Former RUC chief sorry for impact of ombudsman spat on Omagh bomb victims
A former Northern Ireland chief constable is sorry for the impact on Omagh bomb victims of a public spat he had with the Police Ombudsman over a critical report.
Counsel for Sir Ronnie Flanagan also said it remains of personal and professional regret to him that no-one was ever brought to justice for the dissident republican blast in 1998 that killed 29 people.
During an opening statement to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry on Monday on behalf of Sir Ronnie, Ian Skelt KC detailed some of the lengths he had gone to, including contacting Nasa to ask if they had any footage of the area.
Sir Ronnie was chief constable of Northern Ireland's then police force the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the time of the bomb and had weekly meetings with then secretary of state Mo Mowlam to discuss security.
Mr Skelt said Sir Ronnie has 'consistently pledged his commitment to engaging positively with this inquiry to ensure it provides answers to those most affected, namely the survivors and the next of kin of those who lost their lives'.
He said he followed the commemorative statements around those killed and impacted by the bomb in the last phase of the inquiry earlier this year.
'He welcomes the inquiry and recognises that some nearly 27 years from the bomb attack this may represent the last opportunity to identify the truth in respect to the preventability of the bombing,' he said.
'He pledges to engage fully and transparently.'
He went on to describe how Sir Ronnie is sorry for the impact of his row with then Police Ombudsman Nuala O'Loan in 2001 after she produced a critical report around the police investigation into the Omagh bomb.
At the time, Sir Ronnie responded by saying he would resign and 'commit suicide in public' if the multiple failures highlighted in the ombudsman's report were true.
Mr Skelt told the Omagh Bombing Inquiry that Sir Ronnie regrets his 'ill-judged emotive statement'.
'Sir Ronnie has heard the evidence during the personal statement hearings that the public dispute between him and the then Police Ombudsman was unwelcome and distracted from the focus being on the victims and their loss, this was not his intention. He is sorry for causing upset,' he said.
'All he can say now is back then when the ombudsman's report was released, he felt very strongly about its content and considered it important to ensure the public had accurate information about the police investigation of the Omagh bombing.
'Following the release of what he considered to be an inaccurate Police Ombudsman report, Sir Ronnie acknowledges the making of an ill-judged emotive statement in response to a journalist's question asking him if he would resign if the report was accurate. Having very quickly recognised that it was a crass response, Sir Ronnie immediately issued an apology.'
Mr Skelt added: 'At the relevant time, Sir Ronnie considered he took the appropriate position in light of the information and advice available to him, but as outlined above and previously, he is sorry for causing upset to those impacted by the bombing, he will continue to reflect upon this and other decisions through this inquiry.
'It is submitted that Sir Ronnie acted in good faith and at all times motivated by an intention to bring all of those responsible for this crime to justice, that this has not been possible is a matter of great personal and professional regret.'
Mr Skelt also outlined some of the measures taken in the police investigation into the bomb which included contacting the then director of the FBI to ask whether there was any possibility of library footage from Nasa, the FBI, CIA or any other US agency of the Omagh area at the time of the bombing.
'This is an example of the lengths he went to to ensure even the most remote avenues of investigation were explored,' he said.
'That said, Sir Ronnie is not in any way closed to the suggestion that other avenues could have been explored, indeed this inquiry may identify possibilities as the work on documentation and evidence progresses.'
