Lord Eames and moving on
The Noble Lord Eames has kept a fairly low profile since the glitteringly successful launch of his personal credibility self destruction campaign (also known as the Consultative Group on the Past Report). One of the problems for Eames is that now that his brief period in the limelight (rather uncomfortable as it turned out) is over he has to go back to being a retired CoI prelate; one who is now rather unpopular with the overwhelming majority of his former flock. As such, I always suspected an attempt at a degree of revisionism on his report. Somewhat appropriately it was reported in 1st April’s News Letter.
Clearly there are bits which Eames will want the unionist community to focus on for him to “move on” from his personally disastrous report:
In a speech at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in Donegal, Lord Eames said: “Future generations will look back to the conflict in Northern Ireland and will read of fear and uncertainty.
“They will read of division and murder. They will read of great bravery and courage of those who kept the light of hope alive.”
“They will read of victims and of innocent people who carried scars of mind and body for the rest of their lives.”
“But they will also read of the bravery of those who sought to protect our society from terrorism and who paid a huge price, the ordinary ranks of the RUC, UDR, and later the PSNI and RIR.”
“Men and women who returned from duty to live with their families in homes which were always at risk.”
“Men and women who faced murder at their work and in their homes. Many of them still carry physical and mental scars of those days. As many of them asked us – does society really appreciate our sacrifice?”
It is unclear whether Lord Eames feels that they agree that he appreciates their sacrifice: not if the reaction of unionist politicians, victims groups or indeed the comments his group gathered are anything to go by. Of course at the time he found ways to dismiss all those comments but I suppose now a bit of rewriting of his previous actions is called for.
Unfortunately also his attempts at explanation for the report were as flawed as his attempts to air brush out equating the death of the innocent with those of their murderers.
“Our report looked at a time when united condemnation of murder and violence did not exist. It was a time when our society was deeply divided and suspicious.”
“It was a time when terrorism stalked our society. It was a time when any suggestion of shared responsibility in government was impossible.”
“Then came the ceasefires and the Belfast Agreement and the course of history changed.”
The noble Lord is again being disingenuous here. It is undoubtedly true that society here was deeply divided (just as it is now). However, he is again conflating two different things. The division is true as is the fact that shared government did not work (though it was tried at Sunningdale). However, there was pretty united condemnation of murder and violence. The reactions of the overwhelming majority of nationalists to Enniskillen, Teebane, Kingsmills and Darkley were disgust, revolution and unequivocal condemnation; the same reactions came from the elected nationalist politicians of the time. Yes there were a few dishonourable exceptions: but only a few. Equally the overwhelming majority of unionists were disgusted by and condemned unreservedly Greysteel, the Shankill Butchers, Sean Graham’s bookmakers and the Loughlinisland murders. Again there were dishonourable exceptions but not many
What Eames is trying to pretend, however, is that these facts did not exist. This is to allow him to gain some shred of an excuse for regarding the murders of the past as different to the murders of the present (just as I predicted he would). The only way he can carry off this deception, however, is to pretend that we were all, in some way supportive of, or in some way guilty of, the crimes of the past. A quote from Eames Bradley explains this: “A reconciling society takes collective responsibility for the past instead of attributing blame and avoiding responsibility.”
Again as I said at the time -”This sort of nonsense ignores the fact that in law and in most reasonable people’s minds ‘society’ has nothing to take responsibility for. Individuals committed very wrong acts. Lord Eames should remember that the Bible suggests that everyone is accountable before God for his or her sin, not for other people’s. ‘The Past’ in question here is actually the wrong, immoral and evils acts of the past. Any of us who did not commit crimes here is innocent. As such we have no responsibility for the actions of the past. If Lord Eames wishes to claim he is responsible for something in the past that is for his conscience: Mine and I submit almost all of ours should be clear on this matter. Let us leave Lord Eames to wallow in the self righteousness of his own self appointed guilt should he choose.”
