Jude Collins

Sunday, 7 July 2013

Five things, post-Red Sky and post-HET

Five things we know, post-Red Sky and post-HET:

 1. The HET  is discredited beyond repair. Was it the Bourbons that remembered everything and learnt nothing? You’d think the HET would have known how important it was to show themselves as even-handed when dealing with ‘security forces’ cases here. Yet it seems patently clear they did nothing of the sort. Old habits die hard.
2.  My old chum Nelson should be rehearsing his final lines for Monday. Assuming, that is, that the DUP don’t plan to brazen it out. If the allegations are true (see what I did there?), Nelson or his adviser has transported his party into a  shit-storm of chicanery. Sad to say, I think the DUP will choose to brazen it out. But just in case, I think dear Nelson should have something memorable ready.  Maybe take a cue from his name-sake and go out with “Kiss me, Hardy”?  I know it doesn't make sense in the present context, but then neither does the handling of the whole Red Sky affair.

3. The HET story is a far bigger one than Nelson and Red Sky,  which shows you how big it is. Both are concerned with the past but Nelson and Red Sky are recent past and merely involve charges of giving a leg-up to contractors.  The HET story takes us right back to the days when any suggestion that the state had one law for its well-armed forces and another for everyone else.   It seems those days haven’t quite gone away, you know.

4.We’d need to make up our minds about how good we are at resolving conflict. On the one hand, we hear tales of Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness (or is it just Martin?) advising other trouble-spots in the world on how to move from war to peace; on the other hand we appear hopeless at dealing with the pain that the past has involved for so many people. 

5.  Anyone who says there should be a hierarchy of victims is either very stupid or very duplicitous. I’m talking here about the families who are left to live with the loss of a loved one, whether that be a British soldier, an RUC man or an IRA volunteer. It’s red herring talk or totally illogical talk to say things like “Yes, but the terrorist had a choice”.  What we’re talking about here is simple: not the dead person but the grieving family. Got that OK? If not, maybe you should just should shut up. Better remain silent and be thought a fool than open your gob and prove it.  


  1. 'Not the dead person but the grieving family' That's how it should be looked at but DUP/TUV/UUP start from the position of how do we turn this into an opp to blame nats/rep side and leave the familes of victims a distant second consideration.madraj

  2. "The H E T is discredited beyond reform" Yet Gerry O hEara of Sinn Fein has said that it is reformable .Given the media control of that party,it seems unlikely that this was a solo run.Is there a serious alternative?

  3. Wonder if Gerry issued that statement from his villa in the south of France?

  4. In some ways this is yet another mirage because:

    1. The political landscape developed out of the security landscape. If we accept collusion happened (It did) and effort expended had goals, then we accept, to some degree our current predicament is due to the combined efforts of the Intelligence Services, Agents inside organizations, Political Actors and diplomacy from Foreign Governments.

    2. It follows some major politicians would be informants for the so-called Security Forces and their Atlantic Partners, as would some Dissidents. Highly prized intelligence targets would attract more attention and effort from Counter-Insurgents, some won’t turn and some will. We know that from Dennis Donaldson, Steaknife, Sean O’Callaghan to name a few. We don’t know who they turned as some would have you believe; we do know who they would try to turn if they followed a logical intelligence gathering pattern.

    3. We know that SB in England infiltrated animal rights and environmental organizations. In light of that do we believe they wouldn't target the SDLP, UUP, BNP or TUV for that matter? So logically they may have assets in all major parties, not just the big two. We don't know. So you could potentially have people in secret cells across the spectrum of public opinion secretly aligned to covert human intelligence link-men. That is of course what Intelligence Officers would be trying to achieve when they infiltrate organizations. We don’t know if, or to what degree that happened? Google "Moscow Cell System".


    q=cache:xSDX62NNhjgJ:www.8bitmode.com/rogerdog/lobster/lobster03.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk Page 4

    4. It would be logical to infiltrate all parties, not just members with ex-combatants. The scary version, you could potentially have a Government comprised of compliant British and American Top Echelon Informants, compromised to the degree that they are open to blackmail by companies ex-spooks now work for.

    5. When spooks retire they go private and work for large multi-nationals. Kroll Associates is one such organization http://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Oatley . For example, Michael Oatley would have contacts right accross the spectrum in Northern Ireland. Just an example, not suggesting wrongdoing.

    6. If you had the 'Boston Tapes' in your hands today how much influence would you have over policies ushered in by political parties?

    7. Would that give those possessing ‘Boston Tape’ type information reach into the South as well?

    8. Would the Intelligence Services have stopped recruiting after the GFA?

    9. Can we have any more confidence in the new generation than the old?

    10. It does all need cleaned up, but I think we’ll need a bigger brush; this isn't about this scandal or the next scandal, it is about how the Peace Process was born, where it has taken us thus far and if we want to proceed along the same path of tokenism and Elites?

    I do believe the peace process delivered a lack of violence which was great, what it didn't deliver was an accountable, transparent system anyone could believe in.

    It is time to change it or scrap it.