Got a mail today with a preview of a website to be launched soon dealing with the 'Shoot To Kill' incidents in the early 80's. Some of you may remember it through the enquiry headed by John Stalker, which although had it's report suppressed, he later gave us a glimpse in memoirs of how the state police were prepared to murder and collude with murderers in order to hit back at the natives:
http://www.banuanlae.org/ (http://www.banuanlae.org/)
Just had a look at the site there Donagh - very provocative and well written and laid out. Should be excellent when complete and launched - well worth a look - an education!
Disgusting to find out that the findings of Stalker's report have never been released.
Of course, his removal from the enquiry, just as his report was about to be released, was the final act in a long, dirty campaign by the 'British establishment'.
I think people who put together websites like the one linked to, or others like it, need to ask themselves whether they consider what went on here was a war (as they have frequently called it) or not.
If it was a war, then those who died while fighting it, can have no qualms about that the enemy did in the fight. Not unless they want their own roles (and what they are upto now) examined and re-examined.
I wonder when the site will have a link to Willie Frazer's Prod version of Relatives for Justice, as far as I can see, neither acknowledges the pain and suffering of 'the other side', nor do the respective organisations highlight any victims of loyalist terrorists (in Willie's caxse) or republican terrorists (in the case of RFJ). Funny that.
Funny, too, that those who preach so much about moving-on, don't take their own advice. Selective moving-on is what they're after.
Perhaps a South African-style Truth Commission, bringing out ALL the dirt, is just what the doctor ordered. But then some people wouldn't want that either, it could make them very uncomfortable, very very uncomfortable.
Quote from: GweylTah on June 29, 2007, 11:19:23 AM
If it was a war, then those who died while fighting it, can have no qualms about that the enemy did in the fight. Not unless they want their own roles (and what they are upto now) examined and re-examined.
But was it a war declared on both sides? If not, then how could anyone justify state-sponsored executions?
Quote from: GweylTah on June 29, 2007, 11:19:23 AM
I think people who put together websites like the one linked to, or others like it, need to ask themselves whether they consider what went on here was a war (as they have frequently called it) or not.
If it was a war, then those who died while fighting it, can have no qualms about that the enemy did in the fight. Not unless they want their own roles (and what they are upto now) examined and re-examined.
I wonder when the site will have a link to Willie Frazer's Prod version of Relatives for Justice, as far as I can see, neither acknowledges the pain and suffering of 'the other side', nor do the respective organisations highlight any victims of loyalist terrorists (in Willie's caxse) or republican terrorists (in the case of RFJ). Funny that.
Funny, too, that those who preach so much about moving-on, don't take their own advice. Selective moving-on is what they're after.
Perhaps a South African-style Truth Commission, bringing out ALL the dirt, is just what the doctor ordered. But then some people wouldn't want that either, it could make them very uncomfortable, very very uncomfortable.
ya cant have it both ways
some have only recently decided they might want to move on - dup for example
but I agree with you that a SA style truth commission would make a lot of people very uncomfortable. IT wont happen of course, as we see in the Finucane case and will also soon see in the Claudy bombing case that the culprits will not be brought to justice.
Reason being, it this kind of thing started, the real losers would be the british gov/ruc and their collusion and the people in high places that sanctioned and effectively planned these killings
Quote from: 5iveTimes on June 29, 2007, 11:23:00 AM
When a Government are sanctioning murder by rogue elements of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries then questions must be answered.
Presumably the collusion and murder by 'rogue elements' in the Republican movement, don't need investigation? ::)
Interesting that sammyg and gweyltah do not address the absolute horror that was the british killing fields in the north and the fact that the brit soldiers as well as the ruc and udr killed Catholics and also aided and abetted the paramilitaries with bogus road blocks etc to get them in and out of areas where they killed Catholics, many of them innocents.
Gweyltah, MI5 seemed to think it was a war, they said so and this was highlighted on this board about a year ago.
Heres the thing, a policing body is supposed to remain impartial no matter the situation, if they dont what happens is the people lose confidence in them and come to resent them, the RUC were an absolute disgrace during the troubles and I have nothing for contempt for them, unfortunately there were a lot of good men in the RUC as well and their work went un-noticed by many nationalists because of the actions of the colleagues and that really is a shame.
The British army were thugs and nothing has changed there and the udr were the scum of the earth, they were the village idiots that were not smart enough to become ruc officers got into this regiment of hate and they killed and maimed their way through the troubles with the blessing of the british government.
The British legacy in Ireland is one of horror and hatred, sanction and oppression! to govern with an uneven hand will eventually cost you and it did, the british will never be comfortable in Ireland, we have always been a pain in their arse and will remain so until the day they completely pull the pin and leave our shores for good, that day is coming.
Quote from: stew on June 29, 2007, 03:06:23 PM
Interesting that sammyg and gweyltah do not address the absolute horror that was the british killing fields in the north and the fact that the brit soldiers as well as the ruc and udr killed Catholics and also aided and abetted the paramilitaries with bogus road blocks etc to get them in and out of areas where they killed Catholics, many of them innocents.
Stew
Where have I ever said that I don't have a problem with collusion and the issues associated with it? My issue is with people who seem to think that it was a 'one way' street. There were at least as many Provos being run by special branch as there were loyalists, but this seems to be forgotten in all the calls for enquiries. It's the miroor image of Wille Frasers mob who think that only the Provos did anything wrong and Loyalists are all fine.
This topic has had 337 views, from a Board Membership in excess of 1,300.
Yet the Shoot to Kill Website has met the approval of precisely six posters - Donagh, GDA, FAM, 5Times, Lynchboy and Stew.
When the "Dirty or Dorothy" thread provoked more interest than that, perhaps the "Usual Suspects" (above) might care to take a hint? :D
Quote from: SammyG on June 29, 2007, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on June 29, 2007, 11:23:00 AM
When a Government are sanctioning murder by rogue elements of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries then questions must be answered.
Presumably the collusion and murder by 'rogue elements' in the Republican movement, don't need investigation? ::)
Sammy if you do not understand the difference between an illegal terrorist organisation commiting murder and forces of the state commiting murder you are either an idiot or a blinkered bigot. Or possibly both.
And as for Donagh sending e-mails to himself again ... you know what they say about people who have to send Christmas cards to themselves ....
Quote from: GweylTah on June 29, 2007, 10:35:02 PM
And as for Donagh sending e-mails to himself again ... you know what they say about people who have to send Christmas cards to themselves ....
Whats your point dickead? Don't tell me you are one of the multitudes flooding the 'whois' database with requests in an attempt to find the identity of the evil Donagh. If you were that desperate to find my identity all you had to do was ask and I'm one of the dozen or so posters both here and OWC would be happy to oblige.
Got another mail this morning informing me that one of the top destinations for people leaving the site, is another called 'Our Wee Country'. Strange that. Still it's good to know a culture of tolerance and diversity is being promoted over there these days, and of course they all count when it comes to search engine rankings.
Less of the abuse - I only suggested that maybe you hadn't got an e-mail about the website you linked to, but it was just a ruse to give you an excuse for the link.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the lady doth protest too much.
I've no idea about the rest of the stuff you're going on about, if I wind-up light-weight sheep like you with my occasional posts here, that's a bonus, but I have no interest in knowing who you are.
Quote from: GweylTah on June 30, 2007, 01:42:53 PM
Less of the abuse - I only suggested that maybe you hadn't got an e-mail about the website you linked to, but it was just a ruse to give you an excuse for the link.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the lady doth protest too much.
I've no idea about the rest of the stuff you're going on about, if I wind-up light-weight sheep like you with my occasional posts here, that's a bonus, but I have no interest in knowing who you are.
You are taking the piss - 419 and counting!
Quote from: slow corner back on June 29, 2007, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 29, 2007, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on June 29, 2007, 11:23:00 AM
When a Government are sanctioning murder by rogue elements of the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries then questions must be answered.
Presumably the collusion and murder by 'rogue elements' in the Republican movement, don't need investigation? ::)
Sammy if you do not understand the difference between an illegal terrorist organisation commiting murder and forces of the state commiting murder you are either an idiot or a blinkered bigot. Or possibly both.
And if you can't be arsed to read my posts, before replying then you are either an idiot or a blinkered bigot, or possibly both. ::)
Quote from: GweylTah on June 30, 2007, 01:42:53 PM
Less of the abuse
That's a bit rich coming from the bigot that labelled the community of South Armagh as "scummy bastards".
Quote from: Donagh on June 30, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: GweylTah on June 30, 2007, 01:42:53 PM
Less of the abuse
That's a bit rich coming from the bigot that labelled the community of South Armagh as "scummy bastards".
:D right enough, sammyg, the epitome of liberalism and inclusiveness dropped the mask big time with that spake, there are times when sammy cant help himself, like last week when he called me a liar on what was posted on owc when engerland were hammering them, turns out he was the liar, so he is both a liar and a bigot based on these two incidents.
Quote from: stew on June 30, 2007, 04:38:44 PM
Quote from: Donagh on June 30, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: GweylTah on June 30, 2007, 01:42:53 PM
Less of the abuse
That's a bit rich coming from the bigot that labelled the community of South Armagh as "scummy bastards".
:D right enough, sammyg, the epitome of liberalism and inclusiveness dropped the mask big time with that spake, there are times when sammy cant help himself, like last week when he called me a liar on what was posted on owc when engerland were hammering them, turns out he was the liar, so he is both a liar and a bigot based on these two incidents.
Err it wasn't me stew. Try reading Donagh's post again and then you can type your apology.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 29, 2007, 05:41:37 PM
This topic has had 337 views, from a Board Membership in excess of 1,300.
Yet the Shoot to Kill Website has met the approval of precisely six posters - Donagh, GDA, FAM, 5Times, Lynchboy and Stew.
When the "Dirty or Dorothy" thread provoked more interest than that, perhaps the "Usual Suspects" (above) might care to take a hint? :D
The usual suspects! haha, me no Keyser Söze.
Still don't know what your point is, though.
Quote from: stew on June 30, 2007, 04:38:44 PM
Quote from: Donagh on June 30, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: GweylTah on June 30, 2007, 01:42:53 PM
Less of the abuse
That's a bit rich coming from the bigot that labelled the community of South Armagh as "scummy bastards".
:D right enough, sammyg, the epitome of liberalism and inclusiveness dropped the mask big time with that spake, there are times when sammy cant help himself, like last week when he called me a liar on what was posted on owc when engerland were hammering them, turns out he was the liar, so he is both a liar and a bigot based on these two incidents.
Yes, that was me, not SammyG, I used it to describe the cream of society who were chucking missiles and generally hampering and otherwise intimidating emergency services in the aftermath of a copter accident earlier this year.
Not the least sorry for any offence caused by my remarks, if it did and does still offend you, good: I'll rest easy. A little touched, too, that you pay me such attention. Thanks dear.
Quote from: GweylTah on July 01, 2007, 09:40:26 PM
Quote from: stew on June 30, 2007, 04:38:44 PM
Quote from: Donagh on June 30, 2007, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: GweylTah on June 30, 2007, 01:42:53 PM
Less of the abuse
That's a bit rich coming from the bigot that labelled the community of South Armagh as "scummy bastards".
:D right enough, sammyg, the epitome of liberalism and inclusiveness dropped the mask big time with that spake, there are times when sammy cant help himself, like last week when he called me a liar on what was posted on owc when engerland were hammering them, turns out he was the liar, so he is both a liar and a bigot based on these two incidents.
Yes, that was me, not SammyG, I used it to describe the cream of society who were chucking missiles and generally hampering and otherwise intimidating emergency services in the aftermath of a copter accident earlier this year.
Not the least sorry for any offence caused by my remarks, if it did and does still offend you, good: I'll rest easy. A little touched, too, that you pay me such attention. Thanks dear.
I would have to give a damn about you in order to be offended by you gweytah and I dont do dont worry about you offending me, you should however know better to tar everyone with one brush and instead your ire should have been pointed at those who hampered the emergency services instead of blaming the whole community but then again as you are a bigotted hoor you probably foam at the mouth the minute you think of south Armagh and got a wee bit excited.
Again though, dont worry about me ducky, I am dead on and not one of your posting has ever raised my blood pressure. :)
And still no-one other than the same half dozen "usual suspects" on this Board seems to give a damn about the "Shoot to Kill [sic] 1982" Website.
Very encouraging all round, I'd say... :D
Eg, thats just silly, you are more or less saying if people havent posted their comments on THIS site about the shoot to kill site, then they werent interested or didnt like it.
Some people on here are busy at work (not me, I'm killing time at an airport on hols!) and will check out the website without feeling the need to report back to your good self with comments.
Others who liked the site might alternatively think its not worth their while commenting here as they will either be dragged into a debate with yourself (and you seem to have more time on your hands than most for some reason), or labelled one of the "usual suspects" ::) for having a differing political view than your own.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 02, 2007, 12:53:12 AM
And still no-one other than the same half dozen "usual suspects" on this Board seems to give a damn about the "Shoot to Kill [sic] 1982" Website.
Very encouraging all round, I'd say... :D
EG, if you read back over the two or three threads the other week on the subject of not responding to or reading your posts then you might find something even more "encouraging" – though thanks for keeping the thread alive anyway.
Quote from: Donagh on July 02, 2007, 09:43:05 AM
thanks for keeping the thread alive anyway.
I'm more than happy to keep highlighting the fact that no-one else seems to give a damn about the whole website, bar the same handful of posters... ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 02, 2007, 11:02:44 AM
I'm more than happy to keep highlighting the fact that no-one else seems to give a damn about the whole website, bar the same handful of posters... ;)
Sad and desperate line of argument, though it doesn't surprise anyone I'm sure. ::)
Quote from: stew on July 01, 2007, 10:42:43 PM
I would have to give a damn about you in order to be offended by you gweytah and I dont do dont worry about you offending me, you should however know better to tar everyone with one brush and instead your ire should have been pointed at those who hampered the emergency services instead of blaming the whole community but then again as you are a bigotted hoor you probably foam at the mouth the minute you think of south Armagh and got a wee bit excited.
Again though, dont worry about me ducky, I am dead on and not one of your posting has ever raised my blood pressure. :)
It took me a little way to get through that, but we must make allowances for you.
Clearly, you do pay me attention, though hard to take that as a compliment.
Adult education classes are an option, all is not lost.
Just noticed the site has been updated with newspaper cuttings from 1982 and some listings for anniversary events. Collections will also be taken up at this weekend's first round football qualifier.
http://www.shoottokill25.org/ (http://www.shoottokill25.org/)
jeez
looks like there has been a few folks interested - judging from the amount of people looking at this here thead !
:o :D
Just wondering are people taking an interest or is shoot to kill just going to be taken as an accepted practice!?!?
When can we expect the seance to see whether those who died approve of Sinn Fein becoming British Government ministers? (Clue: The Sands family don't.)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on July 13, 2007, 11:16:32 PM
Do you ever stop ???
Seriously what do you expect from an idiot, but rubbish.
QuoteDo you ever stop
If you want
it to, the answer is simple, don't reply.
Quote from: Main Street on July 14, 2007, 01:17:37 AM
QuoteDo you ever stop
If you want it to, the answer is simple, don't reply.
Sorry if some of your demons being confronted makes you uncomfortable. Examine your attitudes then.
Heard this evening that there are still court cases going through the system on the MANY shoot to kill cases, can anyone shed more light?
Here's a great site where you'll get impartial updates.
http://www.shoottokill25.org/
;)
Quote from: GweylTah on July 19, 2007, 09:24:01 AM
Here's a great site where you'll get impartial updates.
http://www.shoottokill25.org/
;)
you have heard of the word 'impartial'
:o
Seems all of this hasn't gone away, you know. Perhaps this site still has relevance despite its objectors.
BBC news site today:
An inquiry may be reopened into claims security forces began a "shoot to kill" policy during the Troubles.
A controversial report by top policeman John Stalker on an alleged RUC "shoot to kill" policy was never published.
The police ombudsman has Mr Stalker's files relating to the killing of three unarmed IRA men in 1982.
The government has asked Nuala O'Loan to examine the files in response to concerns raised by the Council of Europe.
Gervaise McKerr, Sean Burns and Eugene Toman were shot dead at a checkpoint by police near Lurgan.
In 2001, the European Court of Human Rights paid £10,000 in compensation to 10 families, including Mr McKerr's.
I think we may see some ' gestures' and awards made, judgements benefiting the victims
but overall justice will never be exacted on those of the establishment who abused and misused positions of trust and power,and then hid behind 'the law' shielding them from their (war) crimes.
But this is a great site, and hopefully will allow people to remember what went on and what we need to avoid at all costs in the future.
So, does all this mean that today republicans are regarding what went on as a war or not? They need to be careful what they wish for.
Quoterelating to the killing of three unarmed IRA men in 1982
I guess the crucial word in all of this, direct from the BBC report, is 'unarmed'. Perhaps all is fair in war, that is, of course, except when your military opponent is without any means of defence, against the police, the law of the land and indeed the 'establishment'.
Still, it will be interesting to see what Mrs O'Loan and her successor make of these circumstances - and whether Stalker's report will finally be made public.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:25:38 PM
Quoterelating to the killing of three unarmed IRA men in 1982
I guess the crucial word in all of this, direct from the BBC report, is 'unarmed'. Perhaps all is fair in war, that is, of course, except when your military opponent is without any means of defence, against the police, the law of the land and indeed the 'establishment'.
Republicans proclaim this to have been a 'war'. The claim the hundres upon hundreds of killings of unarmed people they carried out were 'legitimate' acts of this 'war'. Why then do they squeal like stuck pigs about the extremely rare occasions when they received what they were dishing out?
As for "military opponents" and no "means of defence" - the terrorists of the IRA and INLA specialised in breaking into the homes of police officers, soliders and prison officers, or stalking them on the streets when they were off duty (not to mention building contractors, elected representatives of the unionist community, businessmen, senior civil servants, diplomats...) and gunning them down or planting bombs under their cars. The security forces weren't able to simply shoot them on sight as in a 'war' - and indeed weren't simply even allowed to shoot them when they were armed. No, they had to go through legal prcesses of arrest, prosecution and trial.
Compare and contrast with Israel's policy of assassinating terrorist leaders, which has been operated on numerous occasions.
With respect, MW, what is the point of the law, then, if members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
Totally agree with you, if that's what you infer, that there's a direct comparison with the Israelis. But then, they're backed by the Americans. Now, I wonder who was giving latent support to the activities of the RUC in 1982. :-\
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:48:01 PM
With respect, MW, what is the point of the law, then, if members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
When did that happen? There were a few incidents (one is too many) but to try and suggest that anybody went about just shooting anything that moved, is bollix.
If it wasn't so serious, you'd think you were a comedy act.
Surely a number of incidents is more than enough, especially in the greatest democracy in the world etc yadda, yadda.
But then again, maybe you think they deserved it.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:59:01 PM
If it wasn't so serious, you'd think you were a comedy act.
Surely a number of incidents is more than enough, especially in the greatest democracy in the world etc yadda, yadda.
But then again, maybe you think they deserved it.
I said that one incident is too many. I've also said many times that anybody involved should be prosecuted. My problem is with your nonsensical claim that the RUC and Army just went round shooting anybody that moved.
Quote from: SammyG on July 20, 2007, 01:56:02 PM
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:48:01 PM
With respect, MW, what is the point of the law, then, if members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
When did that happen? There were a few incidents (one is too many) but to try and suggest that anybody went about just shooting anything that moved, is bollix.
