Collusion confirmed.

Terry

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1248294,00.html

Police Helped Loyalists
Updated: 13:31, Monday January 22, 2007

A damning report into the Royal Ulster Constabulary has concluded that the force colluded with loyalist paramilitaries during the 1990s.

A three-year, £2m investigation by the police ombudsman found that RUC officers allowed members of the Ulster Volunteer Force to get away with murder in return for information.

But no police officers are to be charged over their involvement in the collusion.

Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan said three retired assistant chief constables, seven detective chief superintendents and two detective superintendents were among 40 officers who failed to cooperate with the inquiry.

Her investigators examined how a UVF unit based in north Belfast was protected by its Special Branch handlers.

But it was revealed that the destruction of files had thwarted attempts to bring anyone to account.

Mrs O'Loan's report also disclosed that the key informant, known to be former terror chief Mark Haddock, was paid at least £80,000 during more than a decade of brutal paramilitary killings.

Mrs O'Loan said officers working with paramilitary informers could not have operated without the knowledge and support of the highest levels of the RUC and its successor force, the Police Service Of Northern Ireland.

Although she ruled out any deliberate intent to conspire with the UVF gang in its murder campaign, she said her inquiry had shown that Special Branch dominated the RUC.

This, she said, had "resulted in a culture of subservience to Special Branch and organisational dysfunction".

Mrs O'Loan confirmed that she had told Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde that investigations should be reopened into the murders the informant was suspected of and other crimes.

Sir Hugh, who has accepted all 20 of her recommendations, has also been asked to look into the serious crimes carried out by the 12% of informers dropped by the police in 2003 because of their involvement in illegal activity.

More here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6286695.stm

funny thing is, i cannot find one instance on any of the pages of the loyalist "paramilitaries" being referred to as terrorists.
Is is because they consider themselves british and the media refuses to recognise terrorists amongst its own people? apparently it is okay to refer to the I.R.A. as terrorists, but not the loyalists. one is as bad as the other, as far as i can see.

A Dub in Glasgo

Collusion confirmed?

It can't be as everybody knows that it is all tin foil hat stuff... don't they?

How about calling Loyalist Paramilitaries the RUC or even British Terrorists?

Terry

My point is that they have possibly strayed from calling them "Terrorists" because of the whole "War on terror" thing. You can't be seen having terrorists of your own nationality if you are off fighting againg those evil people in the middle east.

Blackjack

This news isn't really that big of a surprise, THB. I am surprised however at how long it took for a Thread on this to open.

Should be interesting to see how this pans out.

Judt

My goodness, first Hillary, now this... will the wonders never cease?

sceptre

Slightly relevant dumbass question: when's the last time they called the IRA terrorists?

The reason I'm asking is that editorial guidelines would probably advise staying away from terms like "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" as a general rule in any case.

InFront

A spade is a spade. Paramilitary activity is terrorism. When is it not? I agree with julep on this.
The domestic across the street is invariably more interesting than the one upstairs.

sceptre

InFront wrote:

A spade is a spade.

Indeed. I may look as though I'm straw-picking here but I asked a reasonable and relevant question and while I don't mean to be offensive, merely blunt, if the best you can come up with is "a spade is a spade" when the relevant question is whether a spade is being referred to as a shovel then I'll have to seek my answer elsewhere.

Paramilitary activity is terrorism. When is it not?

When it doesn't terrorise.

I agree with julep on this.

I haven't disagreed. Mind you, I've always said that actions taken by the ri-ra against military targets aren't terrorism, they're military actions taken by a bunch of non-elected, non-largely-representative militaristic secessionists and their actions should be deplored and condemned more for the latter than the former.

The domestic across the street is invariably more interesting than the one upstairs.

That's because if there's really a domestic across the street, you can actually see it through the window. With figurative domestics, including non-domestic "domestics", I would say that the current one always tends to be the most interesting, followed by the recently historic loudest, followed by anything else recent, followed by the more-historic, depending on how hysteric one is about the historic histrionics.

nesf

sceptre wrote:

Slightly relevant dumbass question: when's the last time they called the IRA terrorists?