Eames has brought to his latest comments the same intellectually lazy and dishonest attitude he brought to his whole report. Unfortunately for the noble Lord, it is not only Jim Allister who has called for his whole report to be binned. Opposition to his report seems about as united as opposition to murder always was. However, I am sure the noble Lord will not let such inconvenient truths get in the way of his campaign to rehabilitate himself: how successful that campaign will be, however, remains open to question.
As I said throughout Eames Bradley is not fit for purpose and had Lord Eames thought a little more about the true nature of the task in hand he would have realised that ages ago. That would, however, have required more lateral thinking and intellectual honesty than he has ever shown before and he shows no sign of gaining it now.
Turgon
You have accused me and indeed right wing unionists of intellectual terrorism, a concept you have dreamed up. I have no idea what this concept is: it is quite fun as it contrasts with real terrorism; you know the sort which republicans committed against people here and which resulted in the sectarian murders which we all know about. It also contrasts with the same sectarian terrorism which drove loyalists.
Come now, Turgon, you have at least been through university and you are not a stupid man. You know precisely what I was driving at by that particular term. The fact it also doubled up as a neat way to encapsulate the point that it contributed to the situation here and yes – in some sense contributed to people dying here was simply an added bonus.
Even if it did exist and it was true that unionists did this, it would be as naught compared with the crimes of real terrorism.
No. Wrong. You do not get to wash your hands in that case. If you accept the premise that the Unionism had a propensity to stifle new ideas and destroy anyone who tried to think outside the box then you have to accept the consequences of those actions. Which would undoubtedly include creating a vacuum in which both loyalist and republican violence could flourish and perpetuating said violence by making it hard to break the cycle. And that means that yes, it includes responsibility for deaths.
This is the heart of the thread, right here. I am reluctant to say this because you’ll jump on it without considering it properly. Pay attention to the first bit, because I’m not intending this to be definitive or entirely literal. In some sense the people who actually go out and pull the trigger are the least important part of the chain. Individuals can be stopped. They probably aren’t using much original thought. The people who pushed the ideas and gave intellectual succour and the people who supported them, even against their better judgement, were the ones who helped create a stream of people, not just one, who went out and killed people. Ideas matter, society matters, and it can be lethal. And if you don’t believe that you need to sit and think how ordinary men and women who in other circumstances would have lived out perfectly mundane lives where involved in the systematic destruction of a whole race in WW2. And that’s hardly the only example.
That involves some level of collective responsibility. I don’t know how you handle that. I really don’t. But I know that simply saying that because you can’t finger one person no one is responsible and there is nothing to be done is wrong. Does the idea that your prejudices and your beliefs are in some sense a chain or connected to things that wind up with people dead and injured make you uncomfortable? Do you feel a worrying touch of responsibility at the suggestion? Congratulations, you are a member of the human race. It scares the shit out of me. And maybe if we spent more time feeling that than arguing over how it isn’t my fault the world might be a better place.
Also to accuse me of it in a debate with Brian Walker is pretty pathetic. To try to conflate a fairly sharp exchange between two people on an internet debating forum with say the Rising Sun murders demonstrates a breath taking ability to compare like with unlike.
Just don’t. I did not do that, and that wasn’t my point. I will not have intellectual dishonesty of that magnitude.
So you do not support any form of terrorism? Do you support the IRA terrorist campaign which was waged against people here? Do you support the loyalist terrorist campaign? I can answer an unequivocal No to both those. Can you? If so good.
No, I’m not answering. My opinion on organisation X is irrelevant to the general debate we are having, and the type of red herring you use to shut down discussion. I have been on here long enough to have a consistent body of comment (including this thread!) and reputation and will not be involved in such perile childish games. Grow up Turgon, and stop trying to classify people into black and white boxes.
As to man playing attacking my religion is pretty insulting to me: I doubt you have the intellectual honesty to provide an apology.