Did he say they went about shooting anything that moved Sammy ? ::)
Quoteif members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
My God, I typed what I typed and I can't see where I said they shot anybody that moved.
Mind, the use of plastic bullets by the state's security forces to 'suppress' civil disturbances could, in some minds, illustrate they did shoot "anybody that moved" - but that's another story.
Yuo didnt type that at all, except in Sammys world ;)
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 02:07:00 PM
Quoteif members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
My God, I typed what I typed and I can't see where I said they shot anybody that moved.
Mind, the use of plastic bullets by the state's security forces to 'suppress' civil disturbances could, in some minds, illustrate they did shoot "anybody that moved" - but that's another story.
OK then, even if you read your post as any 'suspect' that moved, it's still bollix.
I hate to be pedantic which is comes to syntax but I said anyone they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
I would hold back on any judgement of whether the claims are "bollix" or not - but surely you would agree that the inference that led to an investigation into an alleged shoot to kill policy in 1982 warranted the enquiry.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 02:34:35 PM
I hate to be pedantic which is comes to syntax but I said anyone they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
I would hold back on any judgement of whether the claims are "bollix" or not - but surely you would agree that the inference that led to an investigation into an alleged shoot to kill policy in 1982 warranted the enquiry.
What are you on about? There where a few incidents of terrorists being shot by security forces. Some of those where justified and some weren't.
What there wasn't was any sort of campaign to shoot all 'suspects' (which is what you claimed). If that was the case the army would have been sending helicopter gunships into the Bogside and Ballymurphy and I'm fairly sure that never happened.
More questions while avoiding answering the question put to you ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on July 20, 2007, 02:40:52 PM
More questions while avoiding answering the question put to you ::)
What question?
And another one ::)
Jesus H - this is worse than pulling teeth.
Firstly, you said that I had written that the RUC/UDR were involved in a turkey shoot.
Then you said I had meant 'suspects'.
What I had actually said was anyone they suspected of being in an illegal organisation - there IS a difference between 'suspects' and those 'suspected'. Suspects would mean people they had watched for some time, whereas in the Michael Tighe shooting, for example, he and his pal just happened to stumble across an arms cache and was shot dead because they immediately suspected he was a member of an illegal organisation.
I never mentioned gunships and invasions - I think you've been reading too much of Jane's Defence Weekly.
It really is like pulling teeth, I think he does it deliberately to get you in trouble at work ;)
Well, the bottom line is to me is that obviously the events of November 1982, whether they involved the murders of unarmed IRA members or civilians in the north Armagh area warranted investigation and the re-opening of the case by Nuala O'Loan (whatever people's thoughts are of her or her organisation) and the possibility of releasing the Stalker report for all to see are positive steps.
We can argue in here all day about the rights and the wrongs - let's see the reports.
Of course, the same applies to the Bloody Sunday tribunal findings - when they are finally released.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 03:03:17 PM
Well, the bottom line is to me is that obviously the events of November 1982, whether they involved the murders of unarmed IRA members or civilians in the north Armagh area warranted investigation and the re-opening of the case by Nuala O'Loan (whatever people's thoughts are of her or her organisation) and the possibility of releasing the Stalker report for all to see are positive steps.
We can argue in here all day about the rights and the wrongs - let's see the reports.
Totally agree.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 20, 2007, 01:48:01 PM
With respect, MW, what is the point of the law, then, if members of the state's security forces could just go around and shoot anybody they suspected of being in an illegal organisation.
The events referred to in 1982 were an extremely rare occurrance though - this sort of event hardly ever took place during the Troubles. They couldn't and didn't just go around shooting anyone they suspected, or indeed those they knew to be paramilitaries.
(as an aside, it's almost always overlooked that there were three incidents, not two in this series in 1982-83 - one of them involving UVF terrorists being shot by the police).
A poster on another thread just reminded me there about this one which has been recently updated:
http://www.shoottokill25.org/ (http://www.shoottokill25.org/)
Quote from: MW on July 20, 2007, 04:28:55 PM
The events referred to in 1982 were an extremely rare occurrance though - this sort of event hardly ever took place during the Troubles. They couldn't and didn't just go around shooting anyone they suspected, or indeed those they knew to be paramilitaries.
::) ::)
sweet sufferin santimonious lord divine jaysus
Tell me when else events of this type took place then?
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:16:10 PM
Tell me when else events of this type took place then?
whole ethos and MO from mid 60's onwards starting with the B specials...but obv this kind of thing never happened etc ::)
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 31, 2007, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:16:10 PM
Tell me when else events of this type took place then?
whole ethos and MO from mid 60's onwards starting with the B specials...but obv this kind of thing never happened etc ::)
You're going to have to be more specific than that.
Yeah scrap the working afternoon and give him a detailed report of the troubles ::)
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:26:33 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on July 31, 2007, 03:25:23 PM
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:16:10 PM
Tell me when else events of this type took place then?
whole ethos and MO from mid 60's onwards starting with the B specials...but obv this kind of thing never happened etc ::)
You're going to have to be more specific than that.
why did I think when posting that last time, that I was going to be harrangued for 'time, date, actual persons involved, colour of underpants worn - or else we wont beleive you'
if you dont understand (or accept) the very first case of this shoot to kill crap at the very outset of the 'troubles' (or 'war on taigs')
then you wont want to hear anything else - and lets face it no matter what I say you and your ilk wont believe it
so
B specials. and it went on from there...
Quote from: his holiness nb on July 31, 2007, 03:31:25 PM
Yeah scrap the working afternoon and give him a detailed report of the troubles ::)
yer joking
no such thing as the 'troubles'
just a rake of troublesome taigs trying to attack the innocent orange order, similar decent institutions and good time guys such as that ..
::)
Even one or two instances would do for starters...
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:43:09 PM
Even one or two instances would do for starters...
B specials - ever hear of them?
or do you stick your head in the sand again?
That's the name of an organisation, not an event.
When then did they allegedly 'take out' a terrorist or terrorists in a similar incidents to those of 1982?
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:49:43 PM
That's the name of an organisation, not an event.
When then did they allegedly 'take out' a terrorist or terrorists in a similar incidents to those of 1982?
Jesus H Christ, I thought you lads knew your history, yet any time anything is referred to in debate you need to be told the story all over again ::)
Did you not pay attention in class?
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:49:43 PM
That's the name of an organisation, not an event.
When then did they allegedly 'take out' a terrorist or terrorists in a similar incidents to those of 1982?
ok this once
the bogside 'extermination' of 1969
and various incidents leading up to their disbanding
culminating I suppose with bloody sunday
but thats the few from the start of the 35 years war
read a few books blokey - you might learn something.
As I said above, I would rather wait on the outcome of the Bloody Sunday tribunal and read the report's findings first.
But say, for example, that the Bloody Sunday tribunal recognised the presence of a 'shoot to kill' policy against Catholics in Derry in 1972, would some still insist on even more examples of these incidents before they would be willing to acknowledge this happened - and had some element of state sanction?
Quote from: lynchbhoy link=topic=3514.msg131579#msg131579
/quote]
ok this once
the bogside 'extermination' of 1969
The what? ??? Who was exterminated?
Quote
and various incidents leading up to their disbanding
I know of plenty of incidents, none of the type we're supposed to be discussing.
Quoteculminating I suppose with bloody sunday
Bloody Sunday involved police officers allegedly 'taking out' terrorists? ???
Quote
read a few books blokey - you might learn something.
As it happens I studied the Northern Ireland Troubles as one of my degree papers.
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 03:59:27 PM
As it happens I studied the Northern Ireland Troubles as one of my degree papers.
Jaysus I hope whoever corrected it was a Loyalist!! ;)
"Plausible Deniability" was Ronald Reagan's mantra, but at least his historical amnesia can at least be partially explained by Alzheimer's. Yours, I fear, MW, is motivated by defense of the indefensible. Having asked for examples of Shoot-to-Kill victims, are you going to pivot and say that it okay for the police to kill unarmed "terrorists" in the case of Seamus Grew or Roddy Carroll even though they had ample opportunity to arrest them, or instead are you going to say that it was okay for a band of RUC men to rove Armagh taking the law into their own hands because, you know, it didn't really happen all that often? This is not the kind of society I want to live in, but if you prefer he tactics of a military junta, then count me out of any world to which you belong If you want names, look at the Shoot-to-Kill link that Donagh has provided, and then like Justice Gibson, fabricate your own rationale for anarchy: "I regard each of the accused [RUC] as absolutely blameless . . . [and I commend them for bringing the deceased] to the final court of justice."
You also mock lynchboy when he provides other examples of the forces of law and order resorting to lawlessness. True, they do not always pertain specifically to the Shoot-to-Kill policy of 1982 that John Stalker was charged to investigate (and, shock horror, was unexplainably removed from), but they are pertinent and symptomatic of a societal mindset.
Let's take the "B" Specials, for example, the armed militia of unionism, and let's recall the event that probably marked the beginning of the Troubles for me growing up in Armagh, the murder of John Gallagher by the Tynan Branch on the Cathedral Road on August 14, 1969. 17 men in unmarked cars shot the intoxicated Gallagher in the back following a Civil Rights rally. All of the "B" men who were present testified to the Scarman Tribunal, and, once again, shock horror, each denied they had fired a shot. So let me give you the options: a) they lied through their teeth like the RUC relating to the later Shoot-to-Kill incident or b) perched on the right spire of the cathedral was a marksman from the yet non-existent PIRA who saw his chance to stir things up. Scarman said the "subsequent behaviour of the Tynan party 'is certainly consistent with a sense of guilt.'" Their commander did not report the shooting because "he wanted first to discuss it with others in the platoon and produce a statement that would exonerate them." A cover-up. (References from Lost Lives)
This, for me, marked the beginning of my mistrust of anyone in a uniform presenting an "official" account of an incident. Call me cynical, but I tend to think cover-up. My revulsion is intensified further by the fact that the priest who administered last rites to John Gallagher is a family friend and arrived at our house immediately afterwards, relating what had happened.
So no doubt, MW, you will concoct some justification for the actions of the RUC or you will dismiss them as inconsequential or non-existent. Either way, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit, then you know what . . . . it stinks.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on July 31, 2007, 03:58:10 PM
As I said above, I would rather wait on the outcome of the Bloody Sunday tribunal and read the report's findings first.
But say, for example, that the Bloody Sunday tribunal recognised the presence of a 'shoot to kill' policy against Catholics in Derry in 1972, would some still insist on even more examples of these incidents before they would be willing to acknowledge this happened - and had some element of state sanction?
In the conversation above you and I were discussing how and whether the police had to arrest and charge terror suspects rather than simply going around shooting them. The deaths in 1982 were not quite isolated incidents but extremely rare.
Bloody Sunday was a different event entirely. In the early 1970s there were significant numbers killed by the Army who used on a number of occasions lethal means during rioting (hence the introduction of the 'Yellow Card' rules), and soldiers also killed a number of people in unjustified circumstances. After the mid 1970s this phase of the Troubles came to an end, both as massive civil disturances became rarer and the Army's tactics became more restrained and sophisicated - also, importantly, the policy of 'primacy of the police' was introduced.
After the deaths in 1982 the decision was taken that this sort of situation would be taken out of the hands of the police. Effectively I would think the decision was taken that the SAS would do the shooting, and only if they could catch the terrorists red-handed.
Quote from: Oraisteach on July 31, 2007, 05:58:36 PM
"Plausible Deniability" was Ronald Reagan's mantra, but at least his historical amnesia can at least be partially explained by Alzheimer's. Yours, I fear, MW, is motivated by defense of the indefensible. Having asked for examples of Shoot-to-Kill victims, are you going to pivot and say that it okay for the police to kill unarmed "terrorists" in the case of Seamus Grew or Roddy Carroll even though they had ample opportunity to arrest them, or instead are you going to say that it was okay for a band of RUC men to rove Armagh taking the law into their own hands because, you know, it didn't really happen all that often? This is not the kind of society I want to live in, but if you prefer he tactics of a military junta, then count me out of any world to which you belong If you want names, look at the Shoot-to-Kill link that Donagh has provided, and then like Justice Gibson, fabricate your own rationale for anarchy: "I regard each of the accused [RUC] as absolutely blameless . . . [and I commend them for bringing the deceased] to the final court of justice."
You also mock lynchboy when he provides other examples of the forces of law and order resorting to lawlessness. True, they do not always pertain specifically to the Shoot-to-Kill policy of 1982 that John Stalker was charged to investigate (and, shock horror, was unexplainably removed from), but they are pertinent and symptomatic of a societal mindset.
Let's take the "B" Specials, for example, the armed militia of unionism, and let's recall the event that probably marked the beginning of the Troubles for me growing up in Armagh, the murder of John Gallagher by the Tynan Branch on the Cathedral Road on August 14, 1969. 17 men in unmarked cars shot the intoxicated Gallagher in the back following a Civil Rights rally. All of the "B" men who were present testified to the Scarman Tribunal, and, once again, shock horror, each denied they had fired a shot. So let me give you the options: a) they lied through their teeth like the RUC relating to the later Shoot-to-Kill incident or b) perched on the right spire of the cathedral was a marksman from the yet non-existent PIRA who saw his chance to stir things up. Scarman said the "subsequent behaviour of the Tynan party 'is certainly consistent with a sense of guilt.'" Their commander did not report the shooting because "he wanted first to discuss it with others in the platoon and produce a statement that would exonerate them." A cover-up. (References from Lost Lives)
This, for me, marked the beginning of my mistrust of anyone in a uniform presenting an "official" account of an incident. Call me cynical, but I tend to think cover-up. My revulsion is intensified further by the fact that the priest who administered last rites to John Gallagher is a family friend and arrived at our house immediately afterwards, relating what had happened.
So no doubt, MW, you will concoct some justification for the actions of the RUC or you will dismiss them as inconsequential or non-existent. Either way, if it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit, then you know what . . . . it stinks.
Your diatribe is oddly removed from what I've actually said. Almost like you've been waiting for a chance to unleash it.
With FAM I was discussing what I saw as republicans' hypocrisy (such as the brazen screaming hypocrites obvious on the website Donagh linked to) in complaining about the 1982 deaths - given that the police had a set of rules they were to operate to, while republican terrorists (and loyalist terrorists) merrily went round killing anyone they decided was a 'legitimate target'.
I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them,. On the other hand, it's easy for me to say that you can counter terrorist groups waging a mass murder campaign entirely within the law. And let me be clear I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out. Equally I have every sympathy with innocents like John Gallagher and deeply wish that horrific events like that had never taken place.
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 06:22:50 PM
. Equally I have every sympathy with innocents like John Gallagher and deeply wish that horrific events like that had never taken place.
I can't help noticing - no condemnation of the B Specials by MW ::) just regret about "events like that"
TUT TUT
MW, I still can't fully grasp your position. I'm gratified when you write, "I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them," but then you say, "I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out."
Based on your second remark, are you then saying that it was all right for the RUC to do what they did in 1982, and basically summarily execute these people? This comment, qualifying your earlier unequivocal view puzzles me.
I loathe murder, but find it especially repugnant when the civil authorities do it. As you wrote, "More should be expected of them."
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 06:13:34 PM
In the conversation above you and I were discussing how and whether the police had to arrest and charge terror suspects rather than simply going around shooting them. The deaths in 1982 were not quite isolated incidents but extremely rare.
Bloody Sunday was a different event entirely. In the early 1970s there were significant numbers killed by the Army who used on a number of occasions lethal means during rioting (hence the introduction of the 'Yellow Card' rules), and soldiers also killed a number of people in unjustified circumstances. After the mid 1970s this phase of the Troubles came to an end, both as massive civil disturances became rarer and the Army's tactics became more restrained and sophisicated - also, importantly, the policy of 'primacy of the police' was introduced.
After the deaths in 1982 the decision was taken that this sort of situation would be taken out of the hands of the police. Effectively I would think the decision was taken that the SAS would do the shooting, and only if they could catch the terrorists red-handed.
Well, we haven't long to wait now for the report from Saville. I was sure, however, that Bloody Sunday was a civil rights march, not a rent-a-mob excuse for another 'Londonderry' (sic) riot. But, like I said, the report should be hitting the shelves in the next six or seven months.
PS The 1970s must have been really rough times. But then it all stopped and the security forces must have just started shooting unarmed suspects as opposed to unarmed civilians. :-[
Quote from: Oraisteach on July 31, 2007, 07:23:06 PM
MW, I still can't fully grasp your position. I'm gratified when you write, "I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them," but then you say, "I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out."
There is nothing equivocal or contradictory with those statement. Personally I would agree with both. Higher standards should be expected of the security forces. However that doesn't mean you have to feel sorry for those who got the treatment.
Perfectly rational reasoning from MW.
/Jim.
Jim
What about innocent civilians, suspected of being part of an 'active unit' who are executed by the state.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 01, 2007, 12:17:22 PM
Jim
What about innocent civilians, suspected of being part of an 'active unit' who are executed by the state.
FAM,
Totally wrong and that is my rationale for concurring with the first statement: the security forces should stay within in the law and "shoot to kill" is wrong is all circumstances.
When the people killed were terrorists, the police action was still wrong but I just don't have sympathy for the victioms. Two entirely different things.
/Jim.
I think everyone is entitled to a fair trial (even one under British justice) rather than being shot dead purely on the suspicion of being armed or a member of an active unit. That might be OK in a central American republic but not in the 'mother of all democracies'.
I'd also think it would be reasonable to express sympathy for anyone who was murdered during the Troubles.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 01, 2007, 01:12:18 PM
I think everyone is entitled to a fair trial (even one under British justice) rather than being shot dead purely on the suspicion of being armed or a member of an active unit. That might be OK in a central American republic but not in the 'mother of all democracies'.
Correct and I don't think anybody would disagree with you.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 01, 2007, 01:12:18 PM
I'd also think it would be reasonable to express sympathy for anyone who was murdered during the Troubles.
Depends on your definition of murder. I thought the Provos saw themselves as soldiers in a war. If one soldier shoots another soldier, during a war, is that murder?
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 01, 2007, 01:12:18 PM
I'd also think it would be reasonable to express sympathy for anyone who was murdered during the Troubles.
To me that is a personal thing. I don't feel sympathy for some that were murdered. Just being honest.
/Jim.
I don't speak for the Provos, as you call them, or indeed any political party or grouping either.
The Troubles happened - they should never have been allowed to happen - but thanks to the lack of intervention by an isolationist Westminster government, the political vacuum existed - the discrimination continued - and the circumstances developed which led to the tragic loss of life - on all sides.
I'm not discriminatory in expressing sympathy for anyone who has lost their lives for no reason.
Btw, I heard a woman in her 50s from Derry being interviewed yesterday about the end of Operation Banner. She turned and asked the reporter what has been achieved? The British troops are all but gone, the Paisleyites are in charge and we're nowhere nearer a united Ireland than 1967.
So, Jim, let's say in the Seamus Grew case, are you saying that on the one hand it was wrong for the RUC to execute Grew, but on the other that you're not at all unhappy with the outcome of that execution?
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 01, 2007, 01:37:02 PM
II heard a woman in her 50s from Derry being interviewed yesterday about the end of Operation Banner. She turned and asked the reporter what has been achieved? The British troops are all but gone, the Paisleyites are in charge and we're nowhere nearer a united Ireland than 1967.
Sounds like a doctrinaire dissident republican to me ::)
.........and she was broadcast on the BBC.