The reason I'm asking is that editorial guidelines would probably advise staying away from terms like "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" as a general rule in any case.

I agree with you tbh. It probably has it's roots in similar areas to why the UN was never sent in during the troubles etc. I doubt many people are genuinely suprised by the report. There may be a few cursing the timing though.

Elfish

sceptre wrote:

military actions taken by a bunch of non-elected, non-largely-representative militaristic secessionists and their actions should be deplored and condemned more for the latter than the former.

This is fairly much what the 1916 leaders are going to be remembered for by Fianna Fail, and commemorated as such now that it is OK again to do so according to our government.

Mind you, roll back 15 years and it was a case of being condemned as being a sympathiser if you commemorated. I think even still, nationalists in Ireland are afraid to wear an Easter Lily for fear of being associated in some way with militant republicanism, although with the touchy feely vogue nowadays, people who wear the Poppy are encouraged now that is OK to have served as an Irish person in the British army.

As far as I see it, revisionism is ongoing, and for the most part I applaud it.

Funny how things change. Anyway, this report is not new news....john stalker was given the heave ho when he tried to reveal and prove this years ago.

Fully agree with earlier poster's point about terrorist tag being applied - this is only a relatively recent development, esp. since 9/11. I think news used to refer to "IRA atrocities" or "murdered/shot by the IRA", rather than the explicit terrorism label. "Terrorism" was not a tag used by the media until relatively recently when referring to republican or loyalist actions.

GuanYin

InFront wrote:

A spade is a spade. Paramilitary activity is terrorism. When is it not? .

I think the three largest paramilitary organisations in Ireland would disagree.

The Boy Scouts of Ireland
The Salvation Army
The Catholic Girl Guides

All engage in paramilitary activity, but, surprisingly by your claims, not high on the Homeland Security international watchlist.....

InFront

sceptre wrote:

Indeed. I may look as though I'm straw-picking here but I asked a reasonable and relevant question and while I don't mean to be offensive, merely blunt, if the best you can come up with is "a spade is a spade" when the relevant question is whether a spade is being referred to as a shovel then I'll have to seek my answer elsewhere.

What on earth are you talking about? I am responding to the OP not your post... I wasn't quoting you. Julep stated that there was no instance in the report of Loyalist Paramilitaries being referred to as terrorists.

Also, it is quite obvious that in that context I am speaking about paramilitarism in terms of terrorism and not the boy scouts. This is the politics forum not "camping".

DadaKopf

InFront wrote:

A spade is a spade. Paramilitary activity is terrorism. When is it not? I agree with julep on this.
The domestic across the street is invariably more interesting than the one upstairs.

Surely a paramilitary is a 'private army'. Terrorism is a tactic. Hence, terrorist paramilitaries, or paramilitary terrorism, to differentiate from 'state terrorism' for example.

Hagar

And people couldn't understand why the Nationalist community didn't trust the police?

I wonder will any heads roll for this?

sovtek

julep wrote:

My point is that they have possibly strayed from calling them "Terrorists" because of the whole "War on terror" thing. You can't be seen having terrorists of your own nationality if you are off fighting againg those evil people in the middle east.

I think it's a bias that goes back further than that. I noticed the bias on the BBC regarding the IRA when I first moved here in 2000.

Erin Go Brath

Its about time the Taoiseach "straps on a pair" and takes the British government to the European Court of Human Rights. Londons refusal to hand over intelligence files is sickening, and cowardly to say the least.

Zombrex

I'm not quite sure what the fuss is about the term "terrorist"

A quick search on the BBC site will find many instances when Loyalists are referred to as terrorists, and when the IRA are referred to as paramilitaries.

As DadaKopf and sceptre point out "paramilitary" is a more correct term when describing groups like the IRA, because groups like the IRA and the UVF don't just carrying out terrorist actions. They are a private army, that use terrorist tactics.