If I thought I had anything to apologise for, I would do it in a second. I do not believe your comment towards the subjects of this thread have been in anyway Christian. I retain that view and would advise you to search your conscience. That is the only response I can give with any level of intellectual and moral integrity.
“The modern liberal sort. And they fatally misunderstood the dynamics of northern life and politics.”
I think there was confusion all round, Dub. Hume himself seemed very reluctant to get too close to NICRA because of the commie and republican baggage.
I’m not sure that those militants who had taken part in the 1956/62 campaign or those who anticipated a Cuban-style revolution could really be labeled liberals.
“Ideas matter, society matters, and it can be lethal.”
Kensei, it might well be easier to decommission munitions than mindsets.
So kensei there we go from your own words to the question do you support the loyalist or republican terrorist campaigns we have the answer: “No, I’m not answering.” That just about sums you up: cheerleader is a good term.
Then on to the rest of your comments you try to resurrect your idea of “intellectual terrorism.” It is interesting that if anyone did stifle debate etc. surely it was the republican movement: often by killing people with whom it disagreed, Roy Bradford and Edgar Graham for example, along with a host of nationalists.
Anyhow you then try to suggest that unionism stifled new ideas: it did no more nor less than nationalism at times did. However, from that rather shaky premise you then get via a series of equally unlikely suppositions to the conclusion that unionists are as guilty as the murderers themselves: indeed maybe they are the most responsible.
Sorry kensei but that is just utter nonsense: the political views of unionists only caused violence in that some people (republicans) so objected to them that they killed unionists in order to get rid of them. That does not make the victims the guilty ones.
Then we even have a bit of Prods were Nazis: you avoid using the term presumably to look as if you are not saying it and to avoid Godwin’s Law: however, the analogy is clear and again utterly dishonest. It shows how desperate you are becoming in your attempts to blame the innocent for the terrorists actions.
Then after accusing me of intellectual terrorism against Brian Walker you object strenuously when I point out that you are trying to compare a sharp internet discussion with actual violence: you were the one who invented the term of intellectual terrorism. You cannot really blame me if I point out how you used it.
Then finally you suggest I search my conscience: that from the person who when asked if he supports republican terrorism says “No, I’m not answering.”
C’mon Turgon
At the heart of the attack on Eames-Bradley is the reasonable idea that not all victims are the same. However there seems no appetite to spell out what this means in practice, just a denigration of those who stepped up to the plate.
If all you want to do is complain, fair enough, join the queue.
I just thought you wanted something better.
Turgon
As I said, even if I accepted that someone I need to pass some litmus test as a prerequisite for debate, I have enough material on here for you to make a judgement call. To be blunt, grow up. And if you can’t engage on a serious intellectual debate without fall back to the cries of cheerleading and repeating the same points without reference to what the other person is saying, do everyone a favour and just shut up.
As for the “bit of Prods are Nazi”, how fucking dare you misrepresent me like that. To take what I said and to place in those terms is a dishonesty I simply cannot handle. Apparently we heard all you ever had to say in the space of five minutes, and the rest is a rattle in an echo chamber. That’s me permanently out of your hair, I have no desire to debate anyone whose only trick is to repeat the same thing while doing their best to twist what people say. Disappointed.
Nevin
Kensei, it might well be easier to decommission munitions than mindsets.
I don’t think there is a debate there, and it was perhaps Hume’s most important insight. There is likely something in your tug-of-war sovereignty point but I am sceptical that serious trouble could erupt over 2016. I just can’t see where the support comes from at this point. And there is plenty of time to prepare a peaceful commemoration and dedication to those ideals.
