[cjs_ac]

From the article:

> Birney and McCaffrey were arrested in 2018 over the alleged theft of material used in the documentary from Northern Ireland's police ombudsman and claimed they were subject to covert surveillance before and after the release of the film.

The PSNI overreacted in this case over concerns that information was leaking from the police regulator. Keep in mind that at the time of the documentary's release, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the PSNI's predecessor organisation) was undertaking a massive decades-long counter-terrorist operation that involved suppressing terrorist organisations on both sides of the conflict, and that many of these terrorist organisations still exist and remain heavily involved in organised crime.

While the PSNI acted illegally in these raids, it's easy to see that their motivation stemmed from a need to investigate any leaks, which, if they had existed, would almost certainly have put lives (informants) at risk.

It's not always some grand conspiracy. At least in the UK, it's usually honest people doing their best and getting it wrong.

[rootedbox]

The Peelers have historically not been known for their honesty when interacting with Catholics. Racism serves as an institutional tool for harassment and the justification of power over certain groups. There is no genuine honesty in these practices, even if they are ostensibly used to prevent violence.

[lawlessone]

>they were arrested over a documentary that alleged police collusion in the 1994 murder of six Catholic soccer fans.

[pessimizer]

> their motivation stemmed from a need to investigate any leaks

It is 100% of the time motivated from a desire to investigate leaks and find sources. If you think this is a justification, you will always be in favor of the surveillance of journalists.

> It's not always some grand conspiracy. At least in the UK, it's usually honest people doing their best and getting it wrong.

If they were honest, they'd admit that they neither believe in journalism, nor the protection of journalists' sources. Some do admit that, but most don't.

[aziaziazi]

Perhaps removing the informant from the field would be a less productive but legal solution to preserve their life?

I don’t think non-secret police has the right to overpass it’s rights even for any good with honest sentiment. How useful is a legal framework that can be trespassed in case of lives at risk, in a violent context where people get murdered?

We should refrain to call conspiracy easily but if I would be caught, "honest people doing their best" is how I’d try to defend myself.