Mind, the Beeb have now been criticised for yesterday playing "Go home British soldiers" by The Wolfe Tones, before returning to a live interview with an ex-British army officer (from Scotland) who had 'served' in the north.
Quote from: Oraisteach on August 01, 2007, 03:27:18 PM
So, Jim, let's say in the Seamus Grew case, are you saying that on the one hand it was wrong for the RUC to execute Grew, but on the other that you're not at all unhappy with the outcome of that execution?
Oraisteach,
I wouldn't be happy or unhappy. I wouldn't have that much sympathy for him. I would believe that world would be a better place without any INLA members.
That doesn't make it right for the RUC to have acted the way they did.
As I said, two separate issues.
/Jim.
ruc in large parts being as 'paramilitary ' as the republicans they were killing imo
Quote from: lynchbhoy on August 01, 2007, 04:35:50 PM
ruc in large parts being as 'paramilitary ' as the republicans they were killing imo
Indeed and there are many of the security forces that I would have little sympathy for too.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on August 01, 2007, 12:05:22 PM
Quote from: Oraisteach on July 31, 2007, 07:23:06 PM
MW, I still can't fully grasp your position. I'm gratified when you write, "I don't think the police should take the law into their own hands and don't want a society where the police are tasked with 'taking out' terrorists. More should be expected of them," but then you say, "I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for terrorists who ended up getting the treatment they had advocated and carried out."
There is nothing equivocal or contradictory with those statement. Personally I would agree with both. Higher standards should be expected of the security forces. However that doesn't mean you have to feel sorry for those who got the treatment.
Perfectly rational reasoning from MW.
/Jim.
Thanks Jim - yes that accurately sums up my feelings on this issue.
Put it this way - those mentioned on that site were IRA and INLA terrorists. They claimed they had the right to kill police officers, soliders, and various others in cold blood. In their homes, their workplaces, while socialising. Edgar Graham for example was murdered by the IRA around this time for the crime of being a unionist elected representative. The INLA bombed the Droppin' Well pub in Ballykelly to kill 11 soldiers, as well as plenty of civilians including three 17 year old girls and a 25 year old woman (all Prods, so expendable, obviously). The IRA had been murdering businessmen for 'helping the British economy'. These terrorists advocated, and carried out, killings of people - anyone they deemed to be an 'enemy of Ireland'. So for them to meet their end at the barrel of a gun strikes me as not an occasion for my sympathy. The same goes for the death of, for example the UVF terrorist Brian Robinson shot dead by undercover soldiers in the early 1990s.
Quote from: Rossfan on July 31, 2007, 07:21:39 PM
Quote from: MW on July 31, 2007, 06:22:50 PM
. Equally I have every sympathy with innocents like John Gallagher and deeply wish that horrific events like that had never taken place.
I can't help noticing - no condemnation of the B Specials by MW ::) just regret about "events like that"
TUT TUT
Obviously I condemn those responsible for the death described.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 01, 2007, 09:06:01 AMWell, we haven't long to wait now for the report from Saville. I was sure, however, that Bloody Sunday was a civil rights march, not a rent-a-mob excuse for another 'Londonderry' (sic) riot. But, like I said, the report should be hitting the shelves in the next six or seven months.
Without pre-empting the contents of the Saville report too much, I would be sure that it will recognise a riot took place after the anti-internment march - I thought that was a matter of historical record? :-\ That's not to say that 13 of the dead weren't innocent civilians, or that at least some of the deaths wouldn't be open to being classed as murder.
Quote
PS The 1970s must have been really rough times. But then it all stopped and the security forces must have just started shooting unarmed suspects as opposed to unarmed civilians. :-[
Army tactics in the early 1970s were often unsuitable, unsophisticated and at times brutally counter-productive. Unacceptable force including lethal force was used on various occasions. This changed after that time - looked at the massive drop in the number of deaths caused by the security forces, and their small number when compared with those caused by the paramilitaries. This was partly becuase of refined tactics and learning on the part of the Army. It was also due to a falling off in the type of mass riots that took place in the early 1970s, and more disciplined handling of rioting. There was also a change in the nature of the PIRA campaign of violence, which became more classically terrorist where previously it has mixed classical terrorism with 'insurgency'-type situations (gun-battles, no-go areas, etc) - cutting off this avenue of PIRA violenct tactics seems to have made it less likely civilians would end up as casualties of the army.
To say "the security forces must have just started shooting unarmed suspects" is twisting what I have said almost 180 degrees. I pointed out that actions to 'take out' terrorists were very rare - the 1982 events being exceptional. After that it generally only happened if the SAS (or 14 Intelligence Company etc) were able to arrange to catch terrorists "on active service".
From: www.shoottokill25.org
"On 12 December 1982 two unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead in Mullacreevie Park in Armagh city. Both men were unarmed with Roddy Carroll being shot from a distance of six feet. Seamus Grew was shot from a distance of two feet by the same RUC officer."
Quote from: MW on August 01, 2007, 05:40:28 PM
Without pre-empting the contents of the Saville report too much, I would be sure that it will recognise a riot took place after the anti-internment march - I thought that was a matter of historical record? :-\ That's not to say that 13 of the dead weren't innocent civilians, or that at least some of the deaths wouldn't be open to being classed as murder.
Army tactics in the early 1970s were often unsuitable, unsophisticated and at times brutally counter-productive. Unacceptable force including lethal force was used on various occasions. This changed after that time - looked at the massive drop in the number of deaths caused by the security forces, and their small number when compared with those caused by the paramilitaries. This was partly becuase of refined tactics and learning on the part of the Army. It was also due to a falling off in the type of mass riots that took place in the early 1970s, and more disciplined handling of rioting. There was also a change in the nature of the PIRA campaign of violence, which became more classically terrorist where previously it has mixed classical terrorism with 'insurgency'-type situations (gun-battles, no-go areas, etc) - cutting off this avenue of PIRA violenct tactics seems to have made it less likely civilians would end up as casualties of the army.
To say "the security forces must have just started shooting unarmed suspects" is twisting what I have said almost 180 degrees. I pointed out that actions to 'take out' terrorists were very rare - the 1982 events being exceptional. After that it generally only happened if the SAS (or 14 Intelligence Company etc) were able to arrange to catch terrorists "on active service".
1. I guess you're inferring that the 14th to die (presumably Gerald Donaghy) was a terrorist as he was 'found' with nail bombs in his pockets, was a member of Fianna Éireann at the time, and therefore deserved to be executed.
2. The British Army so unsophisticated, unprepared, practically amateurish! In the 1970s? I personally think Bloody Sunday was an out and out revenge attack on the general public in Derry for previous events - unfortunately, the Saville enquiry will never be able to confirm that.
3. Re. Shoot to kill - again, let's see the Stalker report, for starters.
The north - if not, indeed, the island of Ireland - needs some form of truth and reconciliation programme which will re-examine the atrocities of the Troubles - on both sides. If £2,000 a second can be spent by the British government on their illegal war in Iraq, then this would be a drop in Gordon's ocean.
Quote from: Donagh on August 01, 2007, 11:59:50 PM
From: www.shoottokill25.org
"On 12 December 1982 two unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead in Mullacreevie Park in Armagh city. Both men were unarmed with Roddy Carroll being shot from a distance of six feet. Seamus Grew was shot from a distance of two feet by the same RUC officer."
Do you have a problem with the shooting dead of people from two feet then Donagh?
And do you think those behind that wesbite do? (They're awfully coy about the 'careers' of the 'Volunteers' ::)...)
Quote from: MW on August 02, 2007, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 01, 2007, 11:59:50 PM
From: www.shoottokill25.org
"On 12 December 1982 two unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead in Mullacreevie Park in Armagh city. Both men were unarmed with Roddy Carroll being shot from a distance of six feet. Seamus Grew was shot from a distance of two feet by the same RUC officer."
Do you have a problem with the shooting dead of people from two feet then Donagh?
And do you think those behind that wesbite do? (They're awfully coy about the 'careers' of the 'Volunteers' ::)...)
Do you have a problem with your paramilitary scum being shown up for being the murdering low lives the rest of us know they were?
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: MW on August 02, 2007, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 01, 2007, 11:59:50 PM
From: www.shoottokill25.org
"On 12 December 1982 two unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead in Mullacreevie Park in Armagh city. Both men were unarmed with Roddy Carroll being shot from a distance of six feet. Seamus Grew was shot from a distance of two feet by the same RUC officer."
Do you have a problem with the shooting dead of people from two feet then Donagh?
And do you think those behind that wesbite do? (They're awfully coy about the 'careers' of the 'Volunteers' ::)...)
Do you have a problem with your paramilitary scum being shown up for being the murdering low lives the rest of us know they were?
You could at least attempt to answer my questions, instead of just repsonding with a question ::) Very poor.
Quote from: MW on August 02, 2007, 10:40:26 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: MW on August 02, 2007, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 01, 2007, 11:59:50 PM
From: www.shoottokill25.org
"On 12 December 1982 two unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead in Mullacreevie Park in Armagh city. Both men were unarmed with Roddy Carroll being shot from a distance of six feet. Seamus Grew was shot from a distance of two feet by the same RUC officer."
Do you have a problem with the shooting dead of people from two feet then Donagh?
And do you think those behind that wesbite do? (They're awfully coy about the 'careers' of the 'Volunteers' ::)...)
Do you have a problem with your paramilitary scum being shown up for being the murdering low lives the rest of us know they were?
You could at least attempt to answer my questions, instead of just repsonding with a question ::) Very poor.
Your questions are facetious. I see no need to answer them.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 11:30:21 AM
Quote from: MW on August 02, 2007, 10:40:26 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: MW on August 02, 2007, 09:53:34 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 01, 2007, 11:59:50 PM
From: www.shoottokill25.org
"On 12 December 1982 two unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll were shot dead in Mullacreevie Park in Armagh city. Both men were unarmed with Roddy Carroll being shot from a distance of six feet. Seamus Grew was shot from a distance of two feet by the same RUC officer."
Do you have a problem with the shooting dead of people from two feet then Donagh?
And do you think those behind that wesbite do? (They're awfully coy about the 'careers' of the 'Volunteers' ::)...)
Do you have a problem with your paramilitary scum being shown up for being the murdering low lives the rest of us know they were?
You could at least attempt to answer my questions, instead of just repsonding with a question ::) Very poor.
Your questions are facetious. I see no need to answer them.
Not facetious. They cut to the very heart of my point - screaming hypocrisy. Those behind that website talk in glowing terms about IRA and INLA terrorists (they even paste articles from AP/RN FFS!) and then whinge about these terrorists getting treatment that they regarded as completely legitimate and acceptable ("we're not committing murder when we break into people's homes and gun them down, or plant bombs in bars and shopping centres, it's a war, oh what's that, on rare occasions someone's actually going to shoot at us? Not fair! Waah! Waaaaah!"). And given that you have also posted in praise of IRA and INLA terrorists, I'd be interested to find out if there's any consistency in your position.
Point out the parts on the site where they "talk in glowing terms about IRA and INLA terrorists". I also see links to the Guardian and the SBP – I expect you regard those outlets in the same manner as the AP/RN.
The truth is there is nothing factually incorrect on that site. You know nothing of the people behind it or their motivations but rather than retreat out of the comfort blanket of your own bigotry you choose to attack the people behind the site.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 12:03:24 PM
Point out the parts on the site where they "talk in glowing terms about IRA and INLA terrorists".
Have a look at the 'pen picture' type feature for starters.
Quote
I also see links to the Guardian and the SBP – I expect you regard those outlets in the same manner as the AP/RN.
Why on earth would you 'expect' that ???
I regard AP/RN in the same manner as I do Combat or New Ulster Defender, if more refined.
I regard the Guardian or the SBP in a similar manner to I do the Indepedent or the Daily Telegraph.
Quote
The truth is there is nothing factually incorrect on that site. You know nothing of the people behind it or their motivations
I know something, based on what they say and how they say it.
Quote
but rather than retreat out of the comfort blanket of your own bigotry you choose to attack the people behind the site.
What, pray tell, do you think I'm 'bigoted' against? ???
For one who likes to cry about the Slugger 'ball not man' approach, why don't you live up to it and actually point out the inaccuracies on the site instead of blindly criticising the people you think are behind it.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 12:38:37 PM
For one who likes to cry about the Slugger 'ball not man' approach, why don't you live up to it and actually point out the inaccuracies on the site instead of blindly criticising the people you think are behind it.
I have never, not once, gone on about "the Slugger 'ball not man' approach". What on earth are you on about ???
You're missing my point. I'm not saying anything they have said is accurate or inaccurate, I'm pointing out that they're hypocrites for complaining in the way that they do. Which is the crux of the matter for me, in terms of this and much of the whole area of 'truth and reconciliation'. Look at this from the very start of the website - "This year marks the 25th anniversary of the murder of six men in the Armagh area. These men were brutally shot down..." Five of those six men claimed, and carried out, the 'right' to brutally shoot people down, and denied that this was murder. (Of course the IRA and INLA men's murderous activites are instead couched in such terms on this website as: "An extremely active Volunteer"..."A dedicated Volunteer who was always on the lookout for operations,"... ::))
Now, are you going to tell me what you think I'm 'bigoted' against?
Who are hypocrites? Tell me what you know about the organisers of that site? How do you know the site hasn't been constructed by Jim Murphy/Y2K but on this occasion has chosen to omit the usual "both sides did terrible things" disclaimer? Would you expect a site dedicated to the RUC, Brit Army. La Mon, Shankill Bomb, to list killings by the RUC etc?
IMO you are bigoted because you run away and retreat into your hole any time you are faced with something that challenges your natural outlook - this thread being an example. Instead of condemning these murders outright, you seek to throw mud in a 'they must have deserved it' way and question the motives of the site owners. Did it never actually occur to you that people in North Armagh from all sections of the nationalist community were deeply traumatised by these events and the reason for remembering them is to highlight the progress that has been made since then?
Re the quote you have given, if you read the copyright info at the bottom of that page you will see that has been taken from elsewhere and not written by the site owners.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 02:30:57 PM
How do you know the site hasn't been constructed by Jim Murphy/Y2K but on this occasion has chosen to omit the usual "both sides did terrible things" disclaimer?
I can assure you I didn't construct that or any other site.
/Jim.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 02:30:57 PM
Who are hypocrites? Tell me what you know about the organisers of that site? How do you know the site hasn't been constructed by Jim Murphy/Y2K but on this occasion has chosen to omit the usual "both sides did terrible things" disclaimer?
I know what I can read on that site. Sheer hypocrisy.
Quote
Would you expect a site dedicated to the RUC, Brit Army. La Mon, Shankill Bomb, to list killings by the RUC etc?
I'd expect any site that claims to want to know the facts to be consistent in their definitions. I'll tell you this - I'd fully expect a loyalist website to praise the likes of Joe Bratty and talk about how he 'defended his community' or whatever, then bleat about how he was murdered. And I'd also find that pretty disgusting.
Quote
IMO you are bigoted because you run away and retreat into your hole any time you are faced with something that challenges your natural outlook - this thread being an example.
I'm not retreating from anything - I'm putting my points across to you. Who exactly am I supposed to be 'bigoted' against??
Quote
Instead of condemning these murders outright, you seek to throw mud in a 'they must have deserved it' way
I'm not seeking "to throw mud in a 'they must have deserved it' way". I'm quite clear on 5 of them - they did deserve it. (They're covered in mud, if you will). They were IRA and INLA terrorists who advocated and carried out cold-blodded murder. They got the fate they practised and claimed was legitimate. Just as Brian Robinson, John Bingham and Joe Bratty did. (By the way this sin't to say I think it should have happened - I think for example that child rapist/killers deserve a slow painful death but I don't think this should be carried out)
Quote
Did it never actually occur to you that people in North Armagh from all sections of the nationalist community were deeply traumatised by these events
They may well have been. However there are planty of victims out there (including killed by the security forces) who weren't supporters and practicioners of the fate they met.
Quote
and the reason for remembering them is to highlight the progress that has been made since then?
I have to say that motivation hadn't occurred to me. It doesn't strike me as the likely motivation.
Quote
Re the quote you have given, if you read the copyright info at the bottom of that page you will see that has been taken from elsewhere and not written by the site owners.
Maybe I'm picking this up wrong but surely the bit at the bottom of the page that says "shoot to kill 25 (c) Shoot to Kill committee" simply designates that the site is copyright of the committee? (Either way, using this as the front page indicates endorsement of the comments)
Oh my good God. I really can't believe you have the bare faced cheek to start the post with a reference to hypocrisy and then continue with the rest of that bile. Six men are murdered in cold blood in the most extremely callous way and all you can do is apportion blame on the murdered as opposed to the murderers and those that gave them instructions. I don't know why I'm surprised when we've all experienced the 'that Fenian must have done something to deserve it' attitude emanating from the unionist community. Guilty until proven absolutely and unequivocally innocent eh? That such Neanderthal attitudes still exist and indeed are nurtured in our society today really does sicken.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 05:59:43 PM
Oh my good God. I really can't believe you have the bare faced cheek to start the post with a reference to hypocrisy and then continue with the rest of that bile. Six men are murdered in cold blood in the most extremely callous way and all you can do is apportion blame on the murdered as opposed to the murderers and those that gave them instructions. I don't know why I'm surprised when we've all experienced the 'that Fenian must have done something to deserve it' attitude emanating from the unionist community. Guilty until proven absolutely and unequivocally innocent eh? That such Neanderthal attitudes still exist and indeed are nurtured in our society today really does sicken.
Christ Donagh did you actually read the previous post or did you just have an 'all prods are sectarian bigots' post ready to slot in?
Jez Sammy I'd have thought that even someone like yourself, so good at reading things in posts that don't exist would even have picked up on the line which clearly endorses murder. Let me do you the courtesy you find so difficult to afford others and reprint it for you:
"I'm quite clear on 5 of them - they did deserve it."
There is no doubt that these men were callously murdered and even twenty five years later that fella can't even bring himself to the offer the families of the murdered the same basic rights he would demand for himself and the good old paramilitary killers of the RUC.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 06:14:43 PM
Jez Sammy I'd have thought that even someone like yourself, so good at reading things in posts that don't exist would even have picked up on the line which clearly endorses murder. Let me do you the courtesy you find so difficult to afford others and reprint it for you:
"I'm quite clear on 5 of them - they did deserve it."
There is no doubt that these men were callously murdered and even twenty five years later that fella can't even bring himself to the offer the families of the murdered the same basic rights he would demand for himself and the good old paramilitary killers of the RUC.
I read the post. Interesting that you choose to pull out one line that suits your very narrow agenda but miss the following
"(By the way this sin't to say I think it should have happened - I think for example that child rapist/killers deserve a slow painful death but I don't think this should be carried out)" which qualifies the previous comment.
I think most normal people would agree that they wouldn't shed to many tears for a sectarian murderer who got what he dealt, but that's totally different from wanting it to happen or thinking that the security forces should have carte blanche, which they clearly didn't.
It qualifies nothing of the sort – what is it you like to call it – doublespeak?
The only agenda I have is to highlight the crime not only committed on these six men but also those that were inflicted on their families over the intervening 25 years, some of whom are still even waiting for an inquest to be held. We all know there were horrible atrocities committed on all sides. However if a man can't bring himself to acknowledge this horrible miscarriage of justice and clear case of state sanctioned murder in it's own right without resorting whataboutry or 'they deserved it' bullshit, then he is indeed a weak and cowardly individual. For that read that I am referring to MW.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 06:30:06 PM
It qualifies nothing of the sort – what is it you like to call it – doublespeak?