I think the dissidents probably have the ability to sustain some kind of low level campaign, with the occassional ability to something more damaging like the last few weeks. I just don’t see where the really big destabilising force comes from that pulls us into more serious trouble. No one wants to go back, and the mechanisms for moving forward in any direction are understood and accepted.
kensei,
Don’t really like being reminded of what you said do you? You compared Prods to Nazis: it is up there. I must admit I was amazed at your stupidity. Still you said it, you can hardly fault me for pointing it out. It seems to be you who has trouble indulging in serious intellectual debate: after all your first contribution was foul language and you keep telling me I am acting as a child: you probably do not really understand the irony do you?
On an answer to the waffle and nonsense that passes for your argument ie violence is really unionists fault because they did not reform.
I simply deny that unionists were the sole people who held things back here: nationalists were also at fault. Also no matter how much anyone held things back, that does not excuse the sectarian murderers: the ones you refuse to condemn with your “No I’m not answering.”
The reality is that your whole premise is built on the sole idea that unionists created the problem so they can hardly complain that the IRA indulged in a sectarian murder campaign against them: you take multiple paragraphs to say it but rest assured it is still a lie. What can I expect from someone who compares us to Nazis? Tell me how did Marie Wilson hold back change, or the people at Darkley?
As to shutting up: No I will not. If you do not like debating just stop.
willis,
Sorry in the middle of dealing with kensei and dub I ignored your question and I always intended to come back to it.
I regard the vast majority of the victims here as entirely innocent: clearly the children could be nothing other than innocent victims; though I guess to some cheerleaders it was all their and their parents fault for being prods on Holy Irish ground. I suspect that was behind the attempted IRA mass murder of children at Tullyhommon.
Clearly I also regard the murders of soldiers and policemen, prison officers etc. as murder and that they are victims. Many were of duty but off or on duty that were not actually fighting a war they were trying to protect the community and stop terrorist murderers.
Also all the civilians were clearly victims although again the terrorists and their cheerleaders try to suggest that they worked for people or were related etc.
I also regard most of the terrorists killed as victims: most died whilst at home in sectarian attacks by the hand of another lot of terrorists. As such I guess the IRA men killed by loyalist terrorists are sort of victims and vice versa. However, they were not in any way pleasant or decent people. However, no one gave the loyalists (or vice versa) the right to kill them.
I also accept that it is sad that terrorists died whilst committing their crimes. However, I must admit at baulking at calling victims, the terrorists who died when they attacked an off duty UDR man and he fired back.
I believe there are differences between the victims. I wish with all my heart none had died. However, I can see that the whole thing is very fraught and in honesty I think that there will never be agreement on some cases. The areas and severity of disagreement depend on who is speaking to whom.
Another group all that omits of course is all the injured and Eames Bradley’s ignoring of them in the money was simply another example of the laziness and moral vacuity at the heart of their project. Just because people did not die does not make them victims. There are also the relatives etc. who were victims in a way too. However, I also completely reject this nonsense that we were all victims.
Sorry not a great answer but an honest attempt.
Turgon
I have to say I find most of your blogs and comments to be based on rumour; for example there was the claim about the Irish Language act it did not happen! There was the claim Sinn Fein would be in charge of policing and Justice did not happen! And the claim the new football stadium would be at the Maze it did not happen. I find it hard to believe your party also stated they would share power with Sinn Fein in a council styled model and your leader claimed that not all the St Andrews Agreement was bad, you really are contradicting yourself a lot on different issues. Your party leader also helped to negotiate the St Andrews Agreement and his finger prints are all over it. I believe your party will get around the 20,000 – 30,000 mark, if they do your party will be to blame for Sinn Fein topping the poll and the possibility of the SDLP taking the second seat.
Silverline,
That is the same post as you made on my last blog. I do not usually remove comments but if this continues I will. The comments above have nothing to do with Eames Bradley or the discussion on this thread.
Turgon
Thanks for that. Certainly you take a more liberal view than many other unionists.
I think that Rev Eames was probably the wrong choice to represent “prods”, and it is interesting that he has attracted much more ad hominum abuse than Denis Bradley.
willis,
I agree re Eames. I know there will be shouts of man playing but I honestly believe that Eames was chosen for a series of reasons:
1) The government had recently ennobled him and had to a large extent bought him. They knew he would find roughly what he did which was what they wanted.
