Shoot to Kill 1982

[Donagh]

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.

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.

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? 

* - 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.

[redhugh]

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.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

....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. 

[Evil Genius]

....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.

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.

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.

[Ulick]

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



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."

[orangeman]

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.

[playwiththewind1st]

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.

[yellowcard]

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.   

[Harold Disgracey]

Absolutely despicable, she has to go.

[trailer]

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.

[yellowcard]

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.

[playwiththewind1st]

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.

[Insane Bolt]

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 ....

[Insane Bolt]

Looking forward to the Irish boycotting Cheltenham😳

[Farrandeelin]

Absolutely disgraceful remarks. Has to go.