Loughanisland Murders - Ombudsman Fudge

[Evil Genius]

EG and Tonto must have missed this thread 

What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.

Thank you, Minder (I'd missed your post whilst typing my own, above).

Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect and even at this late stage, if the vermin who did it could be brought to trial and convicted, then they should. Moreover, Good Friday Agreement or no, they should never be released.

And that goes for everyone  who may have been involved, no matter how peripherally.

Utterly, utterly shameful.

[HiMucker]

EG and Tonto must have missed this thread 

What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.

Thank you, Minder (I'd missed your post whilst typing my own, above).

Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect and even at this late stage, if the vermin who did it could be brought to trial and convicted, then they should. Moreover, Good Friday Agreement or no, they should never be released.And that goes for everyone  who may have been involved, no matter how peripherally.

Utterly, utterly shameful.

I think this is one of the aspects were the GFA falls down.  It is my personal opinion that the people involved in orchestrating some of the worst crimes during the troubles should  still be prosecuted under international law for crimes against humanity.  Whether that be bloody sunday, Darkly, Kingsmills, Loughanisland or the Greysteel shooting.  Some of the people that have been prosecuted in the balkans had peace agreements made but they were still able to be prosecuted

[ross matt]

EG and Tonto must have missed this thread 

What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre. You can be a Protestant and unioinist and not approve of that type of mayhem, the same way that you can be a catholic and nationalist and not approve of the IRA campaign. Sure all you have to do is say "the Loughinisland massacre was wrong, and should not have happened" and everything is fine and dandy.

Thank you, Minder (I'd missed your post whilst typing my own, above).

Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect and even at this late stage, if the vermin who did it could be brought to trial and convicted, then they should. Moreover, Good Friday Agreement or no, they should never be released.And that goes for everyone  who may have been involved, no matter how peripherally.

Utterly, utterly shameful.

I think this is one of the aspects were the GFA falls down.  It is my personal opinion that the people involved in orchestrating some of the worst crimes during the troubles should  still be prosecuted under international law for crimes against humanity.  Whether that be bloody sunday, Darkly, Kingsmills, Loughanisland or the Greysteel shooting.  Some of the people that have been prosecuted in the balkans had peace agreements made but they were still able to be prosecuted

+ 1000 (and especially those who "directed" the terrorism on both side plus within the british administration).

[Rossfan]

EG and Tonto must have missed this thread 

What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre.

Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect Utterly, utterly shameful.

I never expected EG to condone the Loughinisland murders .He is consistent in condemning all  killings by paramilitaries and other non government bodies.( except those in Derry on bloody Sunday)
. I was noting he at that time hadnt commented about the criticism of the former Police force contained in the report.
He has now and accepts that it was a "keystone cops" investigation. I believe it was a case of " what's the fuss ,they were only Fenians" and strongly suspect there was some collusion or looking the other way by elements of the former ( sectarian/unionist) police force.

As for Tonto .. seems  its "Prod/Unionist/British/RUC = good while Catholic/Nationalist/Republican/Irish = bad. 

[Evil Genius]

EG and Tonto must have missed this thread 

What age are you? I cant imagine either of those posters approving of the Loughinisland massacre.

Anyhow, whilst it should go without saying, I feel somehow obliged to add that what happened at Loughinisland was totally wrong in every respect Utterly, utterly shameful.

I never expected EG to condone the Loughinisland murders .He is consistent in condemning all  killings by paramilitaries and other non government bodies.( except those in Derry on bloody Sunday)

Actually, to be precise, I have consistently condemned all unlawful  killings, by any group within NI.

Obviously every killing by every paramilitary group falls within that category, but I accept that on occasion, members of the Security Forces committed unlawful killing, manslaughter or murder, whether in the heat of the moment (eg Bloody Sunday) or pre-meditated and pre-planned (eg Collusion and Infiltration).

In fact, in some ways I would condemn unlawful killings by Security Forces as worst of all, both because we give them power and authority, so can expect the very highest standards of behaviour; but also because the vile actions of a few unfairly and grievously detracted from the (often heroic) efforts of the many.

I was noting he at that time hadnt commented about the criticism of the former Police force contained in the report.
He has now and accepts that it was a "keystone cops" investigation. I believe it was a case of " what's the fuss ,they were only Fenians"...

That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant  victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.

... and strongly suspect there was some collusion or looking the other way by elements of the former ( sectarian/unionist) police force.

Hutchinson found evidence of gross incompetence, but no evidence of collusion.

If we accept one of his findings, I think we all have to accept both of them.

[deiseach]

That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant  victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.

Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter

[Evil Genius]

That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant  victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.

Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter

Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)

[Cáthasaigh]

Loughinisland was carried out with weapons provided  by the British government which were used by people who were paid by the British government. Everyone involved, from the shooters to the men giving the orders and those who covered it all up for them despite the eyewitness statements and the possibility of getting DNA from a getaway car which was kept for years then destroyed (they're trying to gaol Republicans over 30 y/old cigarette butts) has been granted immunity from prosecution.

Loughinisland was the result of deliberate, planned and well-resourced British policy.

There's more than the Ombudsman involved in the conspiracy.  Paid-off politicians are conspicuously silent.

[deiseach]

That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant  victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.

Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter

Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)

You believe that the RUC were just as likely to fail to adequately investigate crimes against Protestants as against Catholics. This is self-evidently preposterous

[Evil Genius]

That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant  victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.

Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter

Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)

You believe that the RUC were just as likely to fail to adequately investigate crimes against Protestants as against Catholics. This is self-evidently preposterous

That is not what I believe (or posted).

Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.

Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.

And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

That is a possibility which I can't discount (though not a conclusion to which I automatically jump, like some others on here).
I say this not because I seek to defend the police come-what-may, but I don't think people appreciate or acknowledge just how much pressure they were under in those times, with literally thousands of their colleagues slaughtered or maimed down the years, and horrendous new cases needing to be dealt with on a daily, if not hourly basis.
Consequently, there are many relatives of Protestant  victims who believe their cases were not adequately investigated - as the "clear-up" rates testify.

Whatever about the findings in this particular case, it requires an extraordinary degree of mental gymnastics to believe that the RUC were just as likely to be 'incompetent' in their investigation of Provo murders as they were in those committed by Loyalists. Or members of the security forces, for that matter

Can you rephrase? (It's probably me, but I'm not sure I understand what point it is you are making)

You believe that the RUC were just as likely to fail to adequately investigate crimes against Protestants as against Catholics. This is self-evidently preposterous

That is not what I believe (or posted).

Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.

Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.

And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

Al Hutchinsons parameters for collusion have been called into question.
Therefore his conclusions can certainly be drawn into question.

[deiseach]

That is not what I believe (or posted).

Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.

Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.

And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

So because there are Protestants who have grievances with the RUC and there are Catholics who have grievances with the RUC, Protestants and Catholics are equally entitled (or not, as the case may be) to have grievances with the RUC. As I said, self-evidently preposterous

Edit: I'm going to expand on what I am saying here. There are many cases where there is a prima facie reason to believe the RUC were motivated by sectarian impulses in their investigation of crimes against Catholics. There won't be a single case - not one - where the same could be said in their dealing with Protestants

[Evil Genius]

That is not what I believe (or posted).

Rather I was making the point that as well as atrocities involving Catholic victims, there have also been atrocities involving Protestant victims which have not been adequately investigated, leaving their grieving relatives highly dissatisfied.

Therefore when Catholics are the victims, we should not automatically assume that the police were not bothered for sectarian reasons, or were colluding with the killers, unless there is evidence for same.

And with Loughinisland, the Ombudsman said there was no such evidence.

That's the only point I was trying to make.

So because there are Protestants who have grievances with the RUC and there are Catholics who have grievances with the RUC, Protestants and Catholics are equally entitled (or not, as the case may be) to have grievances with the RUC. As I said, self-evidently preposterous

Where did I say, or even imply, "equally"?

I have elsewhere freely accepted and acknowledged that the RUC fell down seriously on a number of cases during the Troubles, for incompetence generally; for a lack of concern for victims (usually when/because they were Catholic); or even on some occasions when individual officers colluded in murders and/or covered up evidence etc.

But sticking rigourously to the Loughinisland case, if we accept it when the Ombudsman found evidence of gross incompetence, then imo we should also accept that he found no evidence of bias to explain that incompetence, much less collusion in the commission of the murders.

I hope that explains my view, since I cannot make myself any clearer.

[deiseach]

Where did I say, or even imply, "equally"?

I have elsewhere freely accepted and acknowledged that the RUC fell down seriously on a number of cases during the Troubles, for incompetence generally; for a lack of concern for victims (usually when/because they were Catholic); or even on some occasions when individual officers colluded in murders and/or covered up evidence etc.

But sticking rigourously to the Loughinisland case, if we accept it when the Ombudsman found evidence of gross incompetence, then imo we should also accept that he found no evidence of bias to explain that incompetence, much less collusion in the commission of the murders.

I hope that explains my view, since I cannot make myself any clearer.

I specifically excluded the specifics of Loughinisland from what I was saying. But the bit I've highlighted does clear things up for me. Thanks

[theskull1]

The point has already been made EG by GDA that the parameters for collusion in this investigation are not the parameters used be his predecessor Nuala O'Loan. There's a fair chance that Nuala O'loans office would have came to the opposite conclusion as a result of this difference in interpretation. I personally would prefer Nuala O'Loans general definition of collusion.