Sir Ronnie, a core participant in the inquiry, is expected to give a full statement of evidence at a later stage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Keir Starmer forced to boost defence spending in Nato-first policy
Britain spent 2.3 per cent of its national income on defence in 2024 compared with the United States which spent 3.19 per cent. Sir Keir Starmer has now been forced to commit to spend 5 per cent of national income on security by 2035, a figure which includes 3.5 per cent on hard defence, in line with Nato allies and to appease Donald Trump. Experts say this will eventually cost taxpayers an extra £40 billion a year. There are no clear plans on how to pay for it. Starmer delivers a speech during a visit to the BAE Systems' Govan facility in Glasgow earlier this month ANDY BUCHANAN/POOL/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES Under Nato's rules for spending, the UK expects to reach at least 4.1 per cent of national income on security in 2027. 'Security' will include infrastructure projects and military mobility, such as adapting roads and bridges for tanks. 'Hard defence' is weapons and troops. Only a few weeks ago the government was tying itself in knots over defence spending, with the prime minister refusing to commit to spend just 3 per cent of defence by 2034, baffling senior military figures. Starmer said 3 per cent during the next parliament was an 'ambition' only, because he would not indulge in 'performative fantasy politics', despite knowing he would be heading to the Nato summit under pressure to commit to much more. John Healey, the defence secretary, rowed back on remarks made to The Times where he said spending 3 per cent in the next parliament, by 2034, was a certainty. Three days later he said 'we will never make commitments to increase funding unless we can show how we are paying for them'. The prime minister visits a Vanguard class submarine off the coast of Scotland CROWN COPYRIGHT However, after pressure from the US, Britain and Europe have been left with no choice but to dramatically increase their spending. The US expects Britain to take on a leading role in Europe and the strategic defence review emphasises a 'Nato-first' policy. It is unclear how exactly the government plans to spend billions of pounds a year extra on defence and security by 2035. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute, has said meeting 3.5 per cent by 2035 would cost £40 billion more annually than if it stayed at 2.5 per cent in the same year. So far the government has only set out how it plans to spend 2.6 per cent on defence by April 2027, mainly by taking money away from the aid budget.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
An Airbnb in a war zone? Global holiday rental giant facing legal action over offering stays in 100s of homes in illegal Israeli settlements
Airbnb is facing serious legal heat as human rights groups demand the UK's National Crime Agency (NCA) launch a criminal investigation into the global rental giant over alleged money laundering links to Israeli settlements. According to a damning new complaint, Airbnb have breached UK anti-money laundering laws by listing more than 300 holiday rentals in illegal Israeli settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem - territories widely recognised as occupied under international law. The complaint, brought forward by the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Palestinian rights organisation Al-Haq, was officially filed with the NCA on Tuesday. The groups accuse Airbnb's UK arm of handling profits from crimes committed under international law - namely, the ongoing occupation of Palestinian land. But Airbnb's operations in the region are no secret. In fact, the company appears on the United Nation's blacklist of companies involved in activities tied to Israeli settlements - areas the UN, and now the International Court of Justice (ICJ), have declared illegal. In a landmark ruling in July 2014, the ICJ stated Israel 's occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal under international law. The court further ruled that all states have a duty to end trade and investment that supports the occupation, a damning blow to any company still profiting from it. Yet, Airbnb appears to have continued to operate in these areas. Ashish Prashar, former UK senior advisor to the Middle East Peace Envoy and current a special advisor to GLAN on their Palestine Portfolio, told MailOnline: 'By bringing this case against Airbnb, what we're saying is that no one, no business, no company, no entity, should make profits from war crimes'. Ashish Prashar, former UK senior advisor to the Middle East Peace Envoy and current a special advisor to GLAN on their Palestine Portfolio, told MailOnline: 'By bringing this case against Airbnb, what we're saying is that no one, no business, no company, no entity, should make profits from war crimes'. As of 2023, there are currently over 300 listed properties up for rent in occupied territories which Al-Haq have displayed in a settlement watch infographic. Al-Haq's Forensic Architecture Investigation Unit (FAI) conducted an in-depth investigation into Airbnb listings located in illegal Israeli settlements within the occupied West Bank. 'This investigation uncovered how Israeli settlers exploit resources and infrastructure systematically denied to Palestinians, including by using accommodation platforms like Airbnb to sustain their illegal presence on stolen Palestinian land,' the organisation's website reads. But despite the unraveling controversy, Prashar claims as a business, Airbnb have a choice in who they carry out business with and are willingly choosing to rent out properties on 'stolen land' and with 'an entity that's being accused of genocide right now'. 'The fact that Airbnb are willing to continue the charade, are willing to continue to extract money from war crimes, says a lot about Brian Chesky (Airbnb's CEO), says a lot about the leadership of the company and says a lot about the board and everyone else who's responsible for these decisions,' he said. Echoing Prashar's concerns, Shawan Jabarin, general director of Al-Haq, said: 'At a time when we are witnessing genocide in Palestine, businesses like Airbnb are providing services that deny the Palestinian people their means of subsistence, threatening the viability of the group. 