Surely if there are two sentences in the same post, you have to read them together not in isolation.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 06:30:06 PM
The only agenda I have is to highlight the crime not only committed on these six men but also those that were inflicted on their families over the intervening 25 years, some of whom are still even waiting for an inquest to be held. We all know there were horrible atrocities committed on all sides. However if a man can't bring himself to acknowledge this horrible miscarriage of justice and clear case of state sanctioned murder in it's own right without resorting whataboutry or 'they deserved it' bullshit, then he is indeed a weak and cowardly individual. For that read that I am referring to MW.
Strange that you don't have the same sympathy/calls for enquiries/etc for the victims of these 'brave volunteers'.
Really? Have you been honing those mind reading skills of yours again? Why don't you start another thread on the calls for enquiries for the victims of these six men to test me first without running down that dead end like MW with fingers in ears and eyes firmly shut?
I have stated my agenda in relation to this site and this thread. A narrow agenda it may be but I make no apologies for fighting that corner.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 06:56:51 PM
Really? Have you been honing those mind reading skills of yours again? Why don't you start another thread on the calls for enquiries for the victims of these six men to test me first without running down that dead end like MW with fingers in ears and eyes firmly shut?
You have said many, many times that Republicans never murdered anybody and where soldiers in a war, so I'm hardly having to do any major mind-reading.
Well if I've said that so many times it shouldn't be hard for you to dig up the quotes, or is this to be like those other times were the literal meaning of what is typed magically conveys an alternative semantic meaning that can only be translated by SammyG? You know all like all those times I referred to the bad Prods and the GAA insiders (or was it outsider?).
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 05:59:43 PM
Oh my good God. I really can't believe you have the bare faced cheek to start the post with a reference to hypocrisy and then continue with the rest of that bile. Six men are murdered in cold blood in the most extremely callous way and all you can do is apportion blame on the murdered as opposed to the murderers and those that gave them instructions. I don't know why I'm surprised when we've all experienced the 'that Fenian must have done something to deserve it' attitude emanating from the unionist community.
Nice try - trot out the old provo smear - I must think they deserved it because they were Catholic. Not because they were in the IRA and the INLA, and carried out cold-blooded killings. (FFS the clue was in the fact that I referred to 5 people - the 6th was a Catholic too, wasn't he?)
(By the way I named others to illustrate my attitude - Robinson, Bingham and Bratty. Don't think they would be Catholic, do you?)
Quote
Guilty until proven absolutely and unequivocally innocent eh? That such Neanderthal attitudes still exist and indeed are nurtured in our society today really does sicken.
Wise up, settle down and try to think for two seconds.
Everyone, the families and the terrorist groups themselves, acknowledge openly that the five I'm referring to were members of the IRA and INLA. FFS the webiste even has profiles of "Óglach Eugene Toman" ("...he volunteered to join the ranks of Óglaigh na hÉireann.An extremely active Volunteer..."), "Óglach Gervase McKerr", "Óglach Sean Burns" ("...conscious decision to join the ranks of Óglaigh na hÉireann...A dedicated Volunteer who was always on the lookout for operations...He immediately returned to active service."), "Vol Seamus Grew" ("...crossed the border from an INLA meeting...") and "Vol Roddy Carroll". (Oddly, no biographical note is supplied for the 6th, innocent, man...).
If you want to dispute that these men were 'active' members of the IRA and INLA, take it up with those behind the webite, or the IRA & INLA, or the families. Not me. If you want to dispute that the IRA and INLA were going round carrying out cold-blooded killings on a regular basis, then God help you since you're obviously suffering from some sort of mental blackout.
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 06:14:43 PM
Jez Sammy I'd have thought that even someone like yourself, so good at reading things in posts that don't exist would even have picked up on the line which clearly endorses murder. Let me do you the courtesy you find so difficult to afford others and reprint it for you:
"I'm quite clear on 5 of them - they did deserve it."
There is no doubt that these men were callously murdered and even twenty five years later that fella can't even bring himself to the offer the families of the murdered the same basic rights he would demand for himself and the good old paramilitary killers of the RUC.
Rubbish. Actually I think the families of the dead have the same right to find out the truth as anyone else in our society.
Quote from: SammyG on August 02, 2007, 06:20:07 PM
I read the post. Interesting that you choose to pull out one line that suits your very narrow agenda but miss the following "(By the way this sin't to say I think it should have happened - I think for example that child rapist/killers deserve a slow painful death but I don't think this should be carried out)" which qualifies the previous comment.
I think most normal people would agree that they wouldn't shed to many tears for a sectarian murderer who got what he dealt, but that's totally different from wanting it to happen or thinking that the security forces should have carte blanche, which they clearly didn't.
Spot on, Sammy. That's exactly what I'm saying.
No one has denied they were members of the IRA or INLA. As far as I'm aware, even if one were 'convicted' of membership of those organisations the death penalty wouldn't have been imposed, but maybe a sentence of between 2 and 5 years with 50% remission.
Why are you bringing religion into the discussion?
Quote from: Donagh on August 05, 2007, 09:33:51 PM
No one has denied they were members of the IRA or INLA. As far as I'm aware, even if one were 'convicted' of membership of those organisations the death penalty wouldn't have been imposed, but maybe a sentence of between 2 and 5 years with 50% remission.
And the crimes they carried out during their 'careers' in the IRA and INLA? Membership of an illegal organisation wasn't the only offence they committed during that time - the profiles are clear about their 'active' status. Murder featured very strongly among the offences the IRA and INLA were carrying out, as I'm sure are aware.
And I haven't said that deat is an appropriate sentence for any of their activities, whether it be membership of an illegal organisation or murder. I don't advocate that. I've been clear I don't advoate their fate.
But given that the five men I'm referring to were active terrorists in murder gangs which advocated killing in cold blood police officers, solders, and various categories of civilians, and carried out exactly such killings on a regular basis, I think they deserved the death they got at the point of a gun. As Brian Robinson did. As Billy Wright did.
To use a historical example, I think Mussolini richly deserved his summary execution (and public degredation) at the hands of the partisans. But I don't advoate it - once captured he should have faced a proper war crimes tribunal. (And I don't think his mistress deserved the fate she met by any means)
Quote
Why are you bringing religion into the discussion?
I'm not. I'm replying to what you said:
Quote from: Donagh on August 02, 2007, 05:59:43 PMI don't know why I'm surprised when we've all experienced the 'that Fenian must have done something to deserve it' attitude emanating from the unionist community.
This was bringing religion into the discussion, was it not? (and an incredibly low blow in my book)
MW, despite your eloquent protestations to the contrary and your support by Sammy, I am still bothered by your position, which is still in essence doublethink.
Even though you state that you oppose the Shoot-to-Kill actions of the RUC, you applaud the outcome of their actions, which in effect is to support those very actions. In the Mussolini example, you say that he "richly deserved" his treatment by the partisans, but there is a fundamental difference between the doings of inflamed anti-Fascist partisans and the actions of those charged with upholding justice. The RUC ought not to be acting like a mob. Whatever the guilt of Grew, Carroll, Toman, etc., it ought to be determined in a court and not on the street, and whatever your loathing of those three, you ought simply to be castigating the real outlaws in this scenario, the RUC vigilantes. Your criticism of Grew, Carroll and Toman should come after a TRIAL (presupposing it is a fair one and they are found guilty).
In short, I suppose what troubles me most about your stance is that I do not hear an unequivocal out-and-out denunciation of the RUC's conduct, full stop. All criticism is tempered with an ex post facto justification, a Machiavellian ends justifying the means stance. No doubt you will fire back that your two positions are mutually exclusive, which I don't think they are. You can't simply criticize and celebrate at the same time.
The bottom line is, no one deserves summary execution, especially when they can be arrested and tried, particularly in a society which purports to uphold the law—not Seamus Grew, not Saddam Hussein, not even Osama bin Laden, if he can be apprehended and put on trial.
I don't hear you adequately condemning the real wrongdoers in this case.
Next we will be hearing that General Tom Barry carried out a determined campaign to murder every prod in West Cork.
Shoot to kill means war is declared. AFAIK war was never declared. When STK is used as a tactic by security forces in the absence of such a declaration then it is murder. It is sanctioned murder by the State.
"Mr Ed Moloney in an article in the Sunday Tribune, 9 June 1991, stated that since the 1982 killings investigated by John Stalker 67 civilians and paramilitaries had been shot dead in 'Shoot-to-kill' operations. Twenty of these were civilians and 47 paramilitaries, of whom only two were loyalists."
(I wonder wtf was the problem with STK against loyalists)
I have no problem with this STK website that Donagh is connected to. State terrorism should be documented.
But also it is my opinion that any Irish Republican who was prepared to kill unarmed UDR scum should also be prepared to be shot anytime anyplace. That is the fate of a soldier.
STK as a tactic and the cover up rebounded with full force against the British Government.
Previously internment did not work, likewise shooting marchers, supergrass trials, the battle against the prisoners.
A mickey mouse group of republicans that existed in 1969 have now got to the stage where they are now sharing power in NI.
As the Britsh army operation review said, wouldn't it all have been better to bulldoze the Divis and rehouse the people instead of deploying regiments to keep the peasants in line.
MW let me get this straight. You are claiming that these men deserved to be murdered because the organisation to which they belonged also murdered people. Does this view extend to the deaths of RUC personnel i.e. I take it you also believe that they got what they deserved as the organisation to which they belonged also murdered people, as they did in this case? It's estimated that over 50k people served as members of the IRA over 30 years – do they all deserve to be murdered also?
Quote from: 5iveTimes on August 06, 2007, 06:40:09 PM
50,000 ? Seems a bit high Donagh. Thats almost 10% of the Nationalist population. I know nowadays every bar stool republican claims to have been in the IRA but 50,000 seems way way too high.
You're the last person I'd have thought to come out with that kind of partitionist thinking 5Times ;)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on August 06, 2007, 06:40:09 PM
50,000 ? Seems a bit high Donagh. Thats almost 10% of the Nationalist population. I know nowadays every bar stool republican claims to have been in the IRA but 50,000 seems way way too high.
Donagh is prone to a bit of exaggeration - sure he thinks a North-South Fisheries Commission is an embryonic united Ireland
Quote from: GweylTah on August 06, 2007, 08:37:51 PM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on August 06, 2007, 06:40:09 PM
50,000 ? Seems a bit high Donagh. Thats almost 10% of the Nationalist population. I know nowadays every bar stool republican claims to have been in the IRA but 50,000 seems way way too high.
Donagh is prone to a bit of exaggeration - sure he thinks a North-South Fisheries Commission is an embryonic united Ireland
And shure dont you think this mythical land called northern ireland is a country!
Quote from: stew on August 06, 2007, 09:41:29 PM
Quote from: GweylTah on August 06, 2007, 08:37:51 PM
Quote from: 5iveTimes on August 06, 2007, 06:40:09 PM
50,000 ? Seems a bit high Donagh. Thats almost 10% of the Nationalist population. I know nowadays every bar stool republican claims to have been in the IRA but 50,000 seems way way too high.
Donagh is prone to a bit of exaggeration - sure he thinks a North-South Fisheries Commission is an embryonic united Ireland
And shure dont you think this mythical land called northern ireland is a country!
Whatever it is, it's hardly mythical - it is an internationally recognised region of the UK. Country, region, state, statelet, province, call it whatever you like - it exists and, in some shape or form, always will, I daresay it will outlive all of us and whatever becomes of it, none of us will take it with us.
See, I might talk shite a lot of the time, but I can be profound to at certain phases of the moon.
5000 or 50000, the number is irrelevant, but what is clear is that some posters here clearly believe they all deserve to be put to death without trial or jury. And to think their fellow travellers on OWC have the nerve to compare the GAA to Nazis.
Quote from: GweylTah on August 06, 2007, 11:03:58 PM
it is an internationally recognised region of the UK. Country, region, state, statelet, province, call it whatever you like - it exists and, in some shape or form, always will, I daresay it will outlive all of us and whatever becomes of it, none of us will take it with us.
God, the poor wee place doesn't know what to call itself.
PS Just got my new telephone book - it describes Co Armagh as "Northern Ireland - South West"..... ::)
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 12:33:04 AM
5000 or 50000, the number is irrelevant, but what is clear is that some posters here clearly believe they all deserve to be put to death without trial or jury.
Where has anybody said anything even remotely connected to that post?
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 12:33:04 AM
And to think their fellow travellers on OWC have the nerve to compare the GAA to Nazis.
Another themmuns are all the same post from Donagh, it's getting a bit boring big lad.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 07, 2007, 08:32:27 AM
Quote from: GweylTah on August 06, 2007, 11:03:58 PM
it is an internationally recognised region of the UK. Country, region, state, statelet, province, call it whatever you like - it exists and, in some shape or form, always will, I daresay it will outlive all of us and whatever becomes of it, none of us will take it with us.
God, the poor wee place doesn't know what to call itself.
PS Just got my new telephone book - it describes Co Armagh as "Northern Ireland - South West"..... ::)
Sorted then ;)
ha ha.
Sorted insofar as I haven't removed the phone book from its cellophane wrapper, like most punters, and will probably never look at it. Blody useless book anyhow, doesn't even give post codes or half the numbers.
Oh aye, then there's the post code system that puts Crossmaglen in Co Down, Gilford in Co Armagh and Belfast, Antrim and some place called LONDONderry in no counties at all.
sorted? I don't think so, chris. Still eating Irish beef and associated meat products?
End of current rant - and apologies for being diversionary from the thread.
Good enough for them :)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6934300.stm
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on August 07, 2007, 09:18:37 AM
ha ha.
Sorted insofar as I haven't removed the phone book from its cellophane wrapper, like most punters, and will probably never look at it. Blody useless book anyhow, doesn't even give post codes or half the numbers.
Oh aye, then there's the post code system that puts Crossmaglen in Co Down, Gilford in Co Armagh and Belfast, Antrim and some place called LONDONderry in no counties at all.
sorted? I don't think so, chris. Still eating Irish beef and associated meat products?
End of current rant - and apologies for being diversionary from the thread.
Why wouldn't I?
good stuff ;)
Quote from: Donagh on August 06, 2007, 09:03:08 AM
MW let me get this straight. You are claiming that these men deserved to be murdered because the organisation to which they belonged also murdered people. Does this view extend to the deaths of RUC personnel i.e. I take it you also believe that they got what they deserved as the organisation to which they belonged also murdered people, as they did in this case?
You've picked me up wrong, obviously. Anyone who belonged to a terrorist group, whose very raison d'etre from day to day was murder, and advocated going round dishing out cold-blooded killings to anyone they deemed it was 'legitimate' to, and furthermore actually carried out such cold-blooded killings - if they ended up being shot dead, then it was nothing less than they deserved. And in their worldview, and that of their supporters, it can surely have been nothing less than legitimate. Unlike them, of course, I take a different view of such killings.
Quote
It's estimated that over 50k people served as members of the IRA over 30 years – do they all deserve to be murdered also?
Anyone who joined an illegal paramilitary group and actively participated in carrying out cold-blooded killings of police officers, soldiers and civilians as part of the very fabric and raison d'etre of their 'active' involvement in said terrorist groups, (anyone who was "an extremely active Volunteer", or "a dedicated Volunteer who was always on the lookout for operations", for example...) and met his death at the point of a gun, whether he be Sean Burns, Brian Robinson or Billy Wright, deserved such a fate. I reiterate however that I would certainly not advocate the actions they did.
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 12:33:04 AM
5000 or 50000, the number is irrelevant, but what is clear is that some posters here clearly believe they all deserve to be put to death without trial or jury. And to think their fellow travellers on OWC have the nerve to compare the GAA to Nazis.
Donagh, you still seem to be misunderstanding me.
My view is that the five IRA and INLA members, as with all from the INLA, IRA, UVF, UFF etc (unless caught in the act of carrying out a terrorist attack) should have been arrested and tried as terrorist criminals.
Their view was that they had the right to go round killing people, whoever they designated to be a 'legitimate target', and claimed their was a 'war' on. Therefore in their view their fate was legitimate and no more than they would have expected of anyone else.
What is
your view? :-\
Quote from: Oraisteach on August 05, 2007, 11:09:45 PM
MW, despite your eloquent protestations to the contrary and your support by Sammy, I am still bothered by your position, which is still in essence doublethink.
Even though you state that you oppose the Shoot-to-Kill actions of the RUC, you applaud the outcome of their actions, which in effect is to support those very actions. In the Mussolini example, you say that he "richly deserved" his treatment by the partisans, but there is a fundamental difference between the doings of inflamed anti-Fascist partisans and the actions of those charged with upholding justice. The RUC ought not to be acting like a mob. Whatever the guilt of Grew, Carroll, Toman, etc., it ought to be determined in a court and not on the street, and whatever your loathing of those three, you ought simply to be castigating the real outlaws in this scenario, the RUC vigilantes. Your criticism of Grew, Carroll and Toman should come after a TRIAL (presupposing it is a fair one and they are found guilty).
In short, I suppose what troubles me most about your stance is that I do not hear an unequivocal out-and-out denunciation of the RUC's conduct, full stop. All criticism is tempered with an ex post facto justification, a Machiavellian ends justifying the means stance. No doubt you will fire back that your two positions are mutually exclusive, which I don't think they are. You can't simply criticize and celebrate at the same time.
The bottom line is, no one deserves summary execution, especially when they can be arrested and tried, particularly in a society which purports to uphold the law—not Seamus Grew, not Saddam Hussein, not even Osama bin Laden, if he can be apprehended and put on trial.
I don't hear you adequately condemning the real wrongdoers in this case.
If you want me to illustrate further: I believe Saddam Hussein deserved to be put to death. However, I'm an opponent of the death penalty, so I believe that ought not to have happened - I believe he should have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Tajke another example - after WWII, Churchill was in favour of simply summarily shooting the leading Nazis as outlaws. Woud you agree with me that they deserved such a fate, but choosing this rather than the wart crimes trial would have been wrong?
I've said John Bingham, a UVF member killed by the IRA, also deserved his fate - what do you think this means in regard to my position. Do I "support those actions"?
By the way you say I "celebrate". I do not.
BTW Donagh what do you mean by "the natives" in your first post in the thread?
I find your attitude to non-nationalists most bizarre and confusing.
One minute you're referring to the IRA/INLA as "the natives", in contrast to the police. Suggesting that police officers born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving in Northern Ireland, were not "natives".
Yet on a previous thread last week, you referred to UK citizens born and brought up in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, and serving in the UK army, as "quislings" and "Irish mercenaries".
This suggests to me two things:
1 - You don't accept the right of the British people from Northern Ireland to participate in their own country, and join their own national army - those that do are "quislings" and "mercenaries". This says to me that you don't accept the British identity of the majority in Northern Ireland. (and the only identity you will ascribe is part of "the Irish nation", as in "bringing disgrace to the nation")
2 - People from Northern Ireland who aren't nationalist/republican, who support the Union and participated in their own state, are somehow not "natives".
Both views are offensive and alarming on their own, but it's hard to see how one man's brain can accomodate both at the same time :-\
Quote from: MW on August 07, 2007, 04:07:04 PM
You've picked me up wrong, obviously. Anyone who belonged to a terrorist group, whose very raison d'etre from day to day was murder, and advocated going round dishing out cold-blooded killings to anyone they deemed it was 'legitimate' to, and furthermore actually carried out such cold-blooded killings - if they ended up being shot dead, then it was nothing less than they deserved. And in their worldview, and that of their supporters, it can surely have been nothing less than legitimate. Unlike them, of course, I take a different view of such killings.