2) He is a conciliator and a man to run away from hard debate: his stance (or non stance )on homosexuality in the Anglican church is a good example. As such they knew he would do as he was told and not stand up to Bradley who to my mind wrote most of the report.
3) He wanted the job. Unlike other Protestant churches (except the Free Presbyterians) the CoI have a long term leader. I do genuinely believe that after so long in the limelight as archbishop, Eames was missing the importance. As such when this came along he thought it was a good way to get back into the spotlight. Unfortunately he was so blinded by his own self importance (helped no doubt by flattery from the NIO etc.) that he thought he was the man who could sell the report’s findings to the unionist population.
4) Any other Protestant prelates whom the government could have chosen would have either not played ball (most ex Presbyterian moderators and almost all the smaller church leaders), were not well enough known (most ex Methodist presidents) or were so much in hoc to a liberal agenda that they would never have been taken seriously (John Dunlop, Ken Newell or Harold Good).
As I said that is all supposition and is a bit man playing but for what it is worth I have always felt the above was why Eames was chosen.
I cannot comment on why Bradley has attracted less abuse. Maybe the fact that he gave up being a priest a long time ago and has been essentially a quangocrat fro a number of years.
“I just don’t see where the really big destabilising force comes from that pulls us into more serious trouble.”
Kensie, it only takes a ‘micro-group’ to set the tribes here at each other’s throats. Back in the ’60s it was a bunch of armchair and militant socialists, a grouping that may have been disliked/detested by unionists and nationalists in equal measure. Our history would indicate that the reactions are perhaps more significant than our actions.
Hume’s three strand analysis reflected his failure to decommission his own mindset. Both aspirations IMO need to be accommodated and neither can be simply reduced to a tradition or ignored.
Also IMO the constitutional settlement in the 1998 Agreement prevents our political leadership from moving forward. Outsiders might have imagined that Robinson and McGuinness were pulling together in their condemnation of the three murders whereas each placed their condemnation in opposing contexts: UK v UI.
It might seem a strange proposition but I think those who are planning the various commemorations should brief unionist politicians at all levels well in advance. Better communication might make for a more peaceful outcome than we’ve seen previously. BTW this ‘advice’ applies more generally to all factional events.
@Willis and Brian Walker
Help us out here. Define victim please.
‘Enniskillen, Teebane, Kingsmills and Darkley’
Funny Turgon in his self-righteousness picks out several atrocities carried out (some only allegedly) by republicans. His peice reeks of the typical unionist ‘nothing to do with us guvnor’ bullshit which unionism has attempted to peddle throught the decades. Nevermind the fact that the troubles were actually initiated by unionists/loyalists, but to think you can seperate the last 30-40 years from the past generations of the british-irish conflict is utter bullshit. Unionisms refusal to accept the democratic will of the irish people for years post and pre-partition is the problem. they seem to blame the irish people for being left behind when Britains colonial ship had sunk. It wasn’t the irish people who used unionists as a buffer against the pesky natives. It wasn’t the pesky natives who brought violence or sectarianism to Ireland….for that he needs to look across east across the sea.
Turgon
Don’t really like being reminded of what you said do you? You compared Prods to Nazis: it is up there.
It wasn’t a comparison, not simile or metaphor. The point goes beyond Unionism, and that is easily inferred from the full context of what I have written. Apparently you can’t read. Go away now.
Nevin
I think the context is different this time. The Troubles are too close and too raw, in the 60′s there was a big distance. Things have got better on the sectarianism front, at least on the institutional level — people are more than likely not going to be denied a job or a council house because they are a Catholic any more, and Paisley isn’t going to march up the Falls to take away Tricolours. That sucks out a lot of the rage. And a lot of the mistakes like internment and the rest won’t be made a second time. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t capacity of severe trouble but I can’t see what causes an explosive shift.
