Memorial to McGurk victims unveiled

A recreation of the McGurk’s bar in Belfast has been unveiled on the 40th anniversary of the bomb attack, which killed 15 people

 
 
On Saturday night, families gathered on North Queen Street where the McGurk’s bomb once stood.

Fifteen people, including pensioners and children, were killed and another 16 injured when the no-warning bomb ripped apart the north Belfast venue in December 1971.

The attack was carried out by the UVF, but had initially been wrongly presented by the RUC as an accidental ‘own goal’ by the IRA.

Philip Garry, 73, was the oldest person to be killed in the bombing. Grandson Robert McClenaghan said that the memorial was about “hope”.

“I feel we’re closer than ever to finding out the truth of what happened that night,” he said.

“Forty years is a long fight for any campaign and tonight is about getting people renewed energy, heart and commitment to go on until we find out the truth, for all our families,” he added.

North Belfast MLA Alban Maginness said the McGurk memorial was an opportunity to draw both sides of the local community together.

“This recognises the pain and suffering of people 40 years ago, and it is still there.

“It is important that this memorial should give people hope that out of the pain and suffering that something good can come and this community can finally be united, Catholic and Protestant.”

Irish News

” I COULDN’T AGREE WITH McGURK BOMB INVESTIGATION CRITICISM “

Poster criticising Chief Constable Matt Baggott                                           The families of victims of the McGurk’s bar atrocity are unhappy with Chief Constable Matt Baggot

On the 10th Anniversery of the disbandment  of the old RUC and the 10th Birthday of the PSNI  Matt Baggott has said he stands over a decision not to accept criticisms by the Police Ombudsman of the detectives who investigated the 1971 bombing of McGurks Bar in North Belfast.

A probe by Mr Al Hutchinson found dectectives adopted an ” Investigative bias ” by claiming the attack was commited by Republicians as an own goal when in fact Loyalists were to blame. Relatives of  the 15 people murdered in the bombing were furious when Mr Baggott refused to agree with the findings.

” Whatever I think about this is nothing to the hurt those folk have been through, ” Mr Baggott said. ” But I can’t agree. I can’t, with all integrity, agree to something when i can’t see how that judgement’s been made or when there’s conflicting evidence in there.

” People don’t want a Chief Constable that isn’t sometimes able or strong enough to say I’m afraid I disagree, because that wouldn’t be good, ” he said. ” I am saddened that people are hurt. I am saddened that we haven’t been able to disagree but I do respect the victims and their views on this. ”

The families of victims of the McGurk’s bombing have said they are planning legal action against the Chief Constable Matt Baggott.

The move is over his response to the Police Ombudsman’s report into the police investigation of the 1971 UVF attack in which 15 people died.

Mr Baggott has refused to accept the findings of the report which criticised the RUC investigation.

The report said the police had been guilty of investigative bias.

On Thursday, Sinn Fein raised their concerns about the chief constable’s response.

The party’s Caitriona Ruane asked if he would accept that “the approach taken by the PSNI towards public defence of past policing – investigations into the McGurk’s bar bombing and the Loughinisland massacre – has been seriously faulted”.

Mr Baggott replied that he “wished he could bring resolution to the families on this and I’m sorry that I can’t.

“But in relation to two aspects of that report, I’m afraid the re-analysis I’ve done still comes back with the fact that some of those findings which were made by the ombudsman, with my test of evidence I can’t stand over those and I find them not proven.”

‘Dismiss authority’

Speaking after a Policing Board meeting on Thursday, the solicitor representing the families, Niall Murphy, outlined the reason why legal action was being considered.

“Specifically with regard to the chief constable’s remarks today at the Policing Board, the families have instructed ourselves to consider the reasonableness of what appears to be his decision to unilaterally dismiss the authority of the Police Ombudsman and the report that he has concluded with regards to this investigation,” Mr Murphy said.

“We would be firmly of the opinion that he does not have the constitutional statutory basis to attempt to do that.”

Two women and three children, including publican John McGurk’s wife and 14-year-old daughter, were among those killed in the blast.

Related Stories

Reblog: AL HUTCHINSON, DIMISSIONI A GENNAIO

L’offerta in una lettera all’Ufficio del Primo e del Vice Primo Ministro: riconosce che le critiche hanno danneggiato il Police Ombudsman Office, e richiede che venga accelerato il processo di scelta di un nuovo Ombudsman.