Let me get this clear now, in case I have picked you up wrong. Now you're not saying all IRA volunteers deserve to die, but only IRA volunteers that went around advocating killing legitimate targets, deserve to die? So taking into account your new prerequisite for death sentence, where does that leave the 6 men in 1982? Did they go around advocating and dishing out killings, or is membership of the IRA enough for you to assume they fulfilled your prerequisite. If so, how have I picked you up wrong?
Incidentally, who are you to presume that everyone who joins such a group, their families, and supporters have a single "worldview" – are you that arrogant to presume you have such an intimate knowledge and understanding of the republican community? I have not picked you up wrong. You have been very clear. Nationalists who joined the IRA deserved to die, without trial or jury if necessary. Unionists who joined the other main terrorist groups i.e. the RUC (a view as valid as yours and one shared by a large section of the community) do not deserve the same treatment.
Quote
Anyone who joined an illegal paramilitary group and actively participated in carrying out cold-blooded killings of police officers, soldiers and civilians as part of the very fabric and raison d'etre of their 'active' involvement in said terrorist groups, (anyone who was "an extremely active Volunteer", or "a dedicated Volunteer who was always on the lookout for operations", for example...) and met his death at the point of a gun, whether he be Sean Burns, Brian Robinson or Billy Wright, deserved such a fate. I reiterate however that I would certainly not advocate the actions they did.
More of the same nonsensical rubbish again. What's your view of the RUC personnel that carried out these murders? They actively participated in carrying out the cold-blooded killing of these men. They were members of a paramilitary organization and organized loyalist murder gangs. Obviously they meet your prerequisite for capital punishment, so I assume they also deserve to be put to death without trial? Or is it simply a case of state paramilitaries being 'legal' in your view and the IRA were 'illegal'? Unionist right, republican wrong, Unionist killing legal, republican killing wrong? Change the record ffs...
Quote from: MW on August 07, 2007, 04:13:27 PM
What is your view? :-\
I've understood you quite well. You've stated twice that IRA members deserve to die whereas the RUC terrorists presumably deserve a higher standard of justice.
My view is the six men were murdered by the state. Even though I am closer to the thinking of the six men than you will ever be, I am not so arrogant to presume to know what their views were or to understand the hurt of the families that saw their loved ones put to death without trial.
Donagh
Are you having trouble reading or our you being deliberately awkward? MW has explained himself 3 or 4 times and each time you keep mis-quoting him and making up conspiracy theories.
Quote from: MW on August 07, 2007, 04:35:37 PM
BTW Donagh what do you mean by "the natives" in your first post in the thread?
I find your attitude to non-nationalists most bizarre and confusing.
One minute you're referring to the IRA/INLA as "the natives", in contrast to the police. Suggesting that police officers born and brought up in Northern Ireland, serving in Northern Ireland, were not "natives".
Yet on a previous thread last week, you referred to UK citizens born and brought up in Northern Ireland, part of the UK, and serving in the UK army, as "quislings" and "Irish mercenaries".
This suggests to me two things:
1 - You don't accept the right of the British people from Northern Ireland to participate in their own country, and join their own national army - those that do are "quislings" and "mercenaries". This says to me that you don't accept the British identity of the majority in Northern Ireland. (and the only identity you will ascribe is part of "the Irish nation", as in "bringing disgrace to the nation")
2 - People from Northern Ireland who aren't nationalist/republican, who support the Union and participated in their own state, are somehow not "natives".
Both views are offensive and alarming on their own, but it's hard to see how one man's brain can accomodate both at the same time :-\
My use of the word "natives" was simply a reference to the "tally-ho, slap it into the gollywogs" attitude of the British state that murdered Irish people at will during the conflict here. Don't read too much into it.
Quote from: SammyG on August 07, 2007, 06:38:08 PM
Donagh
Are you having trouble reading or our you being deliberately awkward? MW has explained himself 3 or 4 times and each time you keep mis-quoting him and making up conspiracy theories.
No I haven't - he has stated twice that IRA members deserve to die.
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 06:40:25 PM
Quote from: SammyG on August 07, 2007, 06:38:08 PM
Donagh
Are you having trouble reading or our you being deliberately awkward? MW has explained himself 3 or 4 times and each time you keep mis-quoting him and making up conspiracy theories.
No I haven't - he has stated twice that IRA members deserve to die.
Where?
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 06:32:23 PM
Quote from: MW on August 07, 2007, 04:07:04 PM
You've picked me up wrong, obviously. Anyone who belonged to a terrorist group, whose very raison d'etre from day to day was murder, and advocated going round dishing out cold-blooded killings to anyone they deemed it was 'legitimate' to, and furthermore actually carried out such cold-blooded killings - if they ended up being shot dead, then it was nothing less than they deserved. And in their worldview, and that of their supporters, it can surely have been nothing less than legitimate. Unlike them, of course, I take a different view of such killings.
Let me get this clear now, in case I have picked you up wrong. Now you're not saying all IRA volunteers deserve to die, but only IRA volunteers that went around advocating killing legitimate targets, deserve to die? So taking into account your new prerequisite for death sentence,
You are either an idiot or deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. I've made clear on this very page FFS that I
oppose the death sentence, even for genocidal mass murdering dictators like Saddam Hussein. I've made equally clear that the large number of occasions when IRA/INLA/UVF/UFF terrorists were arrested and tried was the correct course of action, whereas killing them (execpt where caught in committing a terrorist attack) was not right and I
didn't support this. By the way I said not just advocating killings but carrying them out.
Quote
where does that leave the 6 men in 1982? Did they go around advocating and dishing out killings, or is membership of the IRA enough for you to assume they fulfilled your prerequisite. If so, how have I picked you up wrong?
Five, Donagh,
five. You know I'm talking about the IRA and INLA members and not Michael Tighe. Republicans and others have been quite clear about these men's "active" status in the IRA/INLA.
Quote
Incidentally, who are you to presume that everyone who joins such a group, their families, and supporters have a single "worldview"
The view of the IRA and INLA as organisations, and their cheerleaders in Sinn Fein and the IRSP, as organisations, was that it was legitimate to commit cold-blooded murder against anyone they deemed it legitimate to murder.
Quoteup wrong. You have been very clear. Nationalists who joined the IRA deserved to die, without trial or jury if necessary.
This is actually no more than a complete lie.
Quote
Unionists who joined the other main terrorist groups i.e. the RUC (a view as valid as yours and one shared by a large section of the community) do not deserve the same treatment.
The thing is, the RUC weren't going round killing people, and cold-blooded killing wasn't advocated as part of the police's longstandaing policy. No-one was claiming the police had the right to go out and shoot and blow up whoever they deemed they should - and they didn't kill hundreds upon hundreds of people like the IRA and INLA. Finding a police officer who opposed cold-blooded killing wasn't very difficult - that was why many joined, to do their best to prevent just such killing. Finding one who said it was OK just to go shooting and bombing all round them would have been. Whereas finding an IRA or INLA terrorist who said it wasn't OK for the IRA and INLA to carry out cold-blooded killings would have been an amazing discovery since this was their modus operandi. Oh and I've been quite clear that UVF/UDA terrorist killers who were killed deserved their fate.
Quote
More of the same nonsensical rubbish again. What's your view of the RUC personnel that carried out these murders? They actively participated in carrying out the cold-blooded killing of these men. They were members of a paramilitary organization and organized loyalist murder gangs. Obviously they meet your prerequisite for capital punishment, so I assume they also deserve to be put to death without trial? Or is it simply a case of state paramilitaries being 'legal' in your view and the IRA were 'illegal'? Unionist right, republican wrong, Unionist killing legal, republican killing wrong? Change the record ffs...
How. Many. F**king. Times. I'm an opponent of capital punishment. And I view loyalist killers in exactly the same way as I view republican killers.
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 06:36:34 PM
Quote from: MW on August 07, 2007, 04:13:27 PM
What is your view? :-\
I've understood you quite well. You've stated twice that IRA members deserve to die
No, I haven't.
Quote
My view is the six men were murdered by the state. Even though I am closer to the thinking of the six men than you will ever be, I am not so arrogant to presume to know what their views were or to understand the hurt of the families that saw their loved ones put to death without trial.
Do you think then these men should have been arrested and tried as criminals? I do.
I can't grasp your position. From what I'd previously read of your posts, especially your support for the hunger strikers, I'd thought I'd picked up hints that you didn't see Troubles killings as murders, or even crimes.
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
Quote from: Donagh on August 07, 2007, 06:40:25 PM
Quote from: SammyG on August 07, 2007, 06:38:08 PM
Donagh
Are you having trouble reading or our you being deliberately awkward? MW has explained himself 3 or 4 times and each time you keep mis-quoting him and making up conspiracy theories.
No I haven't - he has stated twice that IRA members deserve to die.
Yet again - no, I haven't.
For the love of God, is it really that difficult to grasp that my view of terrorist killers who met the same fate that the advocated for and carried out on other people, is that they deserved such a fate for precisely that reason? And that I do not advocate such a fate?
I've already given plenty of stark examples to help you understand this. Child killers, Saddam Hussein, Nazi war criminals. Do you think I advoate the IRA killing of John Bingham or Joe Bratty?
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
Sammy you do realise thats the most hypocritical post ever coming from you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
No, because the issue under discussion here is the six men in 1982. As I said before, if he hasn't the balls to recognise that without all the other bullshit then he is a coward.
Quote from: his holiness nb on August 08, 2007, 10:33:22 AM
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
Sammy you do realise thats the most hypocritical post ever coming from you ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
If you say so. Given that MW has answered Donagh several times, it's hardly a big leap to ask him to answer one question.
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:36:03 AM
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
No, because the issue under discussion here is the six men in 1982. As I said before, if he hasn't the balls to recognise that without all the other bullshit then he is a coward.
So we're back to the black and white 'all fenians=good, all prods=bad', yet again. Didn't take long this time.
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:38:00 AM
So we're back to the black and white 'all fenians=good, all prods=bad', yet again. Didn't take long this time.
You not have the balls either Sammy?
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:53:25 AM
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:38:00 AM
So we're back to the black and white 'all fenians=good, all prods=bad', yet again. Didn't take long this time.
You not have the balls either Sammy?
The balls for what?
My line has always been 100% clear, anyone who kills someone else (other than in self defence) should be tried for murder, no ifs no buts. The only one, on this thread, who won't call a spade a garden digging implement, is you.
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
In my opinion, yes.
Now, your response please.
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 11:01:23 AM
In my opinion, yes.
Now, your response please.
This thread is a discussion on the six men who were killed in Armagh in 1982, if you want my opinions on other killings then start another thread. If you believe these six men were murdered then what is your problem with the website and the families of the men drawing attention to it?
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 11:01:23 AM
In my opinion, yes.
Now, your response please.
This thread is a discussion on the six men who were killed in Armagh in 1982, if you want my opinions on other killings then start another thread. If you believe these six men were murdered then what is your problem with the website and the families of the men drawing attention to it?
My, my, that's convenient. You won't answer a straight question.
My problem is not with people drawing attention to the manner of these deaths. My problem is with people who clearly supported murder, by IRA and INLA members, of whoever they claimed was a legitimate target, and said that it wasn't murder or even a crime because it was a 'war', whinging and crying murder on the comparitively rare occasions when those IRA and INLA members ended up on the receiving end. For example the screaming hypocrisy of AP/RN referring to "murder" when it insistend till it was blue in the face that IRA atrocities such as Enniskillen, Teebane etc weren't even crimes never mind murder.
This website uses as part of its 'evidence' articles from AP/RN, quotes from the INLA/IRSP, links to Noraid, links to the Sinn Fein wesbite and quotes from a provisional republican publication praising its dead "volunteers". Tributes to the five terrorists are quoted including euphemistic and completely non-condemnatory referecnes to their "active" role in the IRA/INLA.
None of this suggests to me that those behind the website have any problem with murder per se, or even that they can evenly apply the term murder rather than excluding the majority of murders from that definition simply because they were carried out by republicans (so there's nothing to suggest they don'e fall into they category of people outlined in my first paragraph).Which is were your opinion comes in too...
Listen MW, there is no factually incorrect information on the website. From what I can see your objections are based on assumptions and your political opinions. What you have to recognise is that there are many other people with different opinions to you and that they are equally as valid.
This website has been established to remember those specific events in 1982 and to help the families draw attention to their ongoing campaigns. If you are offended by the friends and families of these men doing so, then don't go near the site, don't attend any of the events and don't be making assumptions about the motivations of the site owners.
Your constant attempt to draw out this thread with comparisons to Sadam and loyalist paramilitaries is deeply offensive to the friends and families of the men. In fairness, you have recognised that the RUC murdered these men. There were many other people murdered during the conflict here by the IRA, the INLA and British army, but this website is not concerned with those, only the specific events of 1982. As I said, you don't know the views of the site creators, the men's families and friends or even their community's views on the other killings so don't be pretending that you do.
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 11:01:23 AM
In my opinion, yes.
Now, your response please.
This thread is a discussion on the six men who were killed in Armagh in 1982, if you want my opinions on other killings then start another thread. If you believe these six men were murdered then what is your problem with the website and the families of the men drawing attention to it?
Sorry what was that you were saying about balls?
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:36:03 AM
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
No, because the issue under discussion here is the six men in 1982. As I said before, if he hasn't the balls to recognise that without all the other bullshit then he is a coward.
He has been a coward from day one Donagh, this is not any recent development.
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 07:21:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 11:43:56 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 11:01:23 AM
In my opinion, yes.
Now, your response please.
This thread is a discussion on the six men who were killed in Armagh in 1982, if you want my opinions on other killings then start another thread. If you believe these six men were murdered then what is your problem with the website and the families of the men drawing attention to it?
Sorry what was that you were saying about balls?
Well Sammy instead of snipping why don't you start those other threads and test me?
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 12:29:02 PM
Your constant attempt to draw out this thread with comparisons to Sadam
Oh FFS. Your ability to misunderstand just about anything amazes me. I was clearly using Saddam to refer to the fact that I opposed his fate (i.e. the death penalty) - indeed if memory serves me correctly I didn't even bring him into the discussion.
Quote
and loyalist paramilitaries is deeply offensive to the friends and families of the men.
I draw little distinction between republican and loyalist brands of terrorist.
Quote
In fairness, you have recognised that the RUC murdered these men. There were many other people murdered during the conflict here by the IRA, the INLA and British army, but this website is not concerned with those, only the specific events of 1982. As I said, you don't know the views of the site creators, the men's families and friends or even their community's views on the other killings so don't be pretending that you do.
Actually, what I do know is the view of the IRA, the INLA, the IRSP, Noraid, Sinn Fein and AP/RN. They were kind ::) enough to let us know ad nauseum. (pun intended in that last word). All of them said that the murders carried out by republican terrorists were not murder at all, weren't even crimes - there was a war on and they could kill whoever they liked, in cold blood (as they did in their many hundreds) as long as they deemed them to fall into a category of 'legitimate targets'. (I know for example that in the era concerned, the IRA murdered, in cold blood, an 86 year old man in his own home and Gerry Adams said the ony complaint he had got from supporters was that it hadn't been done earlier. I know that the IRA murdered an Ulster Unionist Assemblyman for the crime of being elected by the unionist community. I know the INLA blew up a bar to kill 11 soldiers as well as teenage Protestant girls...etc etc. I know that hundreds of police officers and soliders were murdered in cold blood at home or on their way home from work, in their day jobs, etc. And all the while these organisations, and their political representatives in SF and the IRSP, justified these murders and said they weren't murder at all.).
I know that the five men I'm referring to were members of the IRA and INLA. I know that further than this they were "active" members - the website is happy to tell me this. I know that this wesbite quotes from AP/RN, from the INLA/IRSP and from a provisional republican tribute to its dead 'volunteers'. I know it links to the SF and Noraid websites. I don't know if those behind the website endorse the line taken by any of those organisations but I do know they don't express any disapproval or opposition to it. I know that there are tributes to the five dead paramilitaries on the website, even giving their paramiliatary "rank", and that their "careers" are referred to in terms I've quoted which are euphemistic and completely non-condemnatory of their violence.
They have a right to their view of the Troubles. They have a right to campaign on these deaths. Equally I have a right to pick them up on what I see as a glaring double standard, becuase quite frankly anyone for anyone who's able to quote from AP/RN, use Noraid as evidence, and use tributes to 'active' IRA/INLA members strikes me as a hypocrites if they're going to complain about murder, and use that term. Because those very organisations, those publications, and these men, claimed the right of republican paramilitaries to commit mass murder and argued that this was a war, and that these weren't crimes.
Anyway, I've said my bit now, and I don't think we're going to get any further on this thread. I think what it highlights as if anyone needed it is that this society hasn't yet hit on a method of dealing with its scarred recent past.
Quote from: stew on August 08, 2007, 10:28:41 PM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:36:03 AM
Quote from: SammyG on August 08, 2007, 10:30:32 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:25:43 AM
Quote from: MW on August 08, 2007, 10:19:42 AM
Quote from: Donagh on August 08, 2007, 10:12:19 AM
Ah quit the bullshit and trying to muddy the issue with references to Sadam and loyalists. The issue here is clear:
-- the RUC murdered six men in cold blood. Do you agree?
If there was a decision to 'take out' men who weren't armed and didn't pose a threat then yes I would regard that as murder.
Now, I'd be interested in whether you regard the many hundreds of IRA and INLA killings as murder.
Okay then, from what you know and in your opinion, was it murder?
Any chance you could answer the previous question before asking another one?
No, because the issue under discussion here is the six men in 1982. As I said before, if he hasn't the balls to recognise that without all the other bullshit then he is a coward.
He has been a coward from day one Donagh, this is not any recent development.
???
That's an honest and succinct post MW. I think it's probably the first time in our little tête à têtes that you have actually recognized the right of republicans and nationalists to hold a different view on the conflict without telling us what our view should be - and I thank you for that.
To answer your earlier question on how I view the actions of the IRA, well in many ways they are a mirror image of yours. I am against all killing, but mostly I couldn't have cared when another RUC member or Brit solider got killed, because I viewed them in the same way that you viewed the IRA. They terrorized my family and my community. In the earlier days they committed cold blooded murder and later they organized the loyalist gangs to do it for them. So the way I saw it they probably had it coming to them, if not for their own actions but as payback for others in their respective organizations.
I appreciate that's nowhere near how you see things and I respect that, but the conflict as dirty and nasty as it was, had us all thinking and acting in ways which would be unimaginable in a normal society.
Quote from: Donagh on August 09, 2007, 07:47:21 PM
That's an honest and succinct post MW. I think it's probably the first time in our little tête à têtes that you have actually recognized the right of republicans and nationalists to hold a different view on the conflict without telling us what our view should be - and I thank you for that.
To answer your earlier question on how I view the actions of the IRA, well in many ways they are a mirror image of yours. I am against all killing, but mostly I couldn't have cared when another RUC member or Brit solider got killed, because I viewed them in the same way that you viewed the IRA. They terrorized my family and my community. In the earlier days they committed cold blooded murder and later they organized the loyalist gangs to do it for them. So the way I saw it they probably had it coming to them, if not for their own actions but as payback for others in their respective organizations.