As for the sovereignty issue, that ball is most definitely in Unionism’s court. It was Trimble who insisted that “internal affairs” were closed off, and it is Unionism who would have to take the initiative in pushing a change. Can’t see it, though maybe if the gap narrows further you might some reaching for some new thinking.
kensei,
I am going nowhere (well actually we are taking the kids out soon). It was you who started the Nazi thing.
Actually I can read rather well. You repeatedly tried to suggest by a series of increasingly tenuous steps that the reluctance of unionists to make a compromise resulted in their murder and that it was at least as much their fault as the perpetrators. That was the sum total of your argument which you repeated in increasingly tedious and irrelevant detail.
Then after explaining that unionists were more at fault than anyone else for their own murders you refused to condemn their murderers. “No, I’m not answering.”
Then you tried to conflate the reluctance of unionists to compromise in the fashion you feel they should with the way in which the Nazis managed to get the Jews murdered. Unsurprisingly I objected to it and pointed that out: you do not like that. Well maybe just maybe you should not have brought it up.
Kensei, it’s my impression that society here is possibly more sectarian than it was in the 60s. We’ve also moved into a new generation with maybe fewer ‘conciliators’ around.
We also have the problem that many local communities are under the paramilitary thumb and the local paramilitary leaders still appear to have a lot of immunity from the justice system.
I don’t see any ‘new’ thinking in either tribe. I don’t see the extremists on either side prepared to adopt my shared sovereignty proposals even though these proposals maximise the common ground that IMO is necessary for political and economic progress.
You say that things are better on the institutional front. I think it’s ironical that not even the Equality Commission can ‘get it right’.
Turgon
Never argue with an idiot, people might know the difference. Goodbye.
Nevin
Kensei, it’s my impression that society here is possibly more sectarian than it was in the 60
Myth. My grandparent’s generation wouldn’t marry someone of the opposite religion. My parent’s generation saw the complete breakdown of relations here. Things have got better, if only slowly.
We also have the problem that many local communities are under the paramilitary thumb and the local paramilitary leaders still appear to have a lot of immunity from the justice system.
There are clearly problems within some communities but people aren’t cattle and the paramilitary “control” is overplayed. Apparent immunity does strike me as an issue, though and I hope that wherever we get a justice minister we should start to see things move that forces a tougher line.
I don’t see any ‘new’ thinking in either tribe. I don’t see the extremists on either side prepared to adopt my shared sovereignty proposals even though these proposals maximise the common ground that IMO is necessary for political and economic progress.
I think you’d see moderate nationalism respond well to it. I cannot see anyone in moderate Unionism going near it with a 50 foot poll. And in that instance, it makes no sense for the SDLP to be proposing such a thing. There is a big difference between a possibility that is far short of what the other parties is dangling as a possibility, and the potential for concrete political outcome. It would require coordinated movement, or at least Unionism to take the lead.
You say that things are better on the institutional front. I think it’s ironical that not even the Equality Commission can ‘get it right’.
There is a big difference between incompetence and malice, particularly in fueling violence.
Nevin
I should have said Myth perpetuated by my parents and grandparents generations!
kensei,
I thought you had announced your leaving once already “That’s me permanently out of your hair.”
I suspect you will be back.
I admit to almost admiring the persistence with which you perused the argument that unionists had caused their own murders. Almost admire the consistency: disgusted by the premise and of course your refusal to condemn the real perpetrators. Your true colours tend to shine through: between that and the Nazi analogy. It does provide an interesting insight into your views however.
Stephen
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/victim?view=uk
And your point is?
Turgon
“4) Any other Protestant prelates whom the government could have chosen would have either not played ball (most ex Presbyterian moderators and almost all the smaller church leaders), were not well enough known (most ex Methodist presidents) or were so much in hoc to a liberal agenda that they would never have been taken seriously (John Dunlop, Ken Newell or Harold Good).”