“Ho ricevuto supporto, ma è chiaro che rimane molto attiva una campagna per le mie immediate dimissioni”, scrive Hutchinson nella lettera, “e questo non fa che danneggiare ulteriormente l’ufficio, condizionarne l’indipendenza e l’efficienza del lavoro quotidiano.” Aggiunge poi l’intenzione di accettare i cambiamenti proposti in seguito alle indagini di McCusker e del Criminal Justice Inspectorate (CJI): “È fondamentale che vengano attuati cambiamenti per permettere all’ufficio di svolgere le proprie funzioni al meglio, e io ho intenzione di fare tutto ciò che è in mio potere per collaborare a mettere in pratica questi cambiamenti”.
Anche il Ministro della Giustizia, David Ford, ha riconosciuto i problemi che hanno interessato il Police Ombudsman Office: “(Hutchinson) si sta preoccupando che l’ufficio sia funzionale nell’assolvere ai propri compiti”.
Il Primo Ministro, Peter Robinson, ha annunciato che il programma di selezione di un nuovo Ombudsman inizierà il più presto possibile: “Gli errori dell’ufficio sono stati evidenziati in più inchieste, anche se il documentario “Spotlight” era superficiale, e se Hutchinson ha preso la sua decisione dobbiamo agire di conseguenza”.
Soddisfazione da parte dello Sinn Féin, che da mesi premeva perché Hutchinson si dimettesse immediatamente: “Avremmo preferito che lasciasse la sua carica subito, ma questo è certamente un passo avanti rispetto all’atteggiamento tenuto prima d’ora”, ha commentato Gerry Kelly. “Ovviamente, la pressione delle famiglie delle vittime, delle inchieste, dei media e della politica l’hanno portato a riconsiderare la sua posizione. Il prossimo passo è iniziare il processo di selezione del prossimo Ombudsman: è ovvio che numerose persone valide lavorano in quell’ufficio, e quelle persone vogliono una direzione efficace ed efficiente.”

Police Ombudsman Al Hutchinson to stand down in January (BBC News northern Ireland)

The police ombudsman has written to the first and deputy first ministers offering to step down in January.
In the letter, Al Hutchinson said he would like the process of selecting a new ombudsman to be speeded up.
He said it is his desire to leave his position by the end of January 2012 but he acknowledged that practical and legal issues may need to be addressed.
He also accepted that recent criticism of him and calls for his resignation were damaging the office.
Mr Hutchinson was due to leave his job in June 2012.
A statement from the ombudsman’s office said Mr Hutchinson had advised the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on Friday that he would like the process of selecting a new police ombudsman to be expedited.
It added that he had said that his desire was to leave his position by the end of January, but acknowledged that practical and legal issues had to be addressed before that could happen.
“He is concerned to ensure that there is a functioning ombudsman’s office”
David Ford Justice minister
It quoted Mr Hutchinson as saying that: “While I have received expressions of support from a number of quarters, it is clear that there remains a focused campaign to have me resign immediately.
“This continues to damage the office, affect its independence and impact on its daily work.”
The statement said that Mr Hutchinson has met with Justice Minister David Ford and expressed his commitment to continuing the changes to his office proposed by the McCusker and Criminal Justice Inspectorate (CJI) reports.
“It is important that there is a sound platform for the changes to support the exercise of the police ombudsman’s functions and I want to do what I can to help deliver those changes,” Mr Hutchinson added.
Justice Minister David Ford said Mr Hutchinson had recognised there are difficulties within the ombudsman’s office.
“He is concerned to ensure that there is a functioning ombudsman’s office,” he said.
Hunt for successor
“He is certainly not seeking, as I understand it, to prolong his stay if there are ways in which the ombudsman’s office can function to provide the important oversight that the office is charged with.”
First Minister Peter Robinson said the process to find Mr Hutchinson’s successor will start as soon as possible.
“The Spotlight programme was superficial but that does not mean that there were never any mistakes made in the office,” said Mr Robinson.
“It is quite clear from other reports that there were some unsatisfactory ways in which the office was operating.
“But when there are areas where there are improvements necessary you seek to make those changes rather than calling foul and trying to get rid of somebody, so I think he has taken his decision, we are acting on that decision and we will do that as quickly as we can.”
Sinn Fein had called for the ombudsman to step down as soon as possible but were happy with the announcement.
Gerry Kelly said: “While we would prefer if he left the position immediately this is certainly an improvement on his previous position.
“Obviously the pressure brought by the victims’ families, the three previous damning reports, the media and political sources has made him reconsider his position.
“The next step is to begin the appointments process. It is obvious that there are good people in the ombudsman’s office who want genuine and effective leadership.”
On Wednesday, Deputy First Minister John O’Dowd called on Mr Hutchinson to resign immediately.
He was echoing a call made by the former chief executive of the ombudsman’s office, Sam Pollock, in the BBC Spotlight documentary on Tuesday.
Discussions about future
The programme revealed details of tensions within the office which led to Mr Pollock’s resignation.
It also uncovered failings in a number of historical investigations by the ombudsman.
Mr O’Dowd revealed he had discussions about Mr Hutchinson’s future with First Minister Peter Robinson on Wednesday.
However, on Thursday Mr Robinson criticised the Spotlight programme as “superficial”.
He said he was not convinced by “hearsay” and claims by someone “who has an axe to grind” and would rely on facts where Mr Hutchinson was concerned rather than “trial by media.”
In September, a report by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate said the office’s operational independence had been lowered, and that Mr Hutchinson had lost the trust of senior colleagues.
Following the report’s publication, Mr Hutchinson announced he would be stepping down as Police Ombudsman earlier than planned, next June.
It was the third highly critical report to be published into the work of the organisation.