This Boards.ie fixation on the media's use of the word "terrorism" always bewilders me. When was it decided that "terrorism" was the only word to describe "bad" and everything else was "good", so if someone is bad they must be a terrorist, even if that isn't actually a the best word to describe them.

Did I miss that email? If you call someone a paramilitary group does everyone go "oh, well, thats ok. I used to think the UVF were a bad group but now the BBC call them paramilitaries that must mean they are a good group" :rolleyes: Its just silly.

Anyway, back to the OP. I don't think anyone is particularly surprised the news that the investigation found links between the RUC and the UVF (maybe those who said their would be whitewash). I am surprised, and quite disappointed, that no heads are rolling for this.

How can the Catholic community in the North be expected to trust the British establishment if they don't keep their house in order. I find it impossible to believe that no one broke any laws when handling these UVF men. If these RUC men were ordered to do these things then those that ordered them should be held to account, even if that goes all the way to Maggie Thatcher.

Time Magazine

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Its about time the Taoiseach "straps on a pair" and takes the British government to the European Court of Human Rights. Londons refusal to hand over intelligence files is sickening, and cowardly to say the least.

Bringing them to the ECtHR will do nothing. It has no power other than minor fines (think €30,000) and name-and-shame power.

Shame on the British government. Absolutely no surprise though.

sceptre

I've got to say that the reaction below is one of the most tragically funny things I've read in quite a while. It's from Jimmy Spratt, who's obviously been watching Yes Minister from Humphrey Appleby's point of view.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP and former police federation chair) said:
"This report is another clear example why both serving and former Police Officers have no confidence in the Police Ombudsman or her office, the goverment should immediately appoint an independent body to investigate complaints made against her and her office."

Link including other comments. Spratt would do well to remove his ass from the 1970s. After, of course, removing his head from his ass.

Zombrex

This report is another clear example why both serving and former Police Officers have no confidence in the Police Ombudsman or her office

LOL, what an idiot. Serving and former corrupt police officers should have no confidence in the police ombudsman! His remarks reminds me of that line from Jim Carrey's "Liar Liar"

Carrey - Judge I must object!

Judge - On what grounds?

Carrey - On the grounds that it is devastating to my case!

nacho libre

There are probably people posting to this board who would have dismissed this as conspiractorial guff when the allegations of collusion first surfaced years ago. It's disconcerting how those who are often portrayed in a bad light- the bad guys- are later revealed to be telling the truth and the good guys are the liars. I'm thinking of senior Sinn Fein figures who in the early nineties said collusion was taking place. I'm also thinking of figures in Saddam's regime who said they had no WMD prior to the 2003 invasion.
Well, some of you have learned a valuable lesson; not all conspiracy theories are rubbish. I'd love to hear what Lord Tebbit and the likes of Charles Moore have to say about this report.

Erin Go Brath

Ibid wrote:

Bringing them to the ECtHR will do nothing. It has no power other than minor fines (think €30,000) and name-and-shame power.

Shame on the British government. Absolutely no surprise though.

Bring them to court and shame them I say. If this latest fiasco isn't the biggest reason for the unification of Ireland I don't know what is.

Lemming

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Bring them to court and shame them I say.

I think that 'shaming' these people would be the least of their worries don't you think? :rolleyes:

If this latest fiasco isn't the biggest reason for the unification of Ireland I don't know what is.

Eh. No. Quite the opposite. There is no way in hell unification, with people with this kind of mindset running around inside your country's borders, would lead to anything other than an awful lot of bad karma. Think about it.

And in any case, arguing that because of this, we should have unification is stupid. We should have unification when the majority want to have unification. Forcing it on them would be a very, very bad idea.

csk

Erin Go Brath wrote:

If this latest fiasco isn't the biggest reason for the unification of Ireland I don't know what is.

