Irish governments turn to answer claims of collusion

[lawnseed]

The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!

If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?

+1

[AQMP]

The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!

If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?

There was a large republican funeral on...they were armed soldiers in plain clothes in an unmarked vehicle...yeah I wonder why they were there?  Didn't they take a wrong turn coming out of the barracks?

[armaghniac]

I have no doubt that on many many occasions during the conflict police / army in civilian gear have driven through republican areas and returned unscathed.

Not, I would have thought, in their own cars.

[Gaffer]

I have no doubt that on many many occasions during the conflict police / army in civilian gear have driven through republican areas and returned unscathed.

Not, I would have thought, in their own cars.

Unmarked police cars/ their own cars. What difference would that make?

Provos would have recognised police cars as easily as private ones!

[armaghniac]

Unmarked police cars/ their own cars. What difference would that make?
Provos would have recognised police cars as easily as private ones!

Basic common sense tells you not to drive around in a vehicle known to those who might shoot at you.

[Gaffer]

Obviously the two cops didn't know that their motor was known to others!

Sure you could compare it to Begley who walked along the Shankill Road.

He took a chance like the cops! He however was dubbed brave by the mates. They didn't state that he thought he was immune from being caught out!!!

[Maguire01]

Obviously the two cops didn't know that their motor was known to others!

Sure you could compare it to Begley who walked along the Shankill Road.

He took a chance like the cops! He however was dubbed brave by the mates. They didn't state that he thought he was immune from being caught out!!!

Gerry said the RUC men were brave too.

[Fear Bun Na Sceilpe]

Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.

And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc

What do you mean by 'has anyone addressed' it?
And as these were two senior officers, I doubt anyone higher was sanctioning it - I may be wrong.
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.

Within the RUC, within the families , I mean they were asking for trouble and they got it. I would doubt they could just head down there without getting clearance further up the chain. Stupid in the extreme. If it was my Father I'd be asking questions of the RUC command.
By accident ! Sweet mother of feck, if it was it makes you wonder how the Brits ever ruled the waves or anywhere else for that matter.

[Gaffer]

Has anybody addressed the question of why were these guys were so cavalier in their attitude to self preservation.
Let's do the craziest thing ever- drive through south Armagh in 1989 with no protection. FFs who sanctioned this within the RUC. Only surpassed by the 2 corporals driving into the republican funeral in west belfast.

And before the barrage of abuse starts this is a separate question to why did the lone guard collude etc

What do you mean by 'has anyone addressed' it?
And as these were two senior officers, I doubt anyone higher was sanctioning it - I may be wrong.
Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.

Within the RUC, within the families , I mean they were asking for trouble and they got it. I would doubt they could just head down there without getting clearance further up the chain. Stupid in the extreme. If it was my Father I'd be asking questions of the RUC command.
By accident ! Sweet mother of feck, if it was it makes you wonder how the Brits ever ruled the waves or anywhere else for that matter.

You could apply that  logic to any of the combatants who were killed during the troubles.

Eg. When it was clear there was an informant in east Tyrone in late 80s / early 90s the IRA still continued attacks and were caught out.

Surely they were asking for trouble and getting it.

[armaghniac]

The basic point is that if we can discuss on the an Internet forum whether they had a clue, then no complex collusion was needed for the IRA to become aware of what they were doing.

[Nally Stand]

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.

Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.

You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf

And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.

So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?

At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.

I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.

No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?

[Nally Stand]

Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.

The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!

If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?

It was reported by Widgery that the Bloody Sunday murderers were shot at first. It was reported that the British Army victims of an IRA ambush in Cappagh were really killed in a traffic accident in Germany ("when you're shot up in Cappagh, it puzzles me, how you end up in a car crash in Germany"). It was reported that Aidan McAnespie was shot by accident. FFS I honestly never knew it was possible to be so gullible. Any wonder you back the stoops. You think the only way undercover british forces would be at an IRA funeral would be if they just took a wrong turn?! I suppose the MRF didn't really exist either? Probably just undercover british soldiers who just kept taking wrong turns and accidentally shooting dead unarmed civilians in West Belfast? Sure "why else did they come to be there" after all? 

