NI Medals

All NI campaign and decorations are to be posted to the Met police, who with the aid of Sinn Fein, will re-award them to the far more worthy Sinn Feiners and ex-PIRA members, who should have received them in the first place. :'(

 

Float like a hornet, sting like a swarm.

OK mate, it's in the post

 

Don't forget to tell them where to file their claim forms for being victimised!

You know, for being locked up because they merely bombed/shot/intimidated or murdered fellow humans to keep their small slice of power on behalf of the  (severe) minority

I believe £10,000 is the averadge so far!
Sorry that should be 6250 Euro's!

 

In the meantime, all Army personnel who have ever served in the province are to report to the internaltional criminal court for prosecution over their treatment of the nice peace loving Irish terrorists-sorry, fighters for justice.

 

One mans freedom fighter is another mansMURDERINGTERRORISTFCUKHEAD!

 

Hmmm.

Deep thought.   NI Medals.   Terrorists.   Freedom Fighters.   So much evoked by this thread !   Let's pump it up a wee bit.   Anyone with a 2/1 or higher out there ?!

Difference in practical effect of Terrorist/Freedom Fighter on the average citizen: ZERO.   Threat of death, intimidation, and erosion of common social values by Loyalist/Republican SCUM: incalculable.

If I thought for one nano-second that giving my GSM/ACSM to the Education Minister for NI, or pinning a nondescript bit of tin to Ian Paisley would prevent a single further injury in NI/elsewhere, I'd do it in a split nano-second.

Sad fact is, the Queen's Unks were Nazis to a man, and she's given Phil the Greek nineteen Medals for ramming the Royal Box to try to alter the strain.    The British Head of State constitutionally REVILES catholics, muslims, hindus, bhuddists etc.  

Her eldest WASP is a weirdo philanderer, who thinks he's a tampax.  Daughter is a one-off loser to a sausage-factory magnate.   Youngest is a knob-jerking wooftah, with more Mummy's cash than any queer I ever heard of.   Andy, the only one with any sort of values, is still sort-of-married to a stupid fat ginger sloan-ranger... who'll roll over and show her tits n bits to anyone who tickles her belly... provided they have loads of money and don't mind sucking a bit of upper-class toe-jam.

I can't be bothered arguing DeValera the Tout, Haughey the Fraudster... or Bertie the pig-shagger (shhhhhh !).

Take the fcukin lot of me Medals, Shamus hey.  Just don't bomb me shopping centre.

JS

 

Excuse me Shamus but I am in the Met Police and there are more than enough of my collegues wearing NI medals and other decorations on their tunics than to need donations from you, thank you.

The point of the Stevens Enquiry was to show that if you sup with the devil you need a long spoon. When handlers are giving their sources information and not the other way around you have to wonder who is really in charge of the relationship.   :-/

As protectors of the people of the United Kingdom it is our duty to obey UK law and not engage in or encourage a little bit of extra cirricula murder.

If rogue elements in the army felt they were so blameless why did they feel it neccessary to burn down the Commish's office, did they really think the police would be so stupid as to not copy the documents?  

HMP Ford Open is full of Rupert types who thought they were brighter than Mr Plod.  

There is a real message in this for todays security forces what ever uniform they are wearing. If you bend the rules in the war on terror you may be a hero today, but in 15 years time you will be up in front of some truth and reconcilliation hearing (or worse) explaing your actions to a liberal elite who supported your enemy in the first place.

Trotsky

 

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby becomes a monster".
Take from that what you will.  Have always believed though that in any sort of scrap, fighting by the rules doesn't mean being restricted by them.  If you're clever enough they can be used to your advantage.  If and when this big can of worms is eventually opened for all to see, it'll be interesting to see who's been cleverest of all in the long run.

 

Trotsky - when in glass house..etc  The Met are not exactly noted for their correct handling of the law in the UK in all cases either. Trotsky said:

How many terrorist investigations and sentences have been overturned due to "unsafe" conviction? i know they are not all the Met's

 

Trosky
who said we burnt down anybody's office ? ecxcept that int nuisance Ingram, a gullible journalist, and a publicity mad Chief Constable, do the Met not believe in evidence then? It so easy to slag off hundreds of special duty soldiers who can't reply and have to listen to this bullshit week in week out!

 

Well Shamus I have it on good authority (well the Daily Telegraph anyway) that it was the FRU who burnt down Mr Stevens office. My point is that obstruction on this level was pretty much doomed to failure.

Your absolutly right about the 70's investigations that went bent. The Birmingham  Pub bombings was a was West Mids and the Guildford 4 was (I believe) Surrey. I am sure that London has some similiar stories, but you must remember the cases were thrown out on forensic evidence and not police malpractice per se.  The Birmingham pub case was lost on the handling of playing cards that contained the same plastic coating as the PE used in the bombs, the rest is something of a political smoke screen.

