Here's another good example of a future case where the Government may try to keep the truth from being revealed.

Raymond McCord's son is suspected to have been killed by a loyalist terrorist who was also a Special Branch informer. It would be entirely reasonable to assume that were an inquiry ever be granted into the murder, that the Government would declare that for "security reasons" (ie, to avoid the public naming of an informer), the inquiry would be held under the terms of the Inquiries Act. It is an all-purpose get-out clause for the State.

All very fishy.

On the general principle in our examination of the past I am of the view of all or nothing rather than the selectivity we have had post 1998 that by choosing the particular tries to prove the general.

I admit with a preference for nothing (despite a personal belief that a number of agencies and individuals have questions to ask in relation to the murder of one friend) as the Vietnamese say 'past enough'. I also do not buy into the argument it will provide some new basis for trust that many think it will - how would a victim feel if it were revealed at a truth commission that a long-standing neighbour aided in a murder?

I always thought this legislation was for more than the Finucane inquiry and regrettably that seems to be the case.

I think I am right in saying that Lord Saville said that he would not participate in any enquiry held under the Inquiries Act, presumably because of the grip with the executive has over its terms - basically setting the parameters and tramtracks for the judicial element and effectively breaching the separation of powers in a totally cynical manner? (Draws breath)