Back in 2006, when I was an innocent sort of chap, who didn’t think that the state would be complicit in the murders of a retired policeman and his wife , I made a complaint to the Ombudsman about the standard of investigation into their murders.
In 2015, when the scales had fallen from my eyes, I made an entirely different complaint, naming each member of the bomb team and asserting that some, if not all of them were state agents. The Ombudsman, who I shall hereafter call the ‘Big O” has declined to investigate my complaint. The basis for the refusal is that the 2001 regulations “carves out a discretionary exception to these limitations”
I began studying law in 1967 and this phrase is new to me but perhaps I’m just not keeping up.
Nuala O’Loan has said that she came under pressure from the state to refuse to investigate matters.
Maguire, the present Big O is of course a man who has been a state employee for some time and one wonders about his impartiality. Anyway, I have sought clarification from him.
Who made this decision and what is the precise statutory basis for it?
Students of law and others might be interested in looking at regulation 9  of the 2001 regulations, which “carves out” , if this is the new legal argot, an exception if the new complaint is “not the same or substantially the same as a previous complaint”. My original complaint was that the investigation was inadequate. My new complaint is that the state was complicit. They are different complaints.
Of course, the list of state agents in my letter will have caused panic in the Establishment and has resulted in a threat from at least one agent.
It’s disappointing that the Big O’s refusal is so amateurish but that’s what you get in Norn Iron.
So, let’s see what the response is.
Aside from the stupidity of it all, how many people, less advantaged than I am, have been spoofed by the Big O?