It is nothing other than a self serving Tory project to block truth emergence. It seems not, as is often assumed, aimed at keeping their veterans out of prison. The Tories could as readily have achieved that by either legislating away the mandatory two year period that people would have to spend in prison upon conviction for legacy activity, or by allowing anyone convicted to apply for immediate release if imprisoned. The Tory Legacy Act is essentially about ensuring that the full gamut of circumstances pertaining to the actions of their veterans remain hidden from public view.
This is not so evident from the sphere of prosecutions that tended to jail republicans and loyalists but not British military or police personnel. Not one state actor has spent a day in prison for legacy matters. Prison has been exclusively for non-state actors. Where it is very much evident is in the inquest process which too has been snookered under the Tory Legacy Act, around forty in all live inquests scuppered. Inquests such as that for the Ballymurphy Massacre were invariably more damning of the British state than prosecutions have ever been, leading to suspicions that they were the real target of the Tories.
Prosecutions, arguably, were only ever used as a means of truth suppression. With the evidential standard of beyond reasonable doubt at their core, prosecutions by their very nature and of necessity filtered out truth being established on the balance of probability criterion. The North's Public Prosecution Service acted as a sluice gate regulating the flow of truth into the public domain. Anything not 'purified' by beyond reasonable doubt, was treated as waste. Prosecutions at best, only ever provided a scenes of crime perspective on past actions. The truth emerging from a conviction would be that A shot B. Nothing about the decision making culture and process that shaped targeting and gave rise to planning and directives by more senior figures either within the state or the extra legal bodies that either fought against the state or waged a proxy war on its behalf.
The evidential bar was raised so high as to make convictions the exception rather than the rule. Frequently, when there was evidence, as in Kenova, the Public Prosecution Service ruled in the interests of the state and ensured that a prosecution would not proceed. By maintaining the Damoclean sword of prosecution and imprisonment over the head of former combatants, state and non state, the state ensured that fewer people would come forward with their own testimony, thus enabling it to exercise greater control over the Legacy narrative.
This is not so evident from the sphere of prosecutions that tended to jail republicans and loyalists but not British military or police personnel. Not one state actor has spent a day in prison for legacy matters. Prison has been exclusively for non-state actors. Where it is very much evident is in the inquest process which too has been snookered under the Tory Legacy Act, around forty in all live inquests scuppered. Inquests such as that for the Ballymurphy Massacre were invariably more damning of the British state than prosecutions have ever been, leading to suspicions that they were the real target of the Tories.
Prosecutions, arguably, were only ever used as a means of truth suppression. With the evidential standard of beyond reasonable doubt at their core, prosecutions by their very nature and of necessity filtered out truth being established on the balance of probability criterion. The North's Public Prosecution Service acted as a sluice gate regulating the flow of truth into the public domain. Anything not 'purified' by beyond reasonable doubt, was treated as waste. Prosecutions at best, only ever provided a scenes of crime perspective on past actions. The truth emerging from a conviction would be that A shot B. Nothing about the decision making culture and process that shaped targeting and gave rise to planning and directives by more senior figures either within the state or the extra legal bodies that either fought against the state or waged a proxy war on its behalf.
The evidential bar was raised so high as to make convictions the exception rather than the rule. Frequently, when there was evidence, as in Kenova, the Public Prosecution Service ruled in the interests of the state and ensured that a prosecution would not proceed. By maintaining the Damoclean sword of prosecution and imprisonment over the head of former combatants, state and non state, the state ensured that fewer people would come forward with their own testimony, thus enabling it to exercise greater control over the Legacy narrative.
The real problem with the British legacy act is not that it scuppers investigations by the PSNI. The PSNI is simply not to be trusted. It has lied, covered up, dragged its heels, obstinately dug it's feet in and fervently suppressed evidence. The first instinct of the PSNI is to protect itself and its institutional history rooted in the RUC and wider Repressive State Apparatuses. As the PSNI never produced much in the way of truth through its investigations it is hard to conceive of its investigations being in the cross hairs of the Tory Legacy Act.
The position being attacked by the Legacy Act is truth recovery. The position being defended by the Act is truth cover-up. And never the twain shall meet.
 |
| ⏩Follow on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre. |
That analysis is spot on, Anthony.
ReplyDeleteStill, the PSNI in Blue Lights were good lol
ReplyDeleteSeason 2 has gone off the boil. I think without Richard Dormer it doesn't carry the same amount of oomph.
DeleteDaft decision to axe a brilliant actor it has to be said. Still, it's weird seeing the streets were I grew up in a tv series...and knowing there's no fucking way those two cop cars drove out of there as it's a cul de sac LOL!
DeleteAn actor of his quality probably had other projects on the go and was accommodated rather than axed. Pity, as the second series is much poorer without him and seems even more of an ideological makeover than the first. We are going to stick with it.
ReplyDelete