The problem here is that you do not believe that liberal Protestants and Unionists can hold their beliefs in a serious and genuine way.
The clergymen you mention above are not in hock to a liberal agenda, they are not placemen, they are genuine liberals.
The use of the word prelate is appropriate to Episcopal denominations but not Reformed.
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/prelate?view=uk
Liberal Protestantism has a long history in Northern Ireland and is responsible for a lot more that is good in education and politics than its detractors will admit.
Kensie, I was using sectarian in its widest sense.
The baton once wielded by churchmen in community ventures has been taken up by paramilitary leaders. Paramilitary control is not so much under-played as under-reported.
Extremists are in the majority in the NI Executive so I don’t see them clamping down on those of a similar ilk.
Shared sovereignty makes the same or similar demands so that rules out any group taking the lead. Moderate unionism and nationalism is currently in the minority. It remains to be seen whether or not some common ground can be reclaimed.
My friends and I who’ve been exploring the Rathlin ferry saga have met with incompetence and malice and it’s come from public servants rather than politicians. The latter have turned out to be relatively impotent. Perhaps input from the European Commission will jolt them into action.
willis,
I deliberately use the term prelate regarding Newell and especially Dunlop, they always seemed to want bishop like powers and always seemed annoyed that their position was and remains a minority one with Presbyterianism.
I think you are correct regarding them being liberals. The problem is that because they are liberals they would have been seen as in hoc to the liberal agenda of which they are indeed part.
Eames was always a little bit different. However, that difference was I am afraid because he was all things to all men. I agree wholeheartedly about Drumcree. Actually I know a bit about it and what he said to the people in Portadown was very different to what he said elsewhere.
Hence, I think Eames is willing to bend to the prevailing wind. He did what the governments and everyone wanted him to, had his time in the spotlight and thought (erroneously) that he could sway unionists to agree with him in significant numbers. On that he was gravely mistaken.
Turgon, I find liberal clerics so much more attractive than conservative ones, especially if they are female.
It seems to me that the conservatives ‘don’t want a woman about the place’. Jesus seemed to be very effective when it came to tearing strips off the conservatives – and the moneychangers, or as we now call them, bankers.
Turgon
Sorry to be a pedant but the expression is “in hock” meaning to be in debt to a pawnbroker. You can be in hock to a liberal agenda if it has a financial power over you, you cannot if you are actually a liberal.
When did I mention Drumcree?
I think you are probably right about Eames’ capacity to sail with the prevailing wind. He grew up in a more deferential age and has an understanding of duty and place which is more in keeping with the Queen than mere mortals like you and me.
I’m glad you were actually trying to make a point by using the word “prelate”, but I think you have picked on the wrong two boys.
Willis, dub mentioned Drumcree.
Nevin
Do you know any conservative women clerics? As rare as hen’s teeth.
Willis, I suspect many if not most conservative females would eschew the clerical dress.
PS I wonder who is the ‘prelate’ in the Turgon household
willis,
I did not know where in hock came from: thank you.
In terms of picking the wrong two: I do not know Newell may be not but Dunlop has tried to exercise excess influence over the PCI for as long as I can remember. It is a bit less now that he has retired but I really think he saw himself as the one who should be leading the church and actually telling it what to do before, during and after his moderatorship.
Anyhow in a way it is irrelevant to my argument. I think you would agree that had the Prod clergyman been Newell, Dunlop or Harold Good the Consultative Group would have been dismissed before it began. I think the calculation was to use Eames and that he could carry a critical mass of Prods. That was a mistake mainly because the report was so unacceptable to unionists but also because of the leaks etc. beforehand which were I suspect designed to make the final recommendations more palatable. Actually they had if anything the opposite effect, stoking anger before the thing even came out. When it came out it was almost as bad as everyone feared and Eames’s credibility was utterly shattered.