I appreciate that's nowhere near how you see things and I respect that, but the conflict as dirty and nasty as it was, had us all thinking and acting in ways which would be unimaginable in a normal society.
Do you have the same problem with all the (many more) Republican gangs that they 'ran'?
Quote from: SammyG on August 09, 2007, 09:27:15 PM
Do you have the same problem with all the (many more) Republican gangs that they 'ran'?
Many more Sammy? Somehow I doubt it but any Irish 'republican' working for the Brits is obviously not a republican and I would shed no tears for such a person meeting a sticky end.
Quote from: SammyG on August 09, 2007, 09:27:15 PM
Do you have the same problem with all the (many more) Republican gangs that they 'ran'?
Is this some of the revisionism you are being accused of on another thread ??? :P :D
I can see the RUC setting up groups to kill their colleagues alright ::)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on August 10, 2007, 08:54:22 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on August 10, 2007, 07:30:12 PM
I can see the RUC setting up groups to kill their colleagues alright ::)
Actually Special Branch allowed the killings of RUC officers to continue to protect some very high level informants.
I still think not all those high level informants have been outed.............. YET
Ach 5times ::)
The RUC murdered one of the own. Constable Campbell, a Catholic from the north Antrim area was killed by the RUC so they had a history of killing their own.
They were more prone to aiding and abetting loyalist terror gangs, helping them kill Catholics and setting up bogus road blocks etc. Scum.
I find it a crying same and something of a human tragedy when people like the preceding poster either lose the free-thinking gene they were born with, or else are just blinded by hatred and prejudice fed from the tit, and unable or unwilling to contemplate or challenge their own views, however daft or deluded.
Quote from: GweylTah on August 11, 2007, 04:49:32 PM
I find it a crying same and something of a human tragedy when people like the preceding poster either lose the free-thinking gene they were born with, or else are just blinded by hatred and prejudice fed from the tit, and unable or unwilling to contemplate or challenge their own views, however daft or deluded.
Do you go out of your way to sound like a feckwit gweyltah.
Have you ever contempleted your views on republicianism or the GAA gweyltah?
I have no prejudice nor hatred in me gweyltah but given the ruc's history of terrorism and collusion I have no doubt that the Campbell families version of events are true and that in fact the ruc killed Constable campbell because he was a Catholic............ it's not as if this behaviour had never happened before his murder now is it?
The biggest problem I have with the likes of you is your one sided moral outrage and your lack of accountability for the so called 'security frorces'.
Quote from: Donagh on August 09, 2007, 07:47:21 PM
That's an honest and succinct post MW. I think it's probably the first time in our little tête à têtes that you have actually recognized the right of republicans and nationalists to hold a different view on the conflict without telling us what our view should be - and I thank you for that.
It may be the first time I've actually said that I do, but that's because I've never felt the need to say that. I don't thik I've exhibited any unwillingness to deny anyone an opinion or viewpoint - it's just that as a former history student I can't stand inaccuracy and pseudo history, and biased narrative masquerdinmg as factual history. Both sides are guily of this in NI, and I'll take on a unionist/loyalist natrrative that jars with me as well. This isn't to say I don't have my own biases too, growing up in Northern Ireland we all will, but I'm happy to discuss my opinions and have them dissected and do likewise.
Quote
To answer your earlier question on how I view the actions of the IRA, well in many ways they are a mirror image of yours. I am against all killing, but mostly I couldn't have cared when another RUC member or Brit solider got killed, because I viewed them in the same way that you viewed the IRA. They terrorized my family and my community. In the earlier days they committed cold blooded murder and later they organized the loyalist gangs to do it for them. So the way I saw it they probably had it coming to them, if not for their own actions but as payback for others in their respective organizations.
I can see where your point of view is coming from but I would argue that it isn't quite a mirror image of mine. I see a fundamental difference in membership of the paramilitary groups and being a police officer or a soldier. The IRA and INLA were geared to two things - murdering people and destroying property. That was their modus operandi. That was what (after the disappearance of the no-go areas in 1972) their 'active' mebers were involved in doing - it was their raison d'etre as IRA and INLA members. (Just as in the UVF and UFF). Whereas if you took a police officer, any officer, his duties were highly unlikely to have been conncted with killing anyone. They could have been in preventing shoplifting, catching drug dealers, maintaining the flow of traffic. Even those who were involved in counter-terrorism would most likely have been involved in inforamtion gathering, policing roadblocks etc - preventing attacks taking place and prosecuting the perpetrators. Then there's soldiers, both UDR/RIR and the 'regular' Army. Pick a soldier at random and you'll find his role entailed patrolling, manning watchtowers, manning checkpoints, perahps riot control. Now certainly there were many abuses of position, some of them very serious, and I wouldn't dispute that a number in the security forces aided loyalist terrorists or allowed informers both loyalist and republican to commit serious crimes. But there's a fundamental difference there in the roles of the terror groups and the security forces and what 'activity' therein entailed.
Quote
I appreciate that's nowhere near how you see things and I respect that, but the conflict as dirty and nasty as it was, had us all thinking and acting in ways which would be unimaginable in a normal society.
True. And I think we need some method of dealing with the past and surpassing it.
Quote from: 5iveTimes on September 07, 2007, 08:46:20 PM
They involve the shooting of three IRA men: Sean Burns, Gervaise McKerr and Eugene Toman; Irish National Liberation Army suspects Peter Grew and Roderick Carroll; and Catholic teenager Michael Tighe.
He also probed events surrounding the shooting of Michael Tighe, 17, at a hayshed near Craigavon, Co Armagh, the same month. IRA explosives had been stored there but the victim was not connected to the organisation.
I'd expected better of you 5Times, where did you pull that rubbish from – Newsletter or Tele? Check out www.shoottokill25.org for latest news and updates, including an online auction.
Big thanks to Balladmaker for arranging the fundraiser....
Sorry 5Times, I saw the same Press Association article carried in today's Irish News. I'd have expected the IN at least to check the thing before they printed it but then I turned to the sports section and they have a PA Sport article describing Leinster Centre Felipe Contepomi as the "former Bristol fly-half". May be true enough but FFS...
List of events now online:
http://www.shoottokill25.org/
I see when the new enquiry opened a few weeks ago, 65boxes of new evidence were uncovered that the Crown forces hadn't declared...
Im sure they will make for interesting reading, why were they kept from the families and their legal team all these years????
Events happening around Lurgan this weekend. All welcome to attend.
Mass Tonight (Thursday 8th Nov) 7.30pm St Paul's Church, Francis St., Lurgan
Céilí Mór tomorrow evening 8.30pm Clan na Gael CLG, Francis St., Lurgan
New mural unveiling, Sat, 12.30pm in Kilwikie estate, Lurgan
New mural unveiling, Sat 1pm in Taghnevan estate, Lurgan
Memorial dedication, Sat 2pm, Tullygally East Rd, Lurgan
Book launch with readings from family and other contributors, followed by function, Sat 8pm, The Stables, Lurgan
Candlelit vigil, Sunday 11th 7pm at the new memorial on Tullygally East Rd
Stephen Moutray has a bit of cheek to be complaining about this when he and his fellow unionist councilors in Craigavon voted to place a memorial to Loyalist murderer and drug dealer, Swinger Fulton on council land the other week. As for the Newletter, that they can't even spell the lads names correctly says a lot.
From today's Newsletter.
IRA monument 'an attempt to re-write history'
The unveiling this weekend of a monument to three IRA men shot dead by the security forces in Lurgan is "an attempt to re-write history", an MLA said yesterday.
Upper Bann DUP MLA Stephen Moutray hit out at the memorial to Gervaise McKerr, Sean Burns and Eugene Toman, killed on November 11, 1982.
Mr Moutray said: "This is only the latest example of republicans attempting to re-write history.
"We are all trying to move on into a new and better future for the people of Northern Ireland.
"That will not be helped by this kind of development, designed as it is to divert people's gaze away from the largest abuser of human rights during the course of the Troubles."
Mr Moutray
said he would investigate whether the monument had received the proper planning approval.
"I shall be raising this with the relevant department with a view to seeing just how legal it is and what the department plans to do about it," he said.
Earlier this year, Coroner John Leckey held a preliminary hearing into six controversial killings at the centre of an alleged police shoot-to-kill policy 25 years ago.
The case includes the three IRA men shot dead by members of a specialist RUC unit in Lurgan.
At the time of the controversy over the Lurgan deaths, former deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester Police John Stalker was brought in to investigate. His report was never published and earlier inquests into the killings were abandoned.
The Government has always denied any "shoot-to-kill" policy existed and has resisted calls from families to look again at what happened.
Quote from: 5iveTimes on November 15, 2007, 01:25:35 PM
Didnt realise until yesterday that "Swinger" was a nephew of the Prentice brothers.
Swinger was quite an apt name considering how he died.
there was def no way that the prentice brothers were in any way involved in 'the committee'
ahem ::)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on November 15, 2007, 01:25:35 PM
Didnt realise until yesterday that "Swinger" was a nephew of the Prentice brothers.
Swinger was quite an apt name considering how he died.
lol :D
Feckit 5Times, you should have got him to autograph a copy.
As for Stephen Moutray and the rest of the unionists crawling out from under Swingers grave, it they had wanted to prevent the memorial being built they could have put a stop to it at any time over the last four weeks with an injunction. It has been widely reported from the foundations went in and the whole town knew what was being built. However putting an objection then would only have served to highlight his scandalous vote in Craigavon Council, whereas, now he can slabber away in the full knowledge that nothing will be done.
And Stephen if you are reading, the memorial does have planning permission. The people of the local area were widely consulted and the location was even moved at one point at the request of local residents. The support of the local community was clearly demonstrated by the thousands of people that attended the various commeration and fundraising events over the past three months. Can you say you have the same support for the memorial you erected to Swinger?
Quote from: 5iveTimes on November 15, 2007, 01:39:43 PM
He laughed and told me that if those allegations were true, would everyone in South Armagh be driving new diesel BMWs.
One thing you should take into account.
at least he had an answer ready, pretty tenuous though imo
Quote from: 5iveTimes on November 15, 2007, 05:27:53 PM
Is it just me or did Billy & Swinger not look like a couple of Nancy Boys with their leather waistcoats and moustaches?
that was prob fashionable around the time they were 'banged up'
Looks like after 25 years the possibility of an inquest has moved a little closer
Coroner may be given access to shoot-to-kill files
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
By Chris Thornton
The PSNI is expected to declare today that they may let Northern Ireland's Senior Coroner see the top secret Stalker report after years of resistance.
Police are due to give John Leckey an answer to his request to see the classified material about the "shoot-to-kill" incidents in which police killed a teenager and five republicans 25 years ago.
A legal ruling earlier this year means the PSNI is obliged to let coroners see all material relevant to an inquest - unless they can obtain a Government gagging order.
But Government sources have indicated that the PSNI has not asked Secretary of State Shaun Woodward for a gag on the shoot-to-kill reports by English policeman John Stalker and Colin Sampson.
That means that as the PSNI returns to a preliminary inquest hearing to face Mr Leckey this morning, none of the legal avenues for restricting the report are in train.
However, access to Mr Leckey does not mean the reports would then be made public.
A legal battle has been fought for decades over the killings of teenager Michael Tighe, shot on November 24, 1982; IRA members Eugene Toman, Sean Burns and Gervaise McKerr, who were shot on November 11, 1982; and INLA members Roderick Carroll and Seamus Grew, shot on December 12, 1982.
Some police officers tried for the killings were cleared, but there have been persistent allegations that the dead men were shot without attempts to arrest them.
An inquest was briefly opened in 1983, but it was nine years before significant attempts to begin the cases were made.
Mr Leckey dropped the cases in 1994 because police refused to release the Stalker and Sampson reports.
If the PSNI climb down on that point today, he may be in a position to proceed with the inquests next year.
However, the extent of access may be critical.
Police have previously allowed coroners to see secret material, but in extremely controlled circumstances.
For example, a coroner hearing an inquest involving Army surveillance was not even allowed to take notes.
But if Mr Leckey decides that the documents are relevant to the inquests, there will be further battles over how much can be made public.
In 1994, one of the key issues was allowing former investigators from the Stalker and Sampson inquiries to refresh their memories by having access to the reports.
Last month, Assistant Chief Constable Alistair Finlay wrote to Mr Leckey to tell him the Stalker and Sampson reports remain classified as "top secret".
That raised concerns among some of the dead men's relatives that police intended to withhold the report.
At an earlier preliminary hearing, the PSNI said they were seeking legal advice about their position.
But Mr Leckey referred to a House of Lords ruling earlier this year that said coroners should see all material about a case to judge what is relevant, unless police secure public interest immunity from the Government.
At that October hearing, the Coroner said he could "see no reason why I should not now be provided with access to both reports".
doubt it..
the fudging will continue , with intermittent press releases, statements etc for another 20 years
until of course all witnesses and guilty parties have passed away...
Quote from: 5iveTimes on December 04, 2007, 05:01:24 PM
Why cant these reports be made public? After all the RUC was not corrupt and has nothing to hide ;)
ahhh
but they're good at hiding corruption !
:D
Fight for the truth goes on.
Man's brother backs coroner order
The brother of an IRA man who was shot dead by police has backed an order to release reports into alleged "shoot to kill deaths".
On Wednesday, coroner John Leckey asked for the Stalker and Sampson reports by 9 November.
He was speaking at a preliminary hearing into the 1982 deaths of IRA men Eugene Toman, Sean Burns and Gervaise McKerr near Lurgan, Co Armagh.
Mr Toman's brother, Malachy, said his family had a "right to know" the truth.
"My mother and father died not knowing the truth, " he said.
"My brothers and sisters, we need some sort of closure, we lost our brother.
"My brother was murdered by state forces there were over 100 shots fired into that car.
"We have a right to know what happened to our loved ones, as everybody that has lost anybody through the Troubles has a right to know what happened."
Mr Leckey directed his order to release the reports to the new PSNI chief constable, Matt Baggott, who takes over on 22 September.
Apology
He was repeating a demand he made to former Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde in October 2007.
Mr Toman said he wanted the British government to "come out and say" it "conducted a shoot-to-kill policy within the six counties".
He said he wanted an apology but "definitely" did not want "finance" in relation to his brother's death.
"All I want is them to come out and say 'yes there was a shoot-to-kill policy, we could have arrested these men, but our policy at the time was to kill them'."
In November 1982, police fired 109 bullets into the car the three IRA men were travelling in after they claimed it crashed through a checkpoint.
It later emerged the three were suspected of involvement in the killings of three RUC officers in a bomb a fortnight earlier and had been under observation.
Mr Leckey also plans to hold inquests into the deaths of Catholic teenager Michael Tighe, shot dead by police at a hay shed near Craigavon, County Armagh in November 1982, and suspected INLA men Roddy Carroll and Seamus Grew, shot dead near Armagh in December 1982.
The government has always denied any "shoot-to-kill" policy existed and has resisted calls from families to look again at what happened.
Former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police Sir John Stalker was brought in to investigate. He was later replaced by Colin Sampson, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8VDPxP4B1E&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8VDPxP4B1E&feature=channel)
Quote from: Donagh on October 16, 2009, 12:35:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8VDPxP4B1E&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8VDPxP4B1E&feature=channel)
Brings back memories that alright...
Police to hand over secret reports on 'shoot-to-kill policy' during Northern Ireland Troubles
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Police in Northern Ireland are to comply with a court order to hand over top secret reports on an alleged officer shoot-to-kill policy during the Troubles, a senior commander revealed today.
While the PSNI is still seeking clarification on how much of the controversial Stalker and Sampson documents must be disclosed, Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris said the service would not go against the direction of the region's senior coroner John Leckey.
In September Mr Leckey gave new Chief Constable Matt Baggott until next Monday - November 9 - to release the never published reports to the Coroner's Court to assist his probe into the Royal Ulster Constabulary killings of six men in late 1982.
He issued the deadline in the face of long-standing police refusal to hand them to the courts.
Mr Harris today told the PSNI's oversight body - the NI Policing Board - that the service would not ignore its responsibility to the inquests.
"Of course we will comply with the coroner's direction but there are specific issues that we wish to address in respect of disclosure and the information that is being sought," he said.
"That is ongoing work and I think we will have some clarity around this on the November 9th but certainly we will comply with the coroner's direction and our responsibility to the coroner's court in respect of this inquest."
The alleged shoot-to-kill operations were carried out in the Co Armagh area in the weeks following the murders of three RUC officers in an IRA landmine.
They refer to three separate incidents: The shooting dead of IRA men Gervaise McKerr, Eugene Toman and John Burns in Lurgan on November 11 1982.
The shooting of Catholic teenager Michael Tighe near Craigavon on November 24 1982.
The killings of INLA suspects Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll near Armagh city on December 12 1982.
The investigation into whether the police set out to kill was conducted by former Greater Manchester Police Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker and Sir Colin Sampson of the West Yorkshire Police.
While Mr Leckey has been given sight of their subsequent reports, he ordered that they were made available to the court so the inquests can finally get under way.
The coroner said the Chief Constable could make redactions if he considered them necessary and that he would then examine whether there were grounds to request the disclosure of further details ahead of another preliminary hearing on November 23.
SDLP Policing Board member Alex Attwood welcomed Mr Harris's pledge to comply with the order.
"It is a welcome principle that documents that do throw light upon the past become more widely available," he said.
"They may be redacted, they may be amended, but the principle nonetheless is a welcome one and I welcome the police accepting that principle."
Shoot-to-kill files disclosure delayed
The PSNI has asked for more time to hand over secret reports into "shoot-to-kill" incidents to the coroners' court.
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
police spokesman said: "Regrettably the PSNI has been unable to meet the deadline set by the coroner for disclosure of the reports.
"This is due to the volume and nature of the material to be processed and the complexity of the issues involved."
This comes a week after the police promised to hand over the top secret material.
The police service notified the coroner in advance of what it called an "unavoidable" delay. It is understood the force wants the matter deferred until February 2010.
The investigation into the shoot-to-kill incidents was conducted by former Greater Manchester Police Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker and Sir Colin Sampson of the West Yorkshire Police.
Their reports have never been made public.
In September Coroner John Leckey gave new Chief Constable Matt Baggott until November 9 to release the never published reports to the Coroner's Court to assist his investigation.
The alleged shoot-to-kill operations were carried out in the Co Armagh area in the weeks following the murders of three RUC officers in an IRA landmine.
They refer to three separate incidents:
* The shooting dead of IRA men Gervaise McKerr, Eugene Toman and John Burns in Lurgan on November 11 1982.
* The shooting of Catholic teenager Michael Tighe near Craigavon on November 24 1982.
* The killings of INLA suspects Seamus Grew and Roddy Carroll near Armagh city on December 12 1982.
Sinn Fein Policing Board member Martina Anderson said: "Sinn Fein intends to raise the issue as a matter of urgency as we will not allow bad practices of the RUC to be carried through into the PSNI.
"We are demanding that the Stalker Report is given to the coroner's office immediately so that these inquests can proceed as soon as possible."
http://www.banuanlae.org/ (http://www.banuanlae.org/)
Really - this is turning into a farce - how long do they really need to conclude this ?? Joke but no one is laughing.