Not necessarily unification but definitly it is time to for Bertie to grow some cojones in regards the north and set about bringing Unity through the GFA. I think it's time to start convincing Unionists that we have moved on from the nineteenth century.

On collusion I'm not surprised really various report and inquiries have hinted at it, my problem is that in all likelyhood no one will be prosecuted.

I wonder though, what impact this will have on the policing debate among Republicans? Will it strenghten Sinn Féin's line of reforming from within or will it be seen as another reason not to engage with the police?

Zambia

Lads this is how things work up here the shinners wont condemn past republican attrocitys. The Unionist's wont accept any of these allegations of collusion.

There is no surprise to anyone about Police collusion back in the day.

Didnt the Irish Goverment almost import arms to the north under a ministers direction . There have been allegations about garda involvement in shady republican areas as well.

We all have stones and we all have windows, some of us are just a bit sick of cleaning up glass.

Erin Go Brath

The sad thing about it is, that when all is said and done, sweet FA is going to be done about it. Theres not going to be a public enquiry, and hopefully they might get one arrest if theyre lucky it seems.

Fair play to the shinners though, theyre still putting forward their plans to sell policing.

Gerry Adams
"Inclusive support by all for reformed policing in Northern Ireland has to be the way of the future. I hope that such inclusive support for policing can become a reality following the Sinn Fein ard fheis next weekend"

InFront

Lemming wrote:

Eh. No. Quite the opposite. There is no way in hell unification, with people with this kind of mindset running around inside your country's borders, would lead to anything other than an awful lot of bad karma. Think about it.

And in any case, arguing that because of this, we should have unification is stupid. We should have unification when the majority want to have unification. Forcing it on them would be a very, very bad idea.

I mostly agree with you, except I think we should get away from this theory of unification altogether.
The majority have wanted the uphold the union with Britain all along, and look at the trouble that was caused. You would really only be swapping one type of unionism for another type. In this case the Unionists would be the Sinn Feiners.
I would be quite happy to see Ulster exist indefinitely in the sort of hybrid set up by St Andrews with North/South economic cooperation and joint initiatives whilst still maintaining the Union.

lostexpectation

ouch see this from slugger

#

Does anyone remember Flanagan saying in response to questions about Policing around 5 years ago that if a report into Policing in NI found hime to be heading up a corrupt police force that engaged in collusion with paramiliaries that, not only would he resign, but - and I quote, “I would publicly commit suicide”?

Can anyone recall that quote and its exact context?
Posted by GrassyNoel on Jan 23, 2007 @ 01:07 PM
#

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1707299.stm

This is the link to the I will commit suicide remark, and its Omagh bomb context.

csk

Erin Go Brath wrote:

Fair play to the shinners though, theyre still putting forward their plans to sell policing.

It's not the shinners I would be worried about, nothing short of armageddon would stop them trying to sell policing at this stage.


It's the anti-policing republicans, who seem to be getting more organised, what with putting candidates forward for election and their spokespeople appearing in the media more frequently, will they benefit from this ?

I mostly agree with you, except I think we should get away from this theory of unification altogether.
The majority have wanted the uphold the union with Britain all along, and look at the trouble that was caused. You would really only be swapping one type of unionism for another type. In this case the Unionists would be the Sinn Feiners.
I would be quite happy to see Ulster exist indefinitely in the sort of hybrid set up by St Andrews with North/South economic cooperation and joint initiatives whilst still maintaining the Union.

Not that I particularly want to get into this but the "majority" was artificially created and maintained by the British Government (for me to have to point that out on a thread about collusion is ridiculous beyond belief).

Anyway the GFA puts responsibility for unity solely on this island. Therefore it is in our interests to show the Unionists that we are not in fact baby eating papists out to destroy their heritage.

Fratton Fred

there is no surprise in this, but surely this is just another part of the madness that is Northern ireland?

Obviously this gives the usual suspects the chance to score a few points and call for the shaming of hte British Government, but as far as I can see, this is yet another issue that brings shame on Northern ireland in General.

gurramok

One thing that has not been mentuined is that this report only revealed huge collusion in a tiny area of north Belfast in 15 murders.