[Main Street]

What the fck is the argument here, I've missed it.
The IRA claim full responsibility for executing these RUC men. That's what the IRA did, they killed RUC members. Sinn Fein are quite aware and supportive of all what the IRA have admitted to. The IRA would regard this ambush with pride. A lot of work went into it and  infinitely a more professional operation than Dan Breen managed to stumble across all those years ago, but ideologically stands side by side.

[Maguire01]

So a report said there was collusion but could find zero evidence to prove it.

Why do you keep repeating this? He didn't say there was 'zero evidence' - he said there was no direct evidence, or 'smoking gun' - i.e. nothing tangible that could prove collusion beyond all reasonable doubt - no phone call, no document, no payment. But weighing up the evidence he heard / read etc. he concluded that on the balance of probabilities, there was collusion. There's no contradiction there, even if you and Gerry don't understand it.

You can read it all here - http://opac.oireachtas.ie/AWData/Library3/smithwickFinal03122013_171046.pdf

And he does state that it is plausible it could have happened without collusion, but he's set out why he came to a different conclusion.

So what you're saying is, Smithwick didn't say he didn't find evidence, but he IS saying he didn't find evidence?

At the end of the day, the findings of this report seem quite bizarre. Hard to ignore the potential for political interference. No evidence found, the man linked to leaking info to the IRA was cleared of wrongdoing, and an acknowledgement of the possibility that there was no collusion and yet we have a supposed "finding" that collusion was there? Wouldn't last long in a court of law would it? Mind you as far as I'm concerned the only collusion I'm sure of where the Guards are concerned is their utterly shameful collusion with the RUC.

I suggest you read up on the legal burden of proof. This finding isn't intended to stand in a criminal court - that wasn't the remit of the tribunal. You also need to understand the distinction drawn with the use of the term direct evidence. If you don't read the report - or at least its conclusions - then you're like Adams, reacting before he had a chance to read it and therefore not understanding what' it said. The case for collusion might not be convincing 'beyond reasonable doubt', but there's no contradiction in what the report says - just a failure by some to understand the language.

No shit, but as with other enquiries, eg. Saville, criminal trials could follow. My point being that after eight years, Smithwick couldn't find enough to hang a coat on never mind a criminal trial. Direct evidence is still evidence. What evidence of any kind did the report find to come to the conclusion that there was collusion? Sweet fcuk all. I'm not saying such a thing to argue there was no collusion. There could well have been, and frankly, there wasn't half enough collusion with the IRA and far too much with the RUC. My point is that the report is contradictory and is weak in convincing anybody that there was collusion. And as for criticism of Adams for not having read the whole report; do you think any TD who has commented on it, has read it all yet? Why single him out? Just because you don't like what he has to say?

Adams is singled out because he disagreed with the report despite not having read it. Smithwick spent eight years on the tribunal and report, yet Adams was able to disagree with it despite not having read it.

And the report may be 'weak' in terms of the burden of proof - you may even disagree that it points to collusion on the 'balance of probabilities - but it is not contradictory. Again, I suggest you read the report to understand the distinction made between direct evidence and the basis for Smithwick's conclusion.

[Maguire01]

Didn't the two soldiers drive into that funeral by accident? No real comparison if so.

The two corporals didn't drive into a high profile Republican funeral in the middle of Andytown by accident ffs!

If I'm not mistaken, that's what was reported. If not, why did they come to be there?

It was reported by Widgery that the Bloody Sunday murderers were shot at first. It was reported that the British Army victims of an IRA ambush in Cappagh were really killed in a traffic accident in Germany ("when you're shot up in Cappagh, it puzzles me, how you end up in a car crash in Germany"). It was reported that Aidan McAnespie was shot by accident. FFS I honestly never knew it was possible to be so gullible. Any wonder you back the stoops. You think the only way undercover british forces would be at an IRA funeral would be if they just took a wrong turn?! I suppose the MRF didn't really exist either? Probably just undercover british soldiers who just kept taking wrong turns and accidentally shooting dead unarmed civilians in West Belfast? Sure "why else did they come to be there" after all? 

My recollection of that event was the car driving towards the funeral cortege and then trying to reverse out. If my understanding of it is incorrect, then fair enough.