Yeah, we have had our wrong uns and we allways will. Moving away from the terrorist theme and looking at police malpractice in general the biggest risk factor is the relationship between the handler and his or her sources.  The main corruption cases of the last 10 years have come from either 1)selling intelligence to criminal organisations or 2) Using the sources intelligence for private enterprise, often splitting the proceeds.  Please don't tell me that in 30 years of troubles all the army's handlers have been paragons of virtue .


There are many former undercover soldiers in the police, I have served with at least three to my knowledge. I have the deepest respect for people who can work in NI without showing out and I am well aware of what it is like to caught up in a public witch hunt (how we all enjoyed the Lawrence enquiry) however I would suspect that any group of rogue operators carrying out a killing campaign will be small and contained.The rest of the unit will be either unaware of what is happening or have so little of the story they will think that they are being paranoid in suspecting their colleagues and do nothing. This is no different to Police Officers working with corrupt collegues. As I know from experience when it gets out it is great surprise in deed.

Trotsky

 

I know I am going to tread on some genuine people's emotions here (one or two I know personally - sorry) BUT

I recently had a conversation with a friend who was around at that time in NI (and anyone who has read my threads knows what an unabashed, shameless Irishphile I am), when we discussed the indigenous population. Does anyone agree with me (Foggy, Shamus et al - please feel free to jump in and defend your honour!!!) and my mate that the folks who live in NI have a peculiarly 'plastic bubble' view of their world and the world that exists outside of NI? In other words, when you have spent any time in NI (even as a Brit) you become cocooned in a kind of 'NI mentality' where the normal 'rules of engagement/social norms/liberal type laws' take on a whole new (and different?) meaning.

The link to the post by Trotsky is that, I guess, when you have been so deeply buried in The Struggle, is that you do not see as 'wrong', what actually is not right? Is it 'right' to 'sell' intelligence (the price being other intelligence) to obtain a degree of perceived progress (in your view) in your fight against terrorism? Even if it leads to the (indirectly) unlawful killing of someone? I emphasise UNLAWFUL!

The police must face this kind of dilemma with the same kind of frequency as the military. Perhaps their transgressions have been exposed with greater frequency because they have not had Crown Immunity to hide behind........

 

Prodigal - I have no qualms in agreeing with you with regards to us locals and our "plastic bubble".  It's blatantly obvious that many of the good people here are convinced the world revolves around their own little province.  As for the other argument, I'm not sure I could give a purely logical and unbiased argument, either for or against.  Logic and objectivity are sometimes hard pushed to hold back raw emotion, especially with regards to certain topics!  However if pushed on the topic, I'd have to go with the "lesser of two evils" line.  If it turns out the authorities can justifiably claim that more lives were saved than were sacrificed as a result of their actions over the years then I could most probably live with that.  I'm not saying I'd be ecstatic about it mind you.  It was, and still very much is a dirty wee war here.  At my own level of dealings with it, as I've said previously, if you're clever enough you can fight by the rules with a certain amount of success.  However, and I can only guess at this, go into the more murky side of any conflict and lines of distinction can become very blurred.
I am of the opinion though that some of the decisions made, if uncovered, will not stand up to contemporary scrutiny simply because they were of their time.  If they are to be brought out into the public forum, they need to be examined in their entireity, not just the bits and pieces that suits certain political parties agendas.

 

Good point Foggy (and thanks  for not chewing my head off!). As with what's happening to Tim Collins at the moment, will the background to the case, the style of the personalities involved and the manner in which they communicate their intent, be factored in to any conclusions drawn?!

I wonder if, when the handler was about to utter the words that he/she knew would lead to the killing of Pat Finucan, did he/she think "I hope to f**k this never gets out.........."

How much was possible future legal scrutiny taken into account in those days? It seems from earlier posts that it is taken into account now.

 

I am 98% sure that no Handler would ever say " go and kill someone or help to kill" in fact handlers know that their touts must not under any circumstances get caught up in any illegal acts. This is incredibly hard to prevent, and undoubtably many informants just don't tell their handlers the whole story, either they do not wish to let their handlers down, in some cases fear of their handlers, but mostly fear of a financial loss. I would be the first to agree that some handlers, not many though,  were incompetant, misled by misguided senior officers, simply not up to the job, lazy, drunkard misfits driven by their own egos, too inexperienced for the task, particulary if it was a delicate operation, and sometimes careless with their own intelligence and security, due to showing off in front of the informant, mouthing off about things the informant had no business knowing - and this last behaviour was the cause of a lot of problems.
Trosky I still say the army(neither FRU nor SIW) did not burn down Stevens' office, I don't care what the press say, more likely it was the RUC, if anybody, but the firebde did not find evidence of arson.