In this instance, the word ‘created’ has been substituted by the word ‘used’
Very interesting story. A lot of time, cunning, effort, planning and certainly some results; or lies, deception, other peoples volunteered time, effort, perhaps productivity and potentially reputations depending on your perspective.
No surprise security service infiltrate human rights orgs, especially when at least some of their areas of interest involve paramilitary cases and such campaigns may well include some supporters of paramilitaries. However, while setting an org up makes great operational sense from their intelligence gathering perspective, it raises more questions about wider manipulation than if they, say, joined and perhaps reduced or discontinued involvement once other contacts were established.
Am not familiar with the cases they championed but potential for undermining of legal independent investigations and campaigns related to those seems the most troubling aspect. If there was a miscarriage of justice, but security services believe the focus of that is an opponent, would they interfere or not? What data would they not gather or share about a legal defence or areas of focus? They could do themselves some PR favours by making a statement on those points but likely won’t, the ambiguity may suit them for other reasons and it will or won’t be believed by some regardless.
More generally I wonder about existing law to protect such investigation or campaigning rights from individuals or groups who might wish to cause disruptive interference, whether contracts might be required or useful (e.g. some civil cases might not progress ‘in the interests of national security’), how negative influence could be proved, or how practical it would be to implement safeguards.
It is a shame if review of potential miscarriages of justice is detered by fears of manipulation, though that manipulation could be done by more than one party with different intent and have different effects. I know nothing at all about the space but wonder if those in it should develop general recommendations about oversight, structure and perhaps review; standards potential contributors can verify are being used before dedicating their own time.
These terrorists are so embedded in the government they’re able to recruit others to positions like Garda Commissioner.
Did anyone see unionist Neale Richmond’s instant promotion after being caught telling lies instead of being sacked?
4 comments
[Text](https://www.reddit.com/r/northernireland/comments/10ch0iy/comment/j4fnfnh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
In this instance, the word ‘created’ has been substituted by the word ‘used’
Very interesting story. A lot of time, cunning, effort, planning and certainly some results; or lies, deception, other peoples volunteered time, effort, perhaps productivity and potentially reputations depending on your perspective.
No surprise security service infiltrate human rights orgs, especially when at least some of their areas of interest involve paramilitary cases and such campaigns may well include some supporters of paramilitaries. However, while setting an org up makes great operational sense from their intelligence gathering perspective, it raises more questions about wider manipulation than if they, say, joined and perhaps reduced or discontinued involvement once other contacts were established.
Am not familiar with the cases they championed but potential for undermining of legal independent investigations and campaigns related to those seems the most troubling aspect. If there was a miscarriage of justice, but security services believe the focus of that is an opponent, would they interfere or not? What data would they not gather or share about a legal defence or areas of focus? They could do themselves some PR favours by making a statement on those points but likely won’t, the ambiguity may suit them for other reasons and it will or won’t be believed by some regardless.
More generally I wonder about existing law to protect such investigation or campaigning rights from individuals or groups who might wish to cause disruptive interference, whether contracts might be required or useful (e.g. some civil cases might not progress ‘in the interests of national security’), how negative influence could be proved, or how practical it would be to implement safeguards.
It is a shame if review of potential miscarriages of justice is detered by fears of manipulation, though that manipulation could be done by more than one party with different intent and have different effects. I know nothing at all about the space but wonder if those in it should develop general recommendations about oversight, structure and perhaps review; standards potential contributors can verify are being used before dedicating their own time.
These terrorists are so embedded in the government they’re able to recruit others to positions like Garda Commissioner.
Did anyone see unionist Neale Richmond’s instant promotion after being caught telling lies instead of being sacked?