How do we know there has not been widespread collusion in all the other areas, there could be hundreds who died as a result of this, speculation maybe, but i feel this report is only the start of a breaking dam bursting of more stomach churning revelations.

Lemming

gurramok wrote:

One thing that has not been mentuined is that this report only revealed huge collusion in a tiny area of north Belfast in 15 murders.

How do we know there has not been widespread collusion in all the other areas, there could be hundreds who died as a result of this, speculation maybe, but i feel this report is only the start of a breaking dam bursting of more stomach churning revelations.

Indeed ... I hope all of this attention also includes Irish agencies as well ..... I suspect that "stomach churning revelations" will be found equally on both sides.

Jackie laughlin

May I point out that the reason that this is so awful is that public servants have been found acting in a manner no better than a member of SF/IRA or any of the murdering thugs on the other side.

csk

Jackie laughlin wrote:

May I point out that the reason that this is so awful is that public servants have been found acting in a manner no better than a member of SF/IRA or any of the murdering thugs on the other side.

:rolleyes: My only surprise is that it took nearly two whole pages before someone tried to turn this against Sinn Féin and the IRA.

Lest we forget as someone else pointed out, this is only a tiny number in a tiny area of Belfast. There are more cases spanning the north of Ireland where this kind of thing is alleged to have taken place.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

:rolleyes: My only surprise is that it took nearly two whole pages before someone tried to turn this against Sinn Féin and the IRA.

She isn't turning this against Sinn Fein. She is pointing out that this is hardly a victory for Sinn Fein as some seem to be suggesting.

It simply confirms that the British government was prepared to stoop to the level of SF/IRA. SF/IRA were already wallowing the mud of immorality, the British government decided to join them.

The British government have lost any claim that they were acting with the moral high ground of a legitimate democratic state. But the IRA and Sinn Fein never had the moral high ground to lose.

Hagar

It could also be argued that the level of murderous corruption and bigotry in the Police force hark back to Bloody Sunday which really kicked things off.

Zombrex

Hagar wrote:

It could also be argued that the level of murderous corruption and bigotry in the Police force hark back to Bloody Sunday which really kicked things off.

This is the British Empire we are talking about. They never exactly what a particularly "clean" record when dealing with the locals from Northen Ireland to India. I think the only people who would disagree with this report are the DUP

RedPlanet

Wicknight wrote:

This is the British Empire we are talking about. They never exactly what a particularly "clean" record when dealing with the locals from Northen Ireland to India. I think the only people who would disagree with this report are the DUP

In your earlier post you claimed that the Brits were "stooping to the level of the IRA"
Yet surely the British Empire and the tactics they employed pre-date "SF/IRA".
Therefore the state-sponsored terrorism (aka "collusion") discussed in this thread can hardly be reactionary.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

In your earlier post you claimed that the Brits were "stooping to the level of the IRA"
Yet surely the British Empire and the tactics they employed pre-date "SF/IRA".
Therefore the state-sponsored terrorism (aka "collusion") discussed in this thread can hardly be reactionary.

Ok, I suppose if you want to put it that way you can claim the the IRA stooped to the level of the British Empire, since the British Empire were around before the modern IRA .... it doesn't really matter, either way the result is the same

I'm not sure what you mean by "reactionary" Ultimately everything that happened in the North was reactionary. The IRA were reacting to the British and Loyalists and the British and Loyalists were reacting to the IRA. That is how it works. Its hard to have a 30 year conflict if you only have one side.

I would hope you weren't suggesting that reactionary means "justified", because that isn't how it works at all. The IRA were not justified and neither were the British Army/RUC/Loyalists, no matter what the other side were doing.

RedPlanet

So does anybody think we'll be seeing a concerted push for Loyalist decommissioning?
Being the case that members of the HMG's security services assisted them and would surely have influence and intel that would be of benefit.

