Retired officers hit back at Bias report from Nuala O'Loan |
|||
|
The Northern Ireland Retired Police Officers' Association compiled the 76-page document after poring over Nuala O'Loan's Ballast Report, which was initiated after complaints from Raymond McCord about the police investigation into the murder of his son, Raymond. The rebuttal concludes that Mrs O'Loan's team;- Risked current UK anti-terrorism security by divulging intelligence
methods. Parts of the report draws conclusions based on the "absence of any explanation" and that facts, which may suggest alternative conclusions, were ignored, they said. And they slam the Ombudsman's claim that a significant number of retired senior police officers "refused to cooperate" with it. "This is a lie," said the officers. "Some retired officers were unable, unavailable or unwilling to assist for various reasons but the officers whom the Ombudsman chooses to identify by rank, many of whom have contributed to this rebuttal, dealt at some length with the Ombudsman's Office." The officers also blasted the Ombudsman for refusing requests, by those criticised, to see the report before it was published, in "stark contrast" to protracted briefings they claim were given to journalists. The Ombudsman's conclusion appears to be that some Special Branch
and CID officers "rather than the terrorists" were to
blame for Northern Ireland's ills during the Troubles, the officers
conclude. The rebuttal concludes that it is probably too late to undo some of the personal hurt and damage to national interests, but highlights recommendations which it calls on the Secretary of State to take to ensure no repetition. A Police Ombudsman spokesman responded that the rebuttal was the view of a few retired police officers, whom he claimed refused to cooperate with Ballast, though he stressed that over 100 retired officers did take part. He also highlighted the fact that the PSNI, Government and Policing Board all accepted the Ballast report findings and are implementing its recommendations. A survey about the Ombudsman conducted after the Ballast report indicated that 88 per cent of Protestants and 85 per cent of Catholics questioned accepted it as being fair, he added. "The retired officers' report says that it has not had access to the information, documentation or people involved in our investigation nor any detailed knowledge of the events referred to. "My immediate question is, how can they stand over a document
which does not have the facts?" The Ombudsman stands over the Ballast report but will review it
in search for factual inaccuracies alleged in the rebuttal. And
regarding the 'discredited' Omagh report, he said that the few officers
who took a legal challenge to it withdrew at the last minute and
that it still stands. Key points of the rebuttal 1. The Police Ombudsman's Statement makes allegations of guilt but her investigation has not produced prima-facie evidence acceptable to the Public Prosecution Service. The Director of Public Prosecutions had already directed 'No Prosecution' of any serving or retired police officer before the statement was published. Similarly no action in respect of any alleged breaches of police discipline is recommended. 2. The misuse of the word "collusion", without any legal anchorage, has led to it being used as a political catchphrase. As a result, police officers who have served their country and community with integrity and bravery have been vilified in the court of public opinion. On every single occasion where the word "collusion" appears in the statement, the "finding" is entirely groundless. This is demonstrated in the text of the Rebuttal. 3. The statement completely fails to contextualise the dilemmas facing the police in terms of the existing legal and disciplinary frameworks; it over-simplifies the ethical and moral dilemmas; and it ignores the overriding priority set by HMG at the time to save life through the effective gathering, assessment, analysis and exploitation of intelligence as opposed to obtaining arrests and perhaps convictions after the offence. 4. The statement could lead to the identification of a number of informants, with consequent applications for resettlement. It has led to the identification of a number of retired police officers. This pointless, self-serving exercise has compromised the security of these officers, whose families' rights to privacy under the European Convention on Human Rights have been gravely abused. 5. The statement compromises secret methodology which had never previously been officially acknowledged. This breach of the principles of the Official Secrets Act may have severe consequences for the security of the United Kingdom and her allies in the current struggle against worldwide terrorism. It is also likely to impact on law enforcement here and in the Republic of Ireland. 6. The statement makes disingenuous and wholly unfounded criticisms of a number of retired senior police officers for allegedly refusing to cooperate with the enquiry. This misleading and objectionable vitriol has led to personal embarrassment for these retired public servants and their families and to the confusion of the public. The purpose appears to be to provide cover for the inadequacies of the Ombudsman's investigation and statement and to lay the foundations for a request for legislation to make retired officers compellable witnesses in future investigations. 7. The statement demonstrates the lack of relevant experience within the office of the Police Ombudsman. The investigating team clearly did not understand why certain things were done in a certain way and did not trouble themselves to find out, because their conclusion had been determined in advance. When information or documents which did not suit the agenda were provided, they were ignored. The investigation consisted of the wrong people asking the wrong questions of, largely, the wrong people. It is little wonder that the outcome has been such a shambles. 8. The statement itself is a chaotic mix of errors of fact and judgement, contradictions, illogical conclusions and innuendo. It demonstrates no understanding of the difference between information, intelligence and evidence. The so-called "findings" have no basis in evidence, logic or sound argument. Much of the text reproduces hearsay and what it calls "locker room talk" or gossip. The presentation is sloppy and dismissive of the reading public. 9. The statement is written and presented in a style that invites the reader to draw adverse inferences about the police, particularly Special Branch, mainly through omission of supporting facts or explanation where needed. 10. The "findings" and the absence of evidence or sound reasoning upon which they are based, together with the unfounded criticism and innuendo which is directed against individuals and against parts of the RUC GC, demonstrate the lack of objectivity in the office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. 11. The Statement is crucially flawed, containing at least:- •
nine serious factual inaccuracies; 12. At every level the statement fails. Large parts of the statement are blatantly wrong and grossly offensive. These must be withdrawn and a public apology must be issued. The statement deals with serious matters about which the public and their political representatives have grave concerns: they deserve something better than this. Recommendations 1. Her Majesty's Government must give serious consideration as to how it wishes to see the Office of Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland develop. There should be appropriate parameters applied to the remit of the office in terms of time limits and scope, particularly in relation to matters bearing upon national security.
Click
here for Source of above
|
|||
|
|||