New Statesman leader on the role some Northern Ireland police officers had in colluding with murder

Even more shocking than the violence and the official collusion is the date on which the event in question took place. It was long known that Northern Ireland's police turned a blind eye, and even encouraged, loyalist paramilitaries to carry out sectarian murders. But proof has now been presented that this was happening not just at the height of the Troubles in the 1970s and 1980s, but as recently as November 1997, when the peace process was in full swing, the British and Irish governments were co-operating and the province enjoyed a first taste of normality.

The findings of Northern Ireland's tenacious police ombudsman, Nuala O'Loan, published on 22 January, provide a damning indictment. The report shows that members of the Ulster Volunteer Force carried out a series of murders, bombings and summary acts of violence while being paid as informers for, and while receiving immunity from, the Special Branch. O'Loan could not present specific evidence of culpability because many of the documents, she said, had been destroyed even after she had started her inquiry. She called for fresh investigations to be opened.

The Royal Ulster Constabulary, as the police force used to be called, operated in a paramilitary environment. One half of the community - republicans and nationalists - usually refused to deal with the RUC, seeing it as a force of Protestant domination. The other side - unionists - regarded the police as their own. Recruitment of Catholics was extraordinarily difficult.

Even in these more relaxed times, Ulster struggles to come to terms with its history. A number of investigations have taken place, and are taking place still, to try to unravel the murky events. None of it is easy. In 2003, Lord Stevens reported police collusion with paramilitaries. Others are taking longer. Lord Saville's inquiry into Bloody Sunday has dragged on for years, costing tens of millions of pounds. It is now not due to report until 2008. The UK government has held out against a full judicial inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane, a Belfast solicitor who defended a number of republican suspects.

The man whose future is in question is Sir Ronnie Flanagan. He was in charge of the police at the time of the events in O'Loan's report. She made it clear that although he saw her, he was unable to assist her inquiries. Flanagan is now head of the Inspectorate of Constabulary, which oversees the efficiency and probity of police in England and Wales. He is clearly unfit to carry out that task.

Publication of the ombudsman's report comes at a sensitive time. On 28 January Sinn Fein holds an extraordinary general meeting, an Ard Fheis, in Dublin. Delegates will vote on whether to accept the reformed and renamed Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) as the legitimate executor of law and order. This has major repercussions for the future. It will - barring last-minute setbacks - pave the way for elections for the province in early March. The Northern Ireland Assembly will then be convened, and devolved government will be restored for the first time in more than four years. That will almost certainly be led by Rev Ian Paisley of the DUP, with Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness as his deputy. Sometimes fact does seem stranger than fiction, but in spite of opposition from dissident unionists and republicans, a historic deal is edging closer.

The policing vote is the key. Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein president, has been lobbying hard for a "Yes" result. O'Loan's report could have been seen as a setback. But Adams and McGuinness have turned the question around, saying it proves why Sinn Fein needs to be involved in policing: to ensure that the PSNI is accountable. One wonders why they did not use this argument before. It was back in 1999 that Lord Patten provided his report that put in place ground-breaking reforms.

The PSNI has changed. Its chief constable, Sir Hugh Orde, has been active in forcing out old thinkers and old thinking. Some rotten apples are probably still in there, but things are moving in the right direction. Nationalists have everything to gain, and unionists nothing to lose, in backing a new-look force that could be part of the solution, rather than the problem.

Glamour and hoodies for all

Age is on our minds this week. We have always been opposed to discrimination on the grounds of age, so we were inclined to sympathise with the shopkeeper at Monkton Road Stores in York, who insisted that a two-year-old take off his hooded jacket. The shop was merely being assiduous in applying its "no hoodie" rule. If adolescents were required to lower their hoods, why not two-year-olds? It's a hard case to support, though, we admit.

A much happier celebration of the principle of not discriminating on grounds of age has emerged from Hollywood. Helen Mirren, Judi Dench and Meryl Streep have lightened our hearts by being nominated for Oscars for Best Actress - Mirren for The Queen, Dench for Notes on a Scandal, Streep for The Devil Wears Prada. Mirren, Dench and Streep are all mature actresses. Streep, the youngster of the trio, is 57. This is a triumph for actresses at an age when, usually, the only hope of Academy Awards has been for fine supporting performances as one-toothed crones.

But before our very logical readers haul us over the coals for inconsistency (see Letters this week for our latest chastisement), let us add that we are equally happy that Peter O'Toole, a venerable 74 years old, has been nominated for best actor for his performance in Venus. But admit it. It is rather more common for elderly gentlemen to get the role, the girl and the Oscar. The celebration is that such roles are now being written for older women.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website