Nevin,
My wife has told at least one lie in her life. She promised (before God I might add, not that I wanted her to but in the Indies we were given no choice) to obey me. I think she loves and honours me but the obey bit: er no.
Hmmm. That wasn’t quite the question I posed, Turgon. You’ll be familiar with the term, “She who must be obeyed”
Nevin,
No I did answer it. She in general must be obeyed indeed. Actually I have been getting special dispensation to blog a bit this bank holiday as Elenwe and the boys are painting.
Turgon
Haha
I see what you are getting at, although I would still disagree about Prelate. If you had said Doctor or Professor you would have been bang on the money.
One of the disagreeable features of some learned liberal presbyterians is their tendency to be condescending to their often less educated conservative peers.
So, Elenwe is the ‘prelate’ in the ‘parish of Kiljoy’ ….
“A reconciling society takes collective responsibility for the past instead of attributing blame and avoiding responsibility.”
Collective responsibility is nicely inverted here to mean accepting responsibility rather than avoiding it, and it is also inverted to mean blameless. So, you can be held responsible for crimes that you did not commit while, paradoxically, becoming blameless by accepting that you are, as accused, responsible. In other words, the pursuit of justice is trivially characterised as a mere ‘blame game’ played by political children, while the political adults realise that “reconciling” between victim and victimizer is best accomplished when the victim accepts that he is just as guilty as the victimizer. So, everybody is a victim, and since all cannot be punished, none must be ‘singled out unfairly’ and punished. Ah, yes, that infamous non-announced amnesty.
This is great because if the organisers of the murder gangs are on the same social level as the victims of the sectarian murder gangs, then society need worry not that the organisers of the murder gangs have been rewarded for their crimes by being granted political power over their surviving victims and the families, friends, and fellow citizens of their non-surviving victims.
Validating this despicable concept of collective guilt also validates collective punishment. Therefore, those innocent (sorry, guilty) civilians (legitimate combatants) who were murdered at random by loyalists, or vice versa, by shinners by in retaliation for retaliation were not innocent of crimes they did not individually committed because, under collective responsibility, they committed them as members of their respective tribe. Ah yes, that infamous non-announced policy that the conflict was between Catholics and protestants and cantered of theological differences, reinforced here by a catholic puppet (Bradley) and a protestant puppet (Eames) attempting to reconcile the warring religious bigots.
Just checking Willis. You see Eames/Bradley used a different definition, the one contained in Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2953 (N.I.17)
The Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
The interpretation follows:
Interpretation: “victim and survivor”
3. —(1) In this Order references to “victim and survivor” are references to an individual appearing to the Commissioner to be any of the following—
(a) someone who is or has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident;
(b) someone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for an individual mentioned in paragraph (a); or
(c) someone who has been bereaved as a result of or in consequence of a conflict-related incident.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), an individual may be psychologically injured as a result of or in consequence of—
(a) witnessing a conflict-related incident or the consequences of such an incident; or
(b) providing medical or other emergency assistance to an individual in connection with a conflict-related incident.
The real hierarchy created by Eames/Bradley is that of time, given the methodology proposed to investigate the past . Those considered victims from early in the coflict may recieve the full benefit and resources of the historical enquiry investigation teams while later victims may find themselves with nothing useful.
There is quite a difference Willis from your OED definition and that provided for Sir Ken Bloomfield. As ever the devil is in the detail.
Stephen
Do you have an issue with the OED, Eames/Bradley or me. Your post does not make this clear.
Dave
We are all bloodthirsty murdering scum and should therefore all be punished with seats in the executive and chauffeur driven limos.
I love this perverted logic which will twist everthing 180 degrees in order to appease murders of women, children and innocents.
Reconcilation is a waste of time we should move on and provide for the real victims who never lifted a finger in anger.
Turgon,
It was me who made the point about Eames and Drumcree. Another “meeting” of our minds!!!!