The Five Demands

L’offerta in una lettera all’Ufficio del Primo e del Vice Primo Ministro: riconosce che le critiche hanno danneggiato il Police Ombudsman Office, e richiede che venga accelerato il processo di scelta di un nuovo Ombudsman.

“Ho ricevuto supporto, ma è chiaro che rimane molto attiva una campagna per le mie immediate dimissioni”, scrive Hutchinson nella lettera, “e questo non fa che danneggiare ulteriormente l’ufficio, condizionarne l’indipendenza e l’efficienza del lavoro quotidiano.” Aggiunge poi l’intenzione di accettare i cambiamenti proposti in seguito alle indagini di McCusker e del Criminal Justice Inspectorate (CJI): “È fondamentale che vengano attuati cambiamenti per permettere all’ufficio di svolgere le proprie funzioni al meglio, e io ho intenzione di fare tutto ciò che è in mio potere per collaborare a mettere in pratica questi cambiamenti”.
Anche il Ministro della Giustizia, David Ford, ha riconosciuto i problemi che hanno interessato il Police Ombudsman Office: “(Hutchinson) si…

View original post 931 more words

Irish government critical of British stance on Pat Finucane murder review | Irish News | IrishCentral

Irish government critical of British stance on Pat Finucane murder review | Irish News | IrishCentral.

COLLLUSION IS NOT AN ILLUSION”

WE THINK IT’S NOW TIME AL HUTCHINSON FOR YOU TO RESIGN ” COLLLUSION IS NOT AN ILLUSION”

 
 
 
 
 
CIPR Specialist Website of the Year 2011
Investigations & Analysis – Northern Ireland
 
 
The aftermath of the Loughinisland massacre in 1994
 

BY BARRY McCAFFREY

 

THE Detail can today reveal the conclusions of the Police Ombudsman on the Loughinisland massacre: that the failure by police to secure convictions afterwards was down to incompetence and a lack of commitment – but not collusion.

The final report also leaves unanswered a key question of the families of the six men killed at The Heights bar 17 years ago: what the role of Special Branch was either before or after the attack.

More >

 
The six men killed in the Loughinisland massacre
 

Where was Special Branch in Loughinisland massacre?

BY BARRY MCCAFFREY

IF the Police Ombudsman’s report into the McGurk’s Bar atrocity highlighted his reluctance to grapple with collusion, his report into Loughinisland is startling by its absence of another crucial piece of the picture: the role of Special Branch both before and after the massacre.Mr Hutchinson states that he studied all “available intelligence” connected to the killings but important intelligence-related aspects of the case are not even mentioned in the report, raising questions over just how deep his investigation went in this case and, again, drawing attention to a “civil war” within his own office.More >

Inquests will be “front and centre” in dealing with the past – Attorney General

THE Attorney General John Larkin has confirmed that the inquest system here shall have a role “front and centre” in how Northern Ireland deals with the past.

