (civilian, Loyalist, Republican, law enforcement/military) would utterly scupper your argument.

  • Dave

    “What a gloriously useless bit of filibustering, Dave. Utterly non-responsive to the point at hand, which was the UDA’s complete and utter unwillingness to engage the IRA and other armed Nationalist organizations, preferring instead to kill civilians, Loyalists and even police, yet having the pretension off actually saying something. Bravo. ”

    To start with I’m not as you state filibustering. Just how was it possible for the U.D.A to engage the I.R.A. when the I.R.A. refuse to wear a uniform and hide behind women and children? and in many cases forced women and children in front of their brave volunteers. Targeting for the I.R.A. was easy, anything in a uniform would do Police, Army, firefighters anything or one that didn’t live in a nats/reps area, anyone remotely British. Please don’t try and glorify I.R.A. murders as irish freedom fighters. They are murderers.

    You only have to look at all those (military targets) selected by SF/IRA i.e. Harrods, canary wharf, Manchester and Birmingham city centre, Warrington ect. you are not fooling anyone. The Irish Republican Army are noting but cowardly murdering scum.

    Hope that is clear enough for you.

  • RepublicanStones

    Dave you have just highlighted your complete ignorance of the IRA’s campagin by not being aware of their aim of hitting economic targets as well as military. Thats why your precious harrods was targeted. also remind what type of uniform loaylists wore??? did gusty Spence and his mates wear a uniform when they comitted the FIRST killings of the ‘troubles’? was the first member of the crown forces who died in the troubles, Cst Arbuckle killed by loyalists in uniform. were the loyalists who conducted the first bombing campaign of the troubles wearing a uniform? oh and if the IRA are murdering scum, what does that make those who first started the murdering?

  • topdeckomnibus

    As far as I am aware the first and only attempt to attack an economically significant target was 1996. The viable plans to black out the National Power Grid in London and South East (pre-emptive arrests from Broad Oak sub station Canterbury)

    There had been reports, since 1981, that if such an attack were to be mounted that the backup emergency power infrastructure would be unreliable.

    That is backup generators on hospitals etc and, more crucially, the backups on nuclear power plant shutdowns.

    if you look, for example, at Chernobyl (backup genny failed) or at HunterstonB Scotland 1998 (backup genny failed) for incidents of this nature. Hunterston B just got away with natural coolant circulation until mains power from the grid back to the shut down station was established ? I think that in 1998 Bradwell in Essex had a similar incident.

    So the consequences of a successful attack on mains distribution could have been more than anticipated by the attackers. A 300 year nuclear set aside evacuation ….. etc etc

    General De Chasterlain, at the time he reported concerns to the NI Office about TA paramilitaries in kent and whether they had been armed via Kent Police issued firearms certs, also included the matter that the origibal Garland Plan Stage Three was consistent with the type of sabotage of backup generators long reported in England (and not actioned by police even though the Scottoish Energy Minister Ian Grey called on UKAEA Police for inquiry after the three Dounreay incidents).

    During the election campaign of 2005 the Maidstone Hospital backup genny failed and that was also the day that Tony Blair ordered that copies of the reports of sabotage be sent to the NI Secretary.

    Consequently I made an application to Blair under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 that he compel inquiry by HSE and Police. He transferred the matter to John Reid who resigned as Home Sec without giving a decision.

    Since sabotage was planned as a weapons system then it should have been included in the arms declaration and decommissioning arrangements.

  • topdeckomnibus

    The matter of sabotage, and the ability of authority to investigate, is not without its humour.

    There was a lot made of Maggie Thatcher’s decision to sink the Belgrano outside the Exclusion Zone. When the nuclear protestor Hilda Murrell was murdered the press and the Commons had a field day of conspiracy speculation.

    “Was it Sizewell or was it Belgrano secrets”

    her nephew Rob Green had been a Commander in RN Intelligence allegedly involved in the decision to attack Belgrano (with obsolete WW2 torpedos).

    With the sort of arrogance, from time to time evident on Slugger threads, the press pundits speculated for a political or high strategic motive to attribute to Maggie T.

    I was more inclined to think on Rob Green’s training in reliability analysis (checking the reliability of weapons systems supplied to RN).

    For many years Gwent Special Branch appear to have been investigating for suspected saboteurs at a torpedo factory in their baileywick. I was reliably told that their line of inquiry was “Gladio” the alleged stay behind network gone rogue.

    Gladio was the brain child of Harry Sporborg and its set up involved MI9 and Airey Neave. Two of the men who manipulated Maggie T to power. So SB thought Maggie’s sponsors had formed a gang which sabotaged Maggie’s weapons ?

    I went in the factory as a contract electrician and found, in 1989, the problem was due to a wrongly wired factory electrically corrupting assembly and test … coupled with falsification of test data. This report was then agreed by two MOD Procurement experts.

    IE I reckon Maggie was told that the modern system did not exactly “work” so best fire an obsolete system outside the EZ. If it sank the target moody it out. If it failed to sink the target then explain that only warning shots from a WW2 system were used. The objective being to persude the Argentine to fleet in being. The objective was achieved. So moody out the flak from tam dalyell and the Thatcher torpedo brigade.

    Meanwhile the factory closed with 1200 redundancies and the press not noticing.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Dave: “Just how was it possible for the U.D.A to engage the I.R.A. when the I.R.A. refuse to wear a uniform and hide behind women and children?”

    So, you seek to excuse the UDA’s prediliction for murdering civilians?

    And, if what you claim is truly the case, despite the sharing of intelligence files and the like between the army police and the loyalist formations, how did the UDA propose to “defend” against Republicans they couldn’t find?

    Dave: “Please don’t try and glorify I.R.A. murders as irish freedom fighters. They are murderers. ”

    How is pointing out the obvious flaw / lie in your position “glorify I.R.A. murders,” Dave? You misidentified the UDA as a defense organization that defended against Republican paramilitaries. this is understandable, at least for the intellectually lazy, as the UDA, by their name, seek to propagate that misunderstanding.

    I pointed out that they did no such things, killing civilians and other Loyalist paramilitaries far in excess to any “defending” they did against republican paramilitaries. Your best riposte, apparently, is to ignore the point and try to claim I said something I haven’t, so as to obscure the flaccidity of your argument.

    If you have a point, make it — quit throwing mud up against the wall in hopes of something sticking.