See they've no problems charging a man with the killing of that gung-ho arsehole Nairac, a guy who colluded with the UVF on a regular basis and was in charge at the scene of the Miami massacre
Hmmmm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8357482.stm
SA minister defends shoot-to-kill
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46719000/jpg/_46719647_mbalula226.jpg)
Mr Mbalula said innocent people would inevitably get hurt
South Africa's deputy police minister has stood by his force's tough, shoot-to-kill policy, days after a three-year-old boy was shot dead by officers.
Fikile Mbalula said it was inevitable that innocent people would get caught in crossfire.
And referring to what he called "incorrigible criminals", he urged the police to "shoot the bastards".
The boy was killed on Saturday as police hunted a murder suspect, sparking a national outcry.
"Yes. Shoot the bastards. Hard-nut to crack, incorrigible criminals," Mr Mbalula said.
Sheer violence
"Where you are caught in combat with criminals, innocent people are going to die - not deliberately but in the exchange of fire. They are going to be caught on the wrong side, not deliberately, but unavoidably."
South Africa has one of the world's highest rates of violent crime with an average of 50 killings each day.
The government is pushing through changes to the country's Criminal Procedure Act to make it clearer when police will be able to use deadly force.
But opposition parties and other rights groups say such a policy has caused a spike in the loss of innocent lives, pointing to a series of recent incidents where people have been killed by the police.
Three-year-old Atlegang Phalane was shot dead in Midrand, near Johannesburg, as he sat in the back seat of a car next to his uncle.
Difficult decisions
The police officer is reported to have said that he thought the boy was carrying a firearm, though according to Moses Dlamini, from the Independent Complaints Directorate, no gun or object which could have been mistaken for a firearm was recovered from the car.
Answering questions on the changes in the National Assembly, President Jacob Zuma said that the sheer level of violent crime in South Africa made it very different to other countries.
"We are saying we need to fight crime and that when criminals are cornered, they take out guns. They don't warn, they kill, and many police have died as a result of that," he said.
He said officers should be supported when they had to make difficult decisions.
"On the spur of the moment what do you do as a policeman? Should you say, because I'm a very good policeman I am here, I have got a gun but I'm not going to shoot you?" he said.
I think the comparison ends after the fact that they were/are both 'apartheid' states !!
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 02:50:00 PM
Hmmmm:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8357482.stm
SA minister defends shoot-to-kill
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46719000/jpg/_46719647_mbalula226.jpg)
Mr Mbalula said innocent people would inevitably get hurt
South Africa's deputy police minister has stood by his force's tough, shoot-to-kill policy, days after a three-year-old boy was shot dead by officers.
Fikile Mbalula said it was inevitable that innocent people would get caught in crossfire.
And referring to what he called "incorrigible criminals", he urged the police to "shoot the b**tards".
The boy was killed on Saturday as police hunted a murder suspect, sparking a national outcry.
"Yes. Shoot the b**tards. Hard-nut to crack, incorrigible criminals," Mr Mbalula said.
Sheer violence
"Where you are caught in combat with criminals, innocent people are going to die - not deliberately but in the exchange of fire. They are going to be caught on the wrong side, not deliberately, but unavoidably."
South Africa has one of the world's highest rates of violent crime with an average of 50 killings each day.
The government is pushing through changes to the country's Criminal Procedure Act to make it clearer when police will be able to use deadly force.
But opposition parties and other rights groups say such a policy has caused a spike in the loss of innocent lives, pointing to a series of recent incidents where people have been killed by the police.
Three-year-old Atlegang Phalane was shot dead in Midrand, near Johannesburg, as he sat in the back seat of a car next to his uncle.
Difficult decisions
The police officer is reported to have said that he thought the boy was carrying a firearm, though according to Moses Dlamini, from the Independent Complaints Directorate, no gun or object which could have been mistaken for a firearm was recovered from the car.
Answering questions on the changes in the National Assembly, President Jacob Zuma said that the sheer level of violent crime in South Africa made it very different to other countries.
"We are saying we need to fight crime and that when criminals are cornered, they take out guns. They don't warn, they kill, and many police have died as a result of that," he said.
He said officers should be supported when they had to make difficult decisions.
"On the spur of the moment what do you do as a policeman? Should you say, because I'm a very good policeman I am here, I have got a gun but I'm not going to shoot you?" he said.
EG -What is your opinion on this?You have just posted the article, are you saying that you agree or disagree with this stance?
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 03:16:58 PM
EG -What is your opinion on this?You have just posted the article, are you saying that you agree or disagree with this stance?
I posted the article because it is interesting to see what people in another part of the world, who have gone through Troubles of their own, have to say on the topic.
As for myself, I cannot really justify a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy on grounds of principle. If nothing else, the danger to innocent bystanders makes it problematical for me.
That said, in the NI context, I cannot get at all exercised at the fate of the intended victims, or their proponents, since they considered themselves to be an "army", fighting a legitimate "war" which did not require them to issue warnings, or offer the chance of surrender. Therefore "Sauce for the Goose" and all that.
So whilst I have no doubt that this will inflame those close relatives of IRA members etc who may have been shot dead under such a policy, imo there are very many
other victims in the Troubles who warrant my sympathy before I get to those people.
As for SA, I'm afraid I don't know enough about what's going on there to have a strong opinion either way.
P.S. I have always preferred the term "Shoot-on-Sight" to "Shoot-to-Kill", since the latter is a misnomer (i.e. in the vast majority of circumstances, you can't really "Shoot-to-Injure" etc)
So to cut through the waffle and answer my question, you don't have an opinion on the article then?
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 06:12:35 PM
So to cut through the waffle and answer my question, you don't have an opinion on the article then?
As I said, no
strong views either way.
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI, so I was just bringing it to the attention of other people who
are interested in such matters.
So what about you, rh? Any thoughts on the SA situation? You seems to be interested enough to want to question me, so may I assume you do?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 06:12:35 PM
So to cut through the waffle and answer my question, you don't have an opinion on the article then?
As I said, no strong views either way.
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI, so I was just bringing it to the attention of other people who are interested in such matters.
So what about you, rh? Any thoughts on the SA situation? You seems to be interested enough to want to question me, so may I assume you do?
Do you mean thoughts on the situation in South Africa generally or on this article?
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 06:12:35 PM
So to cut through the waffle and answer my question, you don't have an opinion on the article then?
As I said, no strong views either way.
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI, so I was just bringing it to the attention of other people who are interested in such matters.
So what about you, rh? Any thoughts on the SA situation? You seems to be interested enough to want to question me, so may I assume you do?
Do you mean thoughts on the situation in South Africa generally or on this article?
The latter ("Shoot The Bastards")
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 01:26:37 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 06:12:35 PM
So to cut through the waffle and answer my question, you don't have an opinion on the article then?
As I said, no strong views either way.
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI, so I was just bringing it to the attention of other people who are interested in such matters.
So what about you, rh? Any thoughts on the SA situation? You seems to be interested enough to want to question me, so may I assume you do?
Do you mean thoughts on the situation in South Africa generally or on this article?
The latter ("Shoot The b**tards")
Absolutely disgusted - police murdering innocent children !? How can you not have strong views on this?Do you find this on some level acceptable?
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI,
I must be missing something. What comparison?
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 02:18:00 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI,
I must be missing something. What comparison?
Oh I dunno...
Maybe between:
Northern Ireland - a politically divided society where ruthless gangs were murdering and terrorising the people, so that the forces of Law and Order
allegedly authorised a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy, to try to stop it all from escalating,
Versus
South Africa - a politically divided society where ruthless gangs are murdering and terrorising the people, so that the forces of Law and Order are
publicly authorising a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy, to try to stop it all from escalating...
No? ::)
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 01:26:37 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 07:57:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 16, 2009, 07:44:02 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 16, 2009, 06:12:35 PM
So to cut through the waffle and answer my question, you don't have an opinion on the article then?
As I said, no strong views either way.
However, it offers an interesting comparison to the situation in NI, so I was just bringing it to the attention of other people who are interested in such matters.
So what about you, rh? Any thoughts on the SA situation? You seems to be interested enough to want to question me, so may I assume you do?
Do you mean thoughts on the situation in South Africa generally or on this article?
The latter ("Shoot The b**tards")
Absolutely disgusted - police murdering innocent children !? How can you not have strong views on this?Do you find this on some level acceptable?
As I previously said:
"As for myself, I cannot really justify a 'Shoot-on-Sight' policy on grounds of principle. If nothing else, the danger to innocent bystanders makes it problematical for me"Consequently, I find the death of an innocent bystander deeply troubling. That said, unless there was evidence of great recklessness etc, I'm not sure that a death in such circumstances could automatically be termed "murder". Is it "murder" for instance, if a 3 y.o. gets knocked down by a police car racing to the scene of a crime, if it was being driven well in excess of the speed limit?
As for my "strong views" etc, maybe I was clumsy in my use of language. What I meant to say was that although I find the incident disturbing, I don't know enough about it specifically, or the crime situation in SA generally, to be in a position to strongly condemn
or support the police.
I am open to persuasion either way, following further information though.
EG - in my own opinion a police force,regardless of where in the world it is,or what the circumstances are,that has an open shoot to kill policy should be roundly condemned and called to task over their actions.I guess we just look at the world very differently.
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:30:01 PM
EG - in my own opinion a police force,regardless of where in the world it is,or what the circumstances are,that has an open shoot to kill policy should be roundly condemned and called to task over their actions.
Fair enough and if I hadn't seen some of the things I did growing up in NI, I might join you in that blanket condemnation.
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:30:01 PM
I guess we just look at the world very differently.
Indeed.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:30:01 PM
EG - in my own opinion a police force,regardless of where in the world it is,or what the circumstances are,that has an open shoot to kill policy should be roundly condemned and called to task over their actions.
Fair enough and if I hadn't seen some of the things I did growing up in NI, I might join you in that blanket condemnation.
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:30:01 PM
I guess we just look at the world very differently.
Indeed.
So to an extent you agree with a shoot to kill policy of a police force in a supposed democratic state?
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:39:54 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:33:59 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:30:01 PM
EG - in my own opinion a police force,regardless of where in the world it is,or what the circumstances are,that has an open shoot to kill policy should be roundly condemned and called to task over their actions.
Fair enough and if I hadn't seen some of the things I did growing up in NI, I might join you in that blanket condemnation.
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:30:01 PM
I guess we just look at the world very differently.
Indeed.
So to an extent you agree with a shoot to kill policy of a police force in a supposed democratic state?
In principle, no. But in certain circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily rush to condemn it (or at least I wouldn't have any sympathy for the intended targets).
And if that makes me unprincipled, then I guess it must be so.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:57:14 PM
Oh I dunno...
Maybe between:
Northern Ireland - a politically divided society where ruthless gangs were murdering and terrorising the people, so that the forces of Law and Order allegedly authorised a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy, to try to stop it all from escalating,
Versus
South Africa - a politically divided society where ruthless gangs are murdering and terrorising the people, so that the forces of Law and Order are publicly authorising a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy, to try to stop it all from escalating...
No? ::)
You are insinuating there is something to compare in six Armagh murders in 1982 and something that's happening in South Africa at the moment.
In each of these incidents the RUC knowingly shot dead six unarmed men who could have been arrested. You allege this was an attempt to stop violence from escalating when it's obvious to all impartial observers that they were nothing more than revenge/reprisal killings by the state which could only escalate into more violence.
Now what exactly are the similarities with the article you have posted about South Africa?
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 03:57:14 PM
Oh I dunno...
Maybe between:
Northern Ireland - a politically divided society where ruthless gangs were murdering and terrorising the people, so that the forces of Law and Order allegedly authorised a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy, to try to stop it all from escalating,
Versus
South Africa - a politically divided society where ruthless gangs are murdering and terrorising the people, so that the forces of Law and Order are publicly authorising a "Shoot-on-Sight" policy, to try to stop it all from escalating...
No? ::)
You are insinuating there is something to compare in six Armagh murders in 1982 and something that's happening in South Africa at the moment.
In each of these incidents the RUC knowingly shot dead six unarmed men who could have been arrested. You allege this was an attempt to stop violence from escalating when it's obvious to all impartial observers that they were nothing more than revenge/reprisal killings by the state which could only escalate into more violence.
Now what exactly are the similarities with the article you have posted about South Africa?
Donagh- to be fair to the man he has admitted to being unprincipled i.e; lacking moral scruples , surely this invalidates his opinion on any issues of morality.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
You are insinuating there is something to compare in six Armagh murders in 1982 and something that's happening in South Africa at the moment.
In each of these incidents the RUC knowingly shot dead six unarmed men who could have been arrested. You allege this was an attempt to stop violence from escalating when it's obvious to all impartial observers that they were nothing more than revenge/reprisal killings by the state which could only escalate into more violence.
Now what exactly are the similarities with the article you have posted about South Africa?
I was not referring to six individual cases in NI, rather, I was referring to the (former) general situation in NI and the (present) general situation in SA, that's all.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
In each of these incidents the RUC knowingly shot dead six unarmed men who could have been arrested. You allege this was an attempt to stop violence from escalating when it's obvious to all impartial observers that they were nothing more than revenge/reprisal killings by the state which could only escalate into more violence.
That is how you characterise it, I would do so differently.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
Now what exactly are the similarities with the article you have posted about South Africa?
I suspect it is your closeness to the situation in NI which is preventing you from "seeing the wood for the trees". Of course there are many differences between NI and SA; however, on this particular topic there may also be said to be certain parallels.
At least, that's my opinion; or is this another* instance where other people are not allowed to deviate from the Party Line, as determined by Donagh? :o
* - Derry Priests leaving the Church to marry being just the latest one... ::)
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:57:57 PM
Donagh- to be fair to the man he has admitted to being unprincipled i.e; lacking moral scruples , surely this invalidates his opinion on any issues of morality.
Wow. You try to be open and honest, then you get misrepresented like that. I don't think I'll make that mistake again!
Anyhow for the record, all I was trying to get across is that I have mixed feelings on this matter.
To take a topical analogy, it's a bit like Capital Punishment: my head tells me that that is wrong, but when I see child killers and rapists etc, my heart says "String 'Em Up".
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 05:34:41 PM
I was not referring to six individual cases in NI, rather, I was referring to the (former) general situation in NI and the (present) general situation in SA, that's all.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
In each of these incidents the RUC knowingly shot dead six unarmed men who could have been arrested. You allege this was an attempt to stop violence from escalating when it's obvious to all impartial observers that they were nothing more than revenge/reprisal killings by the state which could only escalate into more violence.
That is how you characterise it, I would do so differently.
Quote from: Donagh on November 17, 2009, 04:47:12 PM
Now what exactly are the similarities with the article you have posted about South Africa?
I suspect it is your closeness to the situation in NI which is preventing you from "seeing the wood for the trees". Of course there are many differences between NI and SA; however, on this particular topic there may also be said to be certain parallels.
At least, that's my opinion; or is this another* instance where other people are not allowed to deviate from the Party Line, as determined by Donagh? :o
* - Derry Priests leaving the Church to marry being just the latest one... ::)
I assumed when you posted it on a thread about the six Armagh murders that you believed there was some relevance to those incidents. My mistake then.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 05:39:35 PM
Quote from: redhugh on November 17, 2009, 04:57:57 PM
Donagh- to be fair to the man he has admitted to being unprincipled i.e; lacking moral scruples , surely this invalidates his opinion on any issues of morality.
Wow. You try to be open and honest, then you get misrepresented like that. I don't think I'll make that mistake again!
Anyhow for the record, all I was trying to get across is that I have mixed feelings on this matter.
To take a topical analogy, it's a bit like Capital Punishment: my head tells me that that is wrong, but when I see child killers and rapists etc, my heart says "String 'Em Up".
EG - it was not my intention to misrepresent,and if that's how you feel I apologise.But lets be real when you mentioned the word unprincipled about yourself.....well you did leave yourself open to it.Reading your posts in general I don't actually think that you are unprincipled, I think it was the wrong word to use about yourself in that context.I think our opinions differ wildly on many topics, but hey - that's what the world is all about.
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:45:03 PM
....t in certain circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily rush to condemn it (or at least I wouldn't have any sympathy for the intended targets).
Two different things though. One can whole-heartedly condemn the actual policy and actions of the security forces without ever feeling an ounce of sympathy for terrorists that died.
However as a policy (I don't buy the "alleged" distinction), it
appeared (like other policies) to be effected against one side of the community rather than the other. Also when there was a widely held suspicion of the security forces by nationalists (for a large part justified) then this policy and in particular incidents where the wrong person was killed added to that perception. The subsequent issues with Stalker's investigation and the strange bad luck that followed him for a few years after add to this. Indeed the continued failure to hand-over documents is surely grist to the mill of even the most moderate of conspiracy theorists.
The evidence that has leaked out would suggest that in many of these cases arrests could have been made. From an operational point of view, these arrests would have taken these operatives out of circulation. This would not have had the same negative impact on the nationalist community perception of the security forces and could have improved community relations.
So in that aspect I (for once) find myself in agreement with Donagh that the incidents contributed to the spiral of violence.
Also, your comparison with capital punishment doesn't think into account the rather summary nature of these incidents.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on November 17, 2009, 06:06:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on November 17, 2009, 04:45:03 PM
....t in certain circumstances, I wouldn't necessarily rush to condemn it (or at least I wouldn't have any sympathy for the intended targets).
Two different things though. One can whole-heartedly condemn the actual policy and actions of the security forces without ever feeling an ounce of sympathy for terrorists that died.
Yes, but when I consider at least some of the people (allegedly) targeted, it goes beyond not feeling any sympathy, to the stage of actively being glad. Which I realise will repel and offend a lot of people on this Board, but there you have it.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on November 17, 2009, 06:06:15 PM
However as a policy (I don't buy the "alleged" distinction), it appeared (like other policies) to be effected against one side of the community rather than the other. Also when there was a widely held suspicion of the security forces by nationalists (for a large part justified) then this policy and in particular incidents where the wrong person was killed added to that perception. The subsequent issues with Stalker's investigation and the strange bad luck that followed him for a few years after add to this. Indeed the continued failure to hand-over documents is surely grist to the mill of even the most moderate of conspiracy theorists.
The evidence that has leaked out would suggest that in many of these cases arrests could have been made. From an operational point of view, these arrests would have taken these operatives out of circulation. This would not have had the same negative impact on the nationalist community perception of the security forces and could have improved community relations.
So in that aspect I (for once) find myself in agreement with Donagh that the incidents contributed to the spiral of violence.
Yep, it's not an easy topic (for me, at least). Then again, that is my whole point.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on November 17, 2009, 06:06:15 PM
Also, your comparison with capital punishment doesn't think into account the rather summary nature of these incidents.
Which is precisely why I used the term "analogy", rather than "comparison". The distinction is important.
30 years later and still no inquest.
PSNI rebuffs coroner over Special Branch's handling of Stalker report
12 NOVEMBER 2012
http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/146/psni-reject-coroners-request/psni-rebuffs-coroner-over-special-branchs-handling-of-stalker-report (http://www.thedetail.tv/issues/146/psni-reject-coroners-request/psni-rebuffs-coroner-over-special-branchs-handling-of-stalker-report)
(http://www.thedetail.tv/system/photos/images/1434/article/1434.jpg?1350658641)
BY BARRY McCAFFREY
A DISPUTE over three of the most controversial security force killings of the Troubles has left Northern Ireland's senior coroner John Leckey and Chief Constable Matt Baggott at loggerheads.
Mr Leckey is due to open inquests into the RUC killings of six men in incidents in Co Armagh 30 years ago – but wants answers first as to how former members of the force's Special Branch have been chosen by the chief constable to decide what sensitive information should be disclosed.