'Following the finding by the International Court of Justice, that Israel's occupation is illegal, business activities trading in goods and services that maintain the illegal occupation, must come to an end.' Despite earlier pledges, Airbnb has a patchy track record. In November 2018, following heavy criticism from Human Rights Watch, Airbnb promised to 'act responsibly' and remove all listings in illegal Israeli settlements. But less than six months later, in April 2019, the company quietly reversed its decision under legal pressure from Israeli hosts and US-based guests. It instead vowed to donate profits from Israeli settlement listings to humanitarian causes. An Airbnb spokesperson told MailOnline: 'Airbnb operates in compliance with applicable laws in Ireland, the UK, and the US. 'Since 2019, Airbnb has donated all profits generated from host activity in the West Bank to an international nonprofit, in line with our global framework on disputed territories'. Critics claim this is not good enough. 'By continuing to let out properties on behalf of Israelis, who illegally occupy on stolen land, or even in some cases stolen homes from Palestinians, [Airbnb] are supporting that occupation. Airbnb listing a property in the West Bank is a breach of that ruling. They're in breach of international law,' Prashar said. 'They are basically saying: "We're cool with the Palestinians being dominated because we're going to make a quick buck of it and donate some of the rest of the money",' he added. Zainah el-Haroun, a spokesperson for Al-Haq also said the donation 'misses the point entirely'. 'It is not enough to simply donate profits. Companies are morally and legally bound to ensure their activities do not support, maintain or benefit for Israel's unlawful occupation,' Haroun said. 'No charitable donation can undo the underlying human rights harms caused by facilitating any aspect of Israel's unlawful occupation.' Human rights lawyers have said the donations do not cleanse the company of criminal liability. 'These are the first ever cases to apply anti-money laundering legislation in the UK and elsewhere to business activity in the illegal Israeli settlements,' Gerry Liston, a senior lawyer at GLAN said. 'They demonstrate that senior executives of companies profiting from Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory risk prosecution for a very serious criminal offence'. Alongside the UK complaint, GLAN has filed a legal challenge in Ireland after police there refused to investigate Airbnb Ireland's role in facilitating listings in the settlements. GLAN has also sent a 'preservation letter' to Airbnb's parent company in the US - a key move under American legal procedures that could pave the way for discovery of internal documents. A spokesperson for the National Crime Agency declined to confirm whether it would investigate, telling Middle East Eye: 'The NCA does not routinely confirm or deny the existence of investigations.' In the Netherlands, a similar case led by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) has also been brought against which like Airbnb lists properties in the illegal Israeli settlements. has been approached for comment. ELSC joined GLAN, Sadaka and AL-Haq at the launch of the complaint at a press conference in Dublin on June10, 2025. But with mounting legal pressure from coordinated actions across the UK, US, and Ireland, Airbnb's global business model is now under unprecedented scrutiny.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Labour MPs table 'reasoned amendment' in attempt to halt welfare bill - with enough backers to defeat government
Moderate Labour MPs are planning a "reasoned amendment" to oppose the government's disability benefit cuts, which will be published as soon as Tuesday, Sky News understands. Nearly 100 Labour MPs are understood to have given their backing to this measure, which means the government could be defeated on its flagship welfare reforms. MPs who have not yet gone public with their criticisms have signed the motion, calling for a delay to assess the impact of cuts to personal independence payments (PIP). They express concerns, according to a draft seen by Sky News, about the government's own figures showing 250,000 people could be pushed into poverty, and what the forecast is for how many may find employment. The reasoned amendment was tabled by Dame Meg Hillier, chair of the Treasury select committee, with the support of 12 other select committee chairs. Other senior figures, who are normally loyal to the party leadership, are understood to be spearheading the reasoned amendment, which would need to be selected by Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle when MPs debate the legislation next week. It is an attempt to force the government to water down the benefit changes, in advance of the vote. It is understood that 99 MPs had signed it by Monday evening. The amendment emerged as Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall was addressing the weekly gathering of Labour MPs and peers to sell the reforms to PIP and universal credit. The government argues the welfare bill is rising "unsustainably". Opponents of the changes to sickness and disability benefits say opinion among Labour MPs has hardened since the draft legislation was published last week. Dozens of MPs are said to have expressed concerns to party bosses, including junior ministers and aides. A party whip resigned her post last week to oppose the reforms. 1:40 Some MPs, who have not yet spoken publicly, told Sky News the chances of the government losing the vote were "under-priced". It is understood that No 10 officials have told concerned MPs they would be "voting with Nigel Farage" and "will bring us all down" if they vote against the changes. On Monday night, Ms Kendall told a meeting of Labour MPs that they must back the changes, saying the survival of the welfare state depended on it. Some current PIP claimants are set to lose their benefits when they are reassessed from the end of next year. Ms Kendall said: "There is no route to social justice based on greater benefit spending alone. "The path to fairer society - one where everyone thrives, where people who can work get the support they need, and where we protect those who cannot - that is the path we seek to build with our reforms. "Our plans are rooted in fairness - for those who need support and for taxpayers. "They are about ensuring the welfare state survives, so there is always a safety net for those who need it." 6:01 The first vote on the legislation is next week, and a defeat would be a major blow to Sir Keir Starmer's plans to cut the welfare bill, which the government say is becoming "unsustainable". Ms Kendall has been reassuring MPs that nine out of 10 PIP claimants will keep their benefits, and those who are most vulnerable will be protected.