(fat chance huh?)

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

So does anybody think we'll be seeing a concerted push for Loyalist decommissioning?
Being the case that members of the HMG's security services assisted them and would surely have influence and intel that would be of benefit.

(fat chance huh?)

Funny you should mention that ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2546412,00.html

UVF states plan to lay down arms
Liam Clarke (January 14, 2007)

SENIOR loyalist sources say UVF decommissioning is likely if the current political impasse is broken.
...
It is likely that, if political stability is maintained, the UVF and the Red Hand Commando (RHC) will appoint a new representative to liaise with the IICD in February.
...
The UVF supports power-sharing as the best way forward for unionism and a means of securing Northern Ireland’s future. Its main fear is that Sinn Fein and the DUP will not reach agreement and that a system of joint rule, the so-called Plan B, will be instituted instead.

I'm hoping that the DUP and Sinn Fein don't get into a pissing war over this report, ultimately derailing the possibility of proper power sharing.

Erin Go Brath

Wicknight wrote:

This is the British Empire we are talking about. They never exactly what a particularly "clean" record when dealing with the locals from Northen Ireland to India. I think the only people who would disagree with this report are the DUP

Isn't that the truth! Was watching the BBC NI politics program last night where they had Lord Ken Magennis (UUP) and the police ombudsman Nuala O Loan on. The Lord said he read the report, and it was absolute rubbish, and then went on a rant questioning O Loans integrity.

I agree when another poster said that this collusion is only the tip of the iceberg. If you have so-called respected politicans trying to rubbish this report, push it under the carpet, and then attacking the neutral ombudsman trying to do a job, who knows how far this collusion has spread???

Victor

csk wrote:

I wonder though, what impact this will have on the policing debate among Republicans? Will it strenghten Sinn Féin's line of reforming from within or will it be seen as another reason not to engage with the police?

The line taken by Sinn Féin's leadership is essentially "let us supervise them, so this can never happen again" or some such.

Jackie laughlin

The main reason why SF/IRA don't want to support the police is that they want to BE the police. This is their traditional tactic, dating back to the war of independence: create structures parallel to the existing state. This is how they "rule" working class areas today.

csk

Wicknight wrote:

I would hope you weren't suggesting that reactionary means "justified", because that isn't how it works at all. The IRA were not justified and neither were the British Army/RUC/Loyalists, no matter what the other side were doing.

By "justified" I presume you are refering to the tactics employed by both sides ? If so, do you think the British Government's presence was "justified" ?

I would be in agreement that neither side had a right to claim the moral high ground and indeed it's been something I have been saying for quite awhile. Yet right up until this report came out, it has always been claimed by various people that the British Government had some kind of claim to that moral high ground.

If anything this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

csk

Victor wrote:

The line taken by Sinn Féin's leadership is essentially "let us supervise them, so this can never happen again" or some such.

Yes I understand that as per my "It's not the shinners I would be worried about, nothing short of armageddon would stop them trying to sell policing at this stage" comment. By "shinners" I meant the leadership maybe that wasn't clear.

It's mainly the people on the ground who are still unsure about policing, will these revelations drive them closer to the Sinn Féin leadership's opinion or will it drive them towards the the anti-policing republicans, who by all accounts are getting more and more organised ?

Hagar

csk wrote:

It's mainly the people on the ground who are still unsure about policing, will these revelations drive them closer to the Sinn Féin leadership's opinion or will it drive them towards the the anti-policing republicans, who by all accounts are getting more and more organised ?

These are not "revelations" to the Nationalist community in N.Ireland, they have known about it and complained about it for years but nobody took any heed.

Zombrex

csk wrote:

By "justified" I presume you are refering to the tactics employed by both sides ? If so, do you think the British Government's presence was "justified" ?

So long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland then yes it is justified that British government's "presence" is there.

csk wrote:

Yet right up until this report came out, it has always been claimed by various people that the British Government had some kind of claim to that moral high ground.