 

Collusion in Loughinisland

 By Barry McCaffrey (for The Detail)


 If the Police Ombudsman’s report into the McGurk’s Bar attrocity
 highlighted his reluctance to grapple with collusion, his report into
 Loughinisland is startling by its absence of another crucial piece of
 the picture: the role of Special Branch both before and after the
 massacre.

 Mr Hutchinson states that he studied all “available intelligence”
 connected to the killings but important intelligence-related aspects of
 the case are not even mentioned in the report, raising questions over
 just how deep his investigation went in this case and, again, drawing
 attention to a “civil war” within his own office.

 One example is the sightings of the killers’ car in the south Down area
 in the weeks before the attack – clearly the domain of Special Branch,
 clearly a critical avenue for Mr Hutchinson to explore; but there is not
 a single reference to this: the context of the sighting; whether or how
 the information about it was dissipated within police circles; and
 whether it provided leads for the investigation.

 Also, more than 10 years ago police told the families that they had
 recovered a hair follicle on one of the killers’ balaclavas.

 The families were assured that police would be able to bring the killers
 to justice if just one bead of sweat was recovered from the balaclavas
 and boiler suits recovered.

 But despite the hair follicle appearing to be one of the most important
 forensic lines of inquiry there is no mention of it anywhere in the
 ombudsman’s report.

 The 56 page report – surprisingly only 26 pages of which is devoted to a
 five year-long investigation – provides no clarity on the Police
 Ombudsman’s relationship with Special Branch and the level of access he
 has achieved into Special Branch during this investigation; a pronounced
 contrast to the work of Nuala O’Loan on Omagh and the Mount Vernon UVF,
 which majored on the role of Special Branch in murders in which it was
 alleged that informers were protected from prosecution.

 Omagh and the Mount Vernon cases spanned the period of 1993 – 1998 and
 the Police Ombudsman found Special Branch activities in that era
 protected killers. Loughinisland occurred within the same timescale:
 June 1994 – yet still the role – or not – of Special Branch remains
 unexplored anywhere in this investigation.

 What is public knowledge, although unacknowledged in the Loughinisland
 report is that:

 *      in September 1994 there were 814 officers in RUC Special Branch;

 *      that by 1994 Special Branch had heavily penetrated both loyalist
 and republican groups, including the UVF in East Belfast;

 *      that the Loughinisland attack was mounted by the East Belfast UVF;

 *      in Omagh and Mount Vernon UVF cases and the murders of Pat
 Finucane, and Rosemary Nelson that Special Branch withheld information
 from the CID murder investigations.

 The apparent removal of this dimension from the Hutchinson approach has
 caused a deep split within the Police Ombudsman’s office – referred to
 recently by the ” Committee on the Administration of Justice “(CAJ)
 report.

 The Loughinisland investigation, in particular, has been known to be a
 source of anxiety internally, with some senior staff distancing
 themselves from the ombudsman’s perceived loss of independence.

 It also ties in with broader developments in investigations into the
 past: The Rosemary Nelson Inquiry reported back four weeks ago and the
 word “collusion” was not mentioned, allowing the Secretary of State,
 Owen Paterson to say that it therefore had not happened.

 Nationalists, led by the SDLP, have protested at the transfer of
 Northern Ireland Office personnel into senior positions within key
 agencies within the criminal justice system following the devolution of
 justice last year – and claims that a new agenda is playing out, aimed
 at shutting down sensitive areas of enquiry, particularly in the
 security sphere.

 So where does all this leave the relatives of the six men who died in
 The Heights Bar 17 years ago and who went to the Police Ombudsman’s
 office back in 2006 as their last hope for answers?

 One of the key questions they wanted addressed was: “the suspicion that
 collusion pervaded the circumstances of the attack … and the subsequent
 police investigation”. After an investigation lasting six years, has
 this fundamental question been answered?

 Tomorrow a political row is likely to play out on what turned out to be
 the focus of the report: the actual investigation by CID and Mr
 Hutchinson’s conclusions that it lacked leadership and commitment and
 failed to properly investigate all available lines of inquiry to bring
 the killers to justice. There’s little doubt that the quality of the
 Ombudsman’s investigation will itself become the focus of intention.

 Will anyone be satisfied with Mr Hutchinson’s final verdict on the
 subject of collusion in Loughinisland and his certainty that it didn’t
 happen in this case?