The request for answers from the chief constable came last month after Mr Leckey was informed that four former Special Branch officers and a fifth policeman, who worked inside RUC intelligence, had been given the task of trawling through top secret intelligence files relating to the 1982 killings and deciding what evidence should be disclosed to inquests.
The admission that former Special Branch officers had been given such a key role in deciding what information is to be disclosed to the inquests has caused anger among the families of those killed because of the central role that the controversial police unit played in their deaths.
Mr Leckey's inquests are to examine the deaths of:
:: Unarmed IRA men Eugene Toman, Sean Burns and Gervaise McKerr shot dead on November 11 1982 near Craigavon;
:: Teenager Michael Tighe on November 24 1982 on a farm near Lurgan; and
:: Unarmed INLA members Seamus Grew and Roddy Carrol on December 12 1982 near Armagh.
STALKER REPORT KEY TO `SHOOT TO KILL` INQUESTS
The shootings caused controversy in 1982 after it emerged that the RUC officers involved had been instructed by their Special Branch superiors to deliberately lie to cover-up the true circumstances surrounding the killings.
A key part of the evidence to be heard in the forthcoming inquests relates to a report written by then Greater Manchester Deputy Chief Constable John Stalker, who had been called in to investigate the shootings in 1984.
Stalker's report has been kept under wraps for nearly 30 years after he was dramatically removed from the investigation in 1986 shortly before his findings were due to be published.
He later wrote that he only came to realize the overwhelming influence Special Branch had over the rest of the RUC when his investigation started.
"The Special Branch targeted the suspected terrorists, they briefed the officers, and after the shootings they removed the men, cars and guns for a private de-briefing before CID officers were allowed any access to these crucial matters," he said.
The inquests into the six killings have become the longest of their kind in British legal history.
But the legal case took another twist last month when a preliminary hearing was told that the chief constable had put former Special Branch officers in charge of deciding what information from the Stalker report should be disclosed to the inquest.
The disclosure led the coroner to ask the chief constable to provide him with information relating to the role the former officers had played in Special Branch.
There is no suggestion that the former Special Branch officers were involved in the 1982 incidents.
However it has now emerged that Mr Baggott has refused Mr Leckey's request.
In a letter to the coroner's office, a lawyer acting for the PSNI wrote:
"It is not accepted that the Senior Coroner has power to direct inquiries to the Chief Constable in respect of his staff or the contractors he engages to assist in the discharge of his statutory functions."
Responding to concerns expressed by Mr Leckey and the families' legal teams at protracted delays in the PSNI handing over sensitive information to the coroner, it said:
"The suggestion that an inordinate period of time has passed without the issue being addressed by the Chief Constable is simply not correct."
The lawyer also said officials from the coroner's office had not voiced concerns previously after having personally met the former Special Branch officers during a visit to a police station where the Stalker files are held, and said:
"The Chief Constable has expressed his surprise at the interrogatories you have now furnished on this point given the constructive engagement between your counsel and the support staff that has facilitated the rapid progression of the disclosure process in this, and other, inquests."
The correspondence states that Mr Baggott does not believe that the former role of the Special Branch officers is relevant to the forthcoming inquests and "is not minded to release information from the personnel records of former police officers in the absence of consent from the individuals concerned."
The letter also stated that Mr Baggott had a legal obligation to protect the rights of the officers involved in the 1982 shootings, and concluded:
"The Chief Constable also has broader substantive Article 2 (right to life) duties in respect of those who were involved in the 1982 incidents and to that end he must ensure that the discharge of the section 8 disclosure process is appropriately conducted in order to minimize any risks to police or other personnel."
More evidence if any was needed.
PPS will not oppose Martin McCauley's weapons appeal
By Vincent Kearney
BBC News NI Home Affairs Correspondent
Mr McCauley, seen here in the middle, was arrested along with Niall Connolly and James Monaghan in Colombia in 2001
The Public Prosecution Service has said it will not oppose an appeal by one of the so-called Colombia Three against a weapons conviction.
Martin McCauley was seriously wounded and a teenager was killed when police opened fire on a hayshed in County Armagh in 1982.
It later emerged that the security services had secretly recorded what happened.
The evidence was not made available to the court during his trial.
The 52-year-old, from Lurgan, County Armagh, was arrested along with Niall Connolly and James Monaghan in Colombia in 2001 and accused of IRA training of rebel FARC guerrilla forces.
They were initially cleared of the charge, only to be convicted on appeal and sentenced to 17 years in jail.
But the three men avoided imprisonment by fleeing Colombia in 2004, turning up in the Republic of Ireland a year later.
Even though Mr McCauley faces extradition to South America if he returns to Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal in Belfast is examining a weapons conviction for which he received a two-year suspended jail sentence.
Police claimed Martin McCauley confronted them with a rifle at a hayshed 32 years ago during the so-called RUC shoot to kill incident.
He was seriously injured and Michael Tighe was killed when RUC officers opened fire.
In 1985, Martin McCauley was convicted of possession of three rifles found inside the shed and given a two-year suspended sentence.
He had insisted he and Michael Tighe, had not been armed and that the police opened fire without warning.
The police told the court that was not true.
Years after his conviction, it was revealed that MI5 had a listening device hidden inside the hayshed at the time of the shooting that recorded what happened.
That recording could have re-established whether the police issued any warnings or made any reference to Mr McCauley being armed before they opened fire.
The existence of the recording was not made known to the court at the time of his trial.
Destroyed
Its existence was discovered by the former Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, Sir John Stalker, as part of his investigation into allegations that the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) was operating a shoot to kill policy.
Martin McCauley was seriously wounded and a teenager killed when police opened fire on a hayshed in 1982
He also discovered that the recording was later destroyed.
Last year, the Criminal Cases Review Commission referred his case to the Court of Appeal, on the basis that potentially significant material had been withheld from the judge.
In a dramatic development on Wednesday, Gerald Simpson QC told the court he had been instructed to read a statement on behalf of the prosecution service.
It said material relevant to the decision to prosecute Mr McCauley was withheld from the director of public prosecutions at the time, from the court and from the defence in the trial.
The statement said this served only to undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and to bring it into disrepute.
The lawyer told the three Appeal Court judges that the prosecution service would not be making any submissions to uphold the conviction and invited them to exercise their discretion to quash it.
Vital evidence
The judges will sit next week to decide whether to do so.
Mr McCauley's lawyers will argue that the conviction should be quashed on the basis that vital evidence was not available to the trial judge.
The contents of John Stalker's investigation into the incident have never been made public.
The lawyers hope that will change during next week's hearing.
"Mr McCauley was tried in public, and he was convicted in public and it's his fundamental right that these documents be opened in the public court, so that he and the general public are aware of what actually occurred," Mr McCauley's lawyer, Fearghal Shiels, said.
Mr McCauley was not in court to hear the prosecution statement on Wednesday as he faces extradition to south America if he returns to Northern Ireland.
See Karen Bradley had another bad day at the office, speaking about so called "security force killings". How that woman is in cabinet is beyond belief....absolutely thick.
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 06, 2019, 01:54:51 PM
See Karen Bradley had another bad day at the office, speaking about so called "security force killings". How that woman is in cabinet is beyond belief....absolutely thick.
I think it is just basic incompetence and a lack of knowledge rather than any deep seated belief that she holds. If this Brexit process has served to highlight anything it is the fact that an awful lot of British politicians are incredibly inept and ignorant when it comes to Ireland.
Absolutely despicable, she has to go.
Quote from: yellowcard on March 06, 2019, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 06, 2019, 01:54:51 PM
See Karen Bradley had another bad day at the office, speaking about so called "security force killings". How that woman is in cabinet is beyond belief....absolutely thick.
I think it is just basic incompetence and a lack of knowledge rather than any deep seated belief that she holds. If this Brexit process has served to highlight anything it is the fact that an awful lot of British politicians are incredibly inept and ignorant when it comes to Ireland.
Fixed that
She's an awful person. She's pandering to the DUP. She isn't an honest broker. I wouldn't be as kind to say it's incompetence. I think she knows exactly what she is saying and doing.
Quote from: trailer on March 06, 2019, 02:10:44 PM
Quote from: yellowcard on March 06, 2019, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 06, 2019, 01:54:51 PM
See Karen Bradley had another bad day at the office, speaking about so called "security force killings". How that woman is in cabinet is beyond belief....absolutely thick.
I think it is just basic incompetence and a lack of knowledge rather than any deep seated belief that she holds. If this Brexit process has served to highlight anything it is the fact that an awful lot of British politicians are incredibly inept and ignorant when it comes to Ireland.
Fixed that
She's an awful person. She's pandering to the DUP. She isn't an honest broker. I wouldn't be as kind to say it's incompetence. I think she knows exactly what she is saying and doing.
I've only read the comments in print so if she doesn't now retract them and apologise, then that debunks my earlier statement about it being down to incompetence rather than her actual belief.
There is no doubt that she is simply pandering to the DUP but that is probably no different to many other Tory ministers and MPs in that regard.
Presumably, Ministers read something out that has been prepared for them, in advance. It has been drafted & re-drafted, as often as is necessary. It's hard to believe that it was an off the cuff slip up. Amnesty for all "crown forces" about to be passed & pretty soon.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47471469
Absolute cnut....listening to that fckr from Markethill as if she has a clue. Bastards the lot of them ....
Looking forward to the Irish boycotting Cheltenham😳
Absolutely disgraceful remarks. Has to go.
What does it matter if she goes? She'll only be replaced by another numpty who knows feck all about the situation here.
This is all to get support in Parliament for closing down all historical enquiries. And you know what, I think it will happen.
This wasn't just a 'slip of the tongue'.
There's no low that these f#%^*#s won't stoop to, Bradley has to go ... and can we please have a border poll to get this BS sorted once and for all.
Quote from: balladmaker on March 07, 2019, 12:43:40 AM
There's no low that these f#%^*#s won't stoop to, Bradley has to go ... and can we please have a border poll to get this BS sorted once and for all.
You want the North to remain part of the UK forever, that's it, issue decided?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47492069
Again this highlights the total contempt that the Tories and Unionists have for us of a nationalist background. To see the DUP mps nodding like Pavlov's dogs as Bradley gave her speech makes my blood boil.
They are only saying what she has told them to say and is just a puppet. She still should go. I would say has to go however the boundaries for an MP to go these days are as low as they have ever been and short of some heinous crime I don't know what would cause an MP from the tories or the DUP to resign.
Aidan McAnespie - never forgotten.
A former soldier is to stand trial over the death of Aidan McAnespie.
The 23 year old was shot dead as he passed through a checkpoint at Aughnacloy in February 1988.
50 year old David Jonathan Holden has been charged with manslaughter.
He has been remanded on bail to appear in Court in Belfast on February 14th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGA4xHZQx0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGA4xHZQx0)
Will Flanagan and Varadkar condemn the Prosecution??
Former British Soldier David Holden has just been found guilty of the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie on 21st February 1988. Sadly, Aidan's father passed away just a few weeks ago and didn't live to see this day come.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 25, 2022, 12:10:48 PM
Former British Soldier David Holden has just been found guilty of the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie on 21st February 1988. Sadly, Aidan's father passed away just a few weeks ago and didn't live to see this day come.
Heartbreaking.
Mad. In the hour and a half since posting the news of the first British Soldier to be convicted since the GFA (one of only handful of them to have ever been convicted in relation to a killing here), and given the high profile nature of the case, and the fact that Aidan was a GAA man, you'd have thought this news might have seen a bit of discussion/reaction ???
Just one day after the British Government took it's latest step towards bringing in a blanket amnesty for all it's security force personnel, it seems (if the last hour and a half's activity is anything to go by) that gaaboarders are still more concerned about a week old story where some drunk woman said 'up the ra' to Arlene Foster.
Quote from: Armagh18 on November 25, 2022, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 25, 2022, 12:10:48 PM
Former British Soldier David Holden has just been found guilty of the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie on 21st February 1988. Sadly, Aidan's father passed away just a few weeks ago and didn't live to see this day come.
Heartbreaking.
A long time to wait but justice has been served to some extent.
Quote from: Snapchap on November 25, 2022, 01:40:10 PM
Mad. In the hour and a half since posting the news of the first British Soldier to be convicted since the GFA (one of only handful of them to have ever been convicted in relation to a killing here), and given the high profile nature of the case, and the fact that Aidan was a GAA man, you'd have thought this news might have seen a bit of discussion/reaction ???
Just one day after the British Government took it's latest step towards bringing in a blanket amnesty for all it's security force personnel, it seems (if the last hour and a half's activity is anything to go by) that gaaboarders are still more concerned about a week old story where some drunk woman said 'up the ra' to Arlene Foster.
So you only posted it to complain that nobody is commenting on it ? Strange behaviour
Interesting to see what unionist politicians have to say about it
Will they be as keen to defend him now he's a convicted killer?
Is it still a "witch hunt" dragging these soldiers through the courts? Well, today we have the answer
Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on November 25, 2022, 01:40:40 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on November 25, 2022, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 25, 2022, 12:10:48 PM
Former British Soldier David Holden has just been found guilty of the manslaughter of Aidan McAnespie on 21st February 1988. Sadly, Aidan's father passed away just a few weeks ago and didn't live to see this day come.
Heartbreaking.
A long time to wait but justice has been served to some extent.
Too little too late, a real shame his father didn't live to see today. May they both rest in peace
It will be viewed as an unfortunate incident but quickly wrapped up into the witch hunt debate of young soldiers doing they job bla bla bla.
Will soon be seeing Soldier F type banners all over the usual spots.
This place is nothing if not predictable.
Quote from: Kidder81 on November 25, 2022, 01:44:46 PM
Quote from: Snapchap on November 25, 2022, 01:40:10 PM
Mad. In the hour and a half since posting the news of the first British Soldier to be convicted since the GFA (one of only handful of them to have ever been convicted in relation to a killing here), and given the high profile nature of the case, and the fact that Aidan was a GAA man, you'd have thought this news might have seen a bit of discussion/reaction ???
Just one day after the British Government took it's latest step towards bringing in a blanket amnesty for all it's security force personnel, it seems (if the last hour and a half's activity is anything to go by) that gaaboarders are still more concerned about a week old story where some drunk woman said 'up the ra' to Arlene Foster.
So you only posted it to complain that nobody is commenting on it ? Strange behaviour
I posted it because its a big news story today. Is it not?
Quote from: AustinPowers on November 25, 2022, 01:48:09 PM
Interesting to see what unionist politicians have to say about it
Will they be as keen to defend him now he's a convicted killer?
Is it still a "witch hunt" dragging these soldiers through the courts? Well, today we have the answer
As NAG1 said, this place is utterly predictable. Carla Lockhard would be posing for photos beside him if she got a half a chance.
I very much doubt he will serve much / any time but the verdict does send out the message that there was wrongdoing on both sides.
Carla must not have been able to give him Covid in time.
Was on at the southern side of the border in Aughnacloy that Sunday, as an 11 year old. That murder always stayed with me, remember a very angry Garda telling my father about a young fella been shot for no reason and to find an alternative route home.
Good to see some justice for Aidan.
No doubt there'll be an appeal, bail and foot dragging till he passes away.
Hopefully his family and friends get some sense of justice. Took far too long.
Finally some justice even if it has come far to late for the McAnespie family.
I wasnt following the court case but of course familiar with the case. How come only Manslaughter? Always struck me as the act of an utter coward and I hope he enjoys his time in jail and hopefully he never gets out of it.
Quote from: Itchy on November 25, 2022, 03:48:17 PM
I wasnt following the court case but of course familiar with the case. How come only Manslaughter? Always struck me as the act of an utter coward and I hope he enjoys his time in jail and hopefully he never gets out of it.
From reading some of the reporting it seems that whilst his claim the rifle slipped because his hands were wet was laughed out they accepted his story he didn't realise the gun was cocked.
Well done to Brian and all the McAnespie and Gormley families for not letting this go and for finally getting their day in Court.
Makes u wonder how this case, like many other were not properly dealt with at the time, how much pressure from England was been put on Judges here at the time, plus am sure the Judges were 90% Protestant/Unionist at the time and impartiality was only a buzz word.
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on November 25, 2022, 07:49:38 PM
Makes u wonder how this case, like many other were not properly dealt with at the time, how much pressure from England was been put on Judges here at the time, plus am sure the Judges were 90% Protestant/Unionist at the time and impartiality was only a buzz word.
It rarely reached the Judges. Soldiers acted with impunity, knowing the higher ups would protect their own. When the RUC were involved they were generally happy enough to let the Army brass deal with it.
Still mentioned in today's headlines that ' he was a suspected IRA member and a person of interest ' despite no evidence that has been published. He was an innocent young man murdered going to a football match, that should have sufficed.
Quote from: LeoMc on November 25, 2022, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on November 25, 2022, 07:49:38 PM
Makes u wonder how this case, like many other were not properly dealt with at the time, how much pressure from England was been put on Judges here at the time, plus am sure the Judges were 90% Protestant/Unionist at the time and impartiality was only a buzz word.
It rarely reached the Judges. Soldiers acted with impunity, knowing the higher ups would protect their own. When the RUC were involved they were generally happy enough to let the Army brass deal with it.
Speaking of the role of judges. The Rock Bar in Granemore, Co Armagh was targeted in a gun and bomb attack in 1976. 17 innocent people were in the bar and by a miracle, all survived. All four of those who carried out the attack were on-duty RUC officers. They arrived to carry out the attack in an unmarked police car. Some of those involved returned to the scene shortly after to take statements from survivors. When it came to trial, the judge, Lord Lowry, sympathised with the attackers, saying in his summing up that "more than ordinary police work was needed and was justified to rid the land of the pestilence which has been in existence."
The message then from the judiciary was that Catholics were legitimate targets.
Quote from: grounded on November 25, 2022, 09:33:00 PM
Still mentioned in today's headlines that ' he was a suspected IRA member and a person of interest ' despite no evidence that has been published. He was an innocent young man murdered going to a football match, that should have sufficed.
poor that they were allowed to print that
Quote from: tonto1888 on November 26, 2022, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: grounded on November 25, 2022, 09:33:00 PM
Still mentioned in today's headlines that ' he was a suspected IRA member and a person of interest ' despite no evidence that has been published. He was an innocent young man murdered going to a football match, that should have sufficed.
poor that they were allowed to print that
Was mentioned outside the court also, have solicitors grounds to question that?
Let's not kid ourselves that justice was served today, the Judge may have dismissed his wet finger bullshit but bought the uncocked aspect of this which changed the crime from murder to manslaughter.
I'll wait on the sentencing before passing true judgement as I can see it being the minimum as possible they could give him.
Be surprised he does any actual time
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 26, 2022, 01:01:49 PM
Be surprised he does any actual time
He will do time. How long is questionable but he will do time
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on November 26, 2022, 01:36:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 26, 2022, 01:01:49 PM
Be surprised he does any actual time
He will do time. How long is questionable but he will do time
If the government change the law before his appeal is heard does he walk?
Quote from: keep her low this half on November 28, 2022, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on November 26, 2022, 01:36:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 26, 2022, 01:01:49 PM
Be surprised he does any actual time
He will do time. How long is questionable but he will do time
If the government change the law before his appeal is heard does he walk?
He cannot appeal until the judge delivers the sentence. And if he's sentenced to do time in prison, he has to do that while his appeal goes through the system.
Hard to credit that he's only 53 years old.