The British Government have the right to claim the moral high ground as a legal democratic state so long as they follow the rules that that entails, such as following the rule of law. This report shows what many have always suspected, that they did not do this during the Troubles and as such have lost any claim to that moral high ground. It hardly needs to be pointed out that the IRA never had such a claim in the first place.

csk wrote:

If anything this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.

It does nothing of the sort.

The British government have the right to rule Northern Ireland so long as the people of Northern Ireland say they do. Which they do by the way, a fact that is often forgotten.

Simply saying that the British rule should go completely is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What they the U.K state, don't have a right to do is to ignore the rules in some cases. The rule of law must apply to everyone universally. It cannot be convenently forgotten about just because the IRA exists.

What this report highlights is the need for much greater transparancy of the security forces, and much greater accountability to the democratic process for those working in these forces. I am very disappointed that no charges have been brought against anyone. I'm not sure if this is political or if it is due to the inability to be able to hold up these charges in court.

What one cannot do is complain that the British government do not follow the rules of a modern legal democracy and yet believe that their side are also justified in ignoring the same rules by attempting to force out a government system that the majority of the population in Northern Ireland wish to remain in place for the time being.

One is either for the principles of law and democracy or they aren't. Complaining that the opposition side isn't following the rules, while also attempting to justify that your side doesn't have to follow the rules, is nonsense.

RedPlanet

What this report does mean (to some), is that Republicans were right not to engage with the police in the past, that they were right to setup their own "community policing" arrangements, they were right to insist the Patten recommendations get implemented.

Zombrex

RedPlanet wrote:

What this report does mean (to some), is that Republicans were right not to engage with the police in the past, that they were right to setup their own "community policing" arrangements, they were right to insist the Patten recommendations get implemented.

I would agree with the first and the last points, but not the second.

"Community policing" systems were just as open to abuse as the system Republicans were complaining that the British were using (ie undemocratic, nontransparent, nonaccountable).

This is the point I was trying to get across in the above post. Complaining about a bad system and then replacing it with a just as bad system is largely pointless.

[EDIT]
I would point out that the term "community policing" is often used in wildly different contexts, sometimes by Sinn Fein themselves. Community policing in the wider world is used to describe the situation where effort is made so that the police force (the legitmate police force) are draw from community they serve. This would include efforts to make sure that police serve in their local area, live in the area they serve and are known in the community as a whole.

But "community policing" is also be used to referer to the various vigilanty groups that set themselves up in areas where they feel the police do not provide safety and protection. These groups often take the law into their own hands, attempting to deal with things like street crime and drugs.

So I whole heartily approve of the first type of "community policing", which involves greater involvement of the community and the police. But I don't approve of the second form, the vigilanty form of policing.
[/EDIT]

csk

Wicknight wrote:

So long as the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the union of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland then yes it is justified that British government's "presence" is there.

The British Government have the right to claim the moral high ground as a legal democratic state so long as they follow the rules that that entails, such as following the rule of law.

You see now you are saying that, ultimately when all is said and done, the British Government had the right to be here because of an artifically created "majority" and this gave them the right to any moral high ground.

What gave, what ultimately is a minority of the population of Ireland, the right to dictate terms to the rest ?... The backing of the British Government.

What gave the British Government the right to back that minority ?...the superior strength of her army.

What gave the British Government backing the "majority" the right to impose their law as THE LAW ?... Her security forces including the RUC.

Now what did those security forces do to maintain British Law as THE LAW, they only murdered innocent Irish people simply because they had the cheek to call themselves Irish.

These tactics are not new as you yourself acknowledged, however what is startling is that what, 50 years after the end of the British Empire and at the end of the twentieth century, they were still indulging in the killing of "natives" to uphold their law as THE LAW.

Obviously we have moved on from this with the signing of the GFA ( and hopefully Sinn Féin's support of policing ). However as I said this report vindicates the fact that the British Government had no right to rule any part of Ireland.