Dublin
Image by Paul Watson via Flickr

 Collusion in the Dublin and Monaghan Bombings

The Following is a Statement by Former RUC Sergent John Weir :

Weir worked in Co Armagh in a Specialist anti-terroiest unit ( SPG ) Special Patrol Group.

He was part of a Paramiltry Group made up of the RUC, UDR and other Loyalists wo carried

out a bomb and gun attack at the Rock Bar near Keady but that the bomb failed to go off.

Weir said he’d learnt that a farmhouse owened by an RUC Reservist  at Glenanne called

James Mitchell had been used for many of the attacks. He also stated that a UDR intelligence

Officer had provided the explosives for the Dublin and Monaghan bombings.

A gang known as the Glenanne gang had carried out the murders of two men returning from

a GAA match in Dublin. They also carried out a bomb and gun attack on Donnelly’s Bar at

Silverbridge killing two men and a teenage boy and on the same night it carried out a bomb

attack in Dundalk which killed two men.

Also in 1976 it carried out an attack on the Reavey family home killing three brothers

John 24, Brain 22 and left thinking they had also killed Anthony 17 but he survied being

left for dead. On the same night it carried out a gun attack on the O’Dowd family home

were three were shot dead and one was seriously injured this was latter to be claimed

by the ( RHC ) Red Hand Commdandos.

Also another loyalist group known as ( DOW ) Down Orange Welfare was manufacturing

weapons at the farmhouse in Glenanne and that they were sold onto the UVF.

In 1977 Sergent Weir and Constable Billy McCaughey and two other notorious UVF

men carried out an attack known as the ” The Good Samaritan Murder; William Strathearn

ran a grocery store in Ahoghill and lived with his wife and seven childern above the shop.

He was awoken in the early hours with someone knocking on the door downstairs and

called out the window to ask what the person wanted. The man said he needed some aspirin

for a sick child. They shot him dead on his doorstep. The gang seemed to injoy attacking

large catholic familys,

Mc Caughey and Weir both received life sentences after admitting to their part.

Mr Justice Henry Barron in 2003 and 2006 also.

This also was held up by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008.

Ballistics evidence from all the attacks emeraged a complex and sinister web that showed

the same weapons turning up again and again in the killings.

They also found that arms found on RUC Reservists James Mittchells farm belonged to

the UVF and he was convicted of storing arms and sentenced.

Justice Barron also found that the farm owned by James  Mitchell was the hub of a loyalist

gang which consisted of members of both the RUC and the UDR, and that the gang was

involved in multiple murders including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and that the

security forces in Northern Ireland knew all about the Mitchells farm from as far back as

1976.  HE WAS NEVER CONVICTED OF ANY MURDERS !

Pat Finucane murder: a scary admission by the state

Hearing ‘state collusion in murder’ acknowledged from the dispatch box is a sobering experience. The fact that it is rare only serves to make it more so.

Owen Paterson delivers a statement in the House of Commons

The Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Paterson, makes a statement in the Commons on the killing of Pat Finucane. Photograph: PA Wire/PA

State collusion in murder is routinely alleged, often on flimsy evidence that doesn’t stand up to daylight. The public admission of “state collusion in murder” by a member of the cabinet is a rare event, to put it mildly.

It happened on Wednesday a few minutes after most MPs filed out of the Commons chamber after prime minister’s questions, leaving the Northern Ireland secretary, Owen Paterson, to utter the chilling words.

Yes, we are talking about the killing of Pat Finucane, the republican solicitor who was gunned by down by a hitman in front of his family during Sunday dinner at home in Belfast in February 1989.

A loyalist, Ken Barrett, was later sentenced to 22 years for the crime, but how did it happen? Who knew? Who did/didn’t do what?

As was pointed out during the Commons exchanges, many shocking things were done on both sides in the 30-year Troubles, during which3,500 people were killed. But the killing of Finucane was one of the most bitterly contested, not least because lawyers were regarded as untouchables under the informal rules of the conflict, also because a then minister, Douglas Hogg, of later “moat-cleaning” fame, made highly prejudicial remarks about the victim.

It’s all a long time ago and the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir John (now Lord) Stevens, investigated the crime between 1999 and 2003, took 9,256 witness statements and created an archive with 1m pages.

Stevens concluded there was collusion with “rogue elements” of the state – a handy phrase sometimes is “rogue elements” – which placed the trigger man where he was. So did Canadian judge, Peter Cory (appointed by London and Dublin) in 2004, the year Tony Blair’s government promised the Finucane family a public inquiry.

