I’ve just got around to reading the full text of your speech of 15thMay.
Straightaway, you mention transparency. That doesn’t sit well with me. Perhaps it’s because since I started communicating with the PSNI in 2002, your force has been opaque.
But let’s leave that for now.
I’m glad that you agree with me that something untoward was happening in policing during the Troubles and that it was not restricted to a few bad apples.
But then I’m puzzled. You say “In the absence of any regulatory framework for managing ‘agents’ police officers were left to set their own standards.”
Then you say that “there was no law” a few lines later you say “ there are [sic] a range of charges that can be brought”
You see, George, the persons who murdered my parents, whose names you can find on my blog, most of them had a handler and some of those handlers were police officers and you know who they were. Those officers knew, if not before , then certainly afterwards, the identities of the perpetrators. They , the police officers, committed most of the range of offences you enumerated above.
Records: lets dwell on that for a second. Prof Lundy and other academics have commented on those records which you say the Police Ombudsman has “unfettered access to”. No he doesn’t. Are you telling the public that the Ombudsman’s representatives roam the stores at Sprucefield and Seapark at will? What about your gatekeepers? The old SB guys. What about your chief spook, Drew Harris? Don’t they keep tabs on the files? What about the ‘difficult’ files which the Security Service has removed from you and now stores at Loughside?
Although you admit that you know of no legal definition of collusion, you say that it “signals malevolent intent”. What’s your authority for that proposition , George? I know why you say it. The secret is in the next bit. You want us to think about all the brave officers. It’s not about bravery , George.
You can give me no lessons on what a brave officer looks like.
It’s not long before you return to your old unapologetic self. You say that the police were operating in a vacuum. The police had no “framework, guidance or legislation”
I’ve news for you , George. The Human Rights Act of 1998 simply put on the British statute book the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which had long been recognised by British courts and a good read of it by senior officers might have given a hint about how to police. Anyway, allowing an agent to kill doesn’t take much of a look at a moral compass to know that it is wrong .
Frankly, I got weary of the same old words at this point, George. Why? Because for almost twenty eight years your force and its predecessor and every chief constable has lied to me.
So, on close inspection, I’m as unimpressed by this speech as I have been by all the rest.
Take your own advice, get out of your own comfort zone, be selfless and open the files on James and Ellen Sefton.