It was never held because terms of reference acceptable to all sides could never be agreed.

Memories are long in Northern Ireland – the Battle of the Boyne (1690) was only yesterday – and what strikes English voters as history, best forgotten as life moves on, still matters to those directly involved.

Loyalists are just as intransigent as the republican side though they feel – said so again yesterday – that the IRA, its leadership (no names please!) and allies have got favoured treatment during the peace process.

What has brought it back into the news – though there’s been little coverage on this side of the Irish Sea – is that David Cameron invited Finucane’s widow and family to Downing Street on Tuesday to apologise in person and offer a way out of the impasse.

The nationalist (non-violent) SDLP’s leader, Margaret Ritchie, asked him about it towards the end of PMQs on Wednesday. He can read the exchange here along with Owen Paterson’s statement.

What Paterson proposed on Cameron’s behalf was a formula which the Finucanes had rejected 24 hours earlier, as the Guardian reported here. Here’s a BBC Northern Ireland backgrounder to the case which, as you’d expect, got plenty of coverage this week in the province.

What the coalition proposes to do is get Sir Desmond de Silva QC, a veteran of UN war crime prosecutions in Sierra Leone and other challenging briefs like the Gaza flotilla controversy, to “carry out an independent review to produce a full public account of any state involvement” by – Paterson’s own words – “the army, the [then] Royal Ulster Constabulary, the security service or other UK government body”.

You can probably see the government’s problem. Truth is the great healer, as Cameron told MPs on Wednesday, and sunshine – open evidence – is a great disinfectant too.

But the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday dragged on for years and cost £200m, a sum many may not feel was good value. Truth also has consequences, sometimes for institutions (see how the British army’s generally honourable record has been damaged by abuse in Iraq), sometimes for people whose own safety is threatened by their willingness to testify about what they know.

Don’t believe me? This is what Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has driven the backbench campaign against excesses by the Murdoch empire, told Paterson: “The former intelligence officer and private investigator Philip Campbell Smith has admitted to hacking the computer of another intelligence officer on behalf of Alex Marunchak of News International.

“Campbell Smith was arrested for witness intimidation of the very same intelligence officer, who was supposedly the only officer from the intelligence community co-operating with the Stevens inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane.

“It is alleged that when he was interviewed by the police he admitted that a special branch officer working on the Stevens investigation gave that personal information.

“I welcome the secretary of state’s commitment to allowing Sir Desmond access, presumably, to the police statement that was given, but if Sir Desmond wants to interview that special branch officer and that officer refuses, what powers will Sir Desmond have to get to the truth?”

Paterson’s answer was polite, if unsatisfactory. Such issues would be for the QC to resolve, but the MP should not imagine that Stevens and similar public inquiries – there have been several — got all the answers: Ian Paisley was once fined £5,000 for not turning up to give evidence he clearly didn’t want to give.

So Whitehall has come up with a rational solution: De Silva is a serious and experienced lawyer, who will spend the next year or so – his deadline is December 2012 – sifting the evidence, interviewing people and balancing the interests of the state, the Finucane family and the rest of us with a report that (with luck) satisfies everyone.

Does that formula satisfy them this week? As you can imagine, Tory and Unionist MPs endorsed the plan, the SDLP – Sinn Féin MPs don’t attend Westminster, they just draw the salaries and any expenses due from the hated British state – and Labour MPs argued that progress in the province is always made by consensus. If the Finucanes – and the Dublin government (which has its own police collusion murder probe under way) – won’t accept it, then it won’t work.

Even the saintly Paul Murphy, ex-secretary of state and a notably decent man, concluded ministers have made a mistake. Don’t forget that Cameron has generally done well over Northern Ireland – the tone of his apology for Bloody Sunday was well received in Catholic Derry.

But don’t forget either that assorted breakaway IRA men are restless – there was a bomb attack overnight on the City of Culture office in Derry – while Stormont’s deputy first minister, Martin McGuinness (now his career would make an interesting public inquiry!), is on a sabbatical standing for the presidency of Ireland. Just because the situation is currently manageable doesn’t mean it will remain so. Public spending cuts will hit Northern Ireland hard too.

We’ll see what happens next. But hearing “state collusion in murder” acknowledged from the dispatch box is a sobering experience. The fact that it is rare only serves to make it more so.