Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Inquiry would bear heaviest on those responsible for a small share deaths
No one who saw Eames-Bradleys’ initial brief, never mind their specific terms of reference, could do much other than shake their head slowly in sympathy for two decent men charged with an impossible task. Whatever came out of the machine, was always likely to fall under the category of ‘political football’. Paul Bew’s on the Today Programme contribution from Paul Bew this morning tricks out first the context for the critical reaction, and then what may prove its most fatal flaw; the imperative for telling the truth.
First that controversial £12k:
“The authors of this report are actually rejecting the idea of a hierarchy of victims and they are responding to a real difficulty in that we currently have a number of inquiries, Bloody Sunday and a number of others, looking at only a very small number of victims when over three and a half people have died. The difficulty that Eames and Bradley are faced with is that society is saying “we don’t like that hierarchy of victims, please give us something else”. They have come out and given us something else- the solution being that the family of everyone who died should get £12,000. And the reaction from people seems to be “well actually, we didn’t like that hierarchy of victims, but we still think there is a hierarchy of victims, and we’re not prepared to give equal treatment to terrorists”.
Towards the end he notes the asymetrical effect that such a time bound legacy enquiry is likely to produce in the context of a committed silence from all but the state actors in the conflict:
Lord Eames and Dennis Bradley hope this could help perform a work of major reconciliation. There is a difficulty here about such an inquiry which for example will look at some important issues like the ethnic cleansing of Protestants in border areas. But the difficulty is, who is going to tell the truth?
In particular, do we have a clear and unambiguous statement from the IRA that it is going to contribute? Now don’t forget that the security forces are responsible for only 10% of the deaths in Northern Ireland. The Lion’s share lies with Republican and Loyalist terrorists and within the terrorist community, the IRA.
If we haven’t got a clear statement - and remember currently we have a situation where Gerry Adams will say “I am not a member of the IRA” - how much truth are we really going to get?
And alternatively, the organisations which have documents are the police and the security services, the way this thing will work is that you have everything baring more heavily down on the people who are responsible for a small share of the deaths.”
Mick Fealty @ 12:04 PM
“baring” more heavily down and “laying” heavily down. dear, dear. Bear and lie. Lay is a transitive and not an intransitive verb…
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 02:12 PMFixed. Thanks.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 02:34 PMI have to say that I am sick to my stomach over the reaction to this report. Watching those people heckle Eames and Bradley before they’d even gotten a word out was shocking, all of them squawking about the £12,000 when there was so many more important things to talk about.
It’s not PC to say this but as the families of victims have thrown their toys out of the pram then I’m going to do the same… Get over yourselves. 3 words that could change our lives, and by us I mean Northern Ireland as a whole, not just those deemed worthy to be classed as ‘victims’.
I do not mean to disrespect the families or their suffering; it is they themselves that are doing this with the whole ‘we’re a worthy victim but you’re not’ childish rubbish. EVERYONE in Northern Ireland was affected by the Conflict. EVERYONE has suffered because of it and EVERYONE can class themselves as victims in some sense, all of whom have earned the right to move on.
Maybe the money isn’t the best idea anyone’s ever had but in shoving forward to try and place themselves above everyone else, not only those families whose loved one was a paramilitary from either side, they are doing wrong by us all. Reconciliation is about airing the truth, accepting the past and trying to move forward, perhaps it’s time these VIP victims gave it a try. I think we could all do with a fresh start…
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 02:56 PMEVERYONE in Northern Ireland was affected by the Conflict. EVERYONE has suffered because of it and EVERYONE can class themselves as victims in some sense, all of whom have earned the right to move on.
total shite, obviously noone in your family was shot in the back, blew up as they sat in their car, or murdered as they were shopping.
a fresh start would be to round up all the terrorists and take them out of society…cant see eames and bradley going for that one, better to pay them off
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 03:03 PMI wonder if Al-Qaeda and Hamas are paying any attention to this decision by Eames and Bradley?
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 03:07 PMAll you would need to do is take out your enemies and blow yourself up and the state pays the bill.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 03:09 PMwould anyhing that the repuclicans say be taken as face value truth?
gerry has always denied being a member of the IRA and even though no concrete proof has ever been provided to the contrary it is not taken as the truth.
But then since we know the govenrment and especially the security forces are known for their bald face lies I guess its only natural to accuse their opposition of the crimes they themselves are guilty of
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 03:32 PMImpossible task in all honesty. The whole concept of victimization is mired in ambiguity. But the reaction, especially from Willie Frazer, was so typical. Can he not make his point without getting into the trenches and causing a whole bloody scene. And Jim Allister, an absolute bigot, sticking his bloody nose in as well. Woke up today to see that crap on the TV, pathetic!
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 04:28 PMThe report states:
“The suffering of families from Northern Ireland and Great Britain should be
recognised.”Presumably they mean families from anywhere who have lost relatives as a result of the conflict?
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 04:47 PMI understand how terrible it must be for those that have lost people in the troubles and the outrage that they feel over the payment. But was there any need to protest against the men before listening to what they had to say? Was there any need for those who’d lost loved ones to yell at eachother across the room as if somebody who’d been killed by the IRA wasn’t as bad as being killed by security forces? Was there any need for those who’d had family members killed by the IRA to yell at those who’d died because of the paramilitaries or security forces?
Lets me honest these two men were never going to get anywhere. Either they select those who’ve lost lives and anger everyone or give everybody money and anger everyone.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 04:59 PM“as if somebody who’d been killed by the IRA wasn’t as bad as being killed by security forces”
Sorry Sarah, but do you accept that there is any material or moral difference between:-
1 a terrorist shot dead by the army while carrying a rife or bomb and attempting to murder a police officer or innocent member of the public?
2 an 8 year old child killed and who has her legs blown off by a bomb in her fathers car planted by the IRA because he was a member of the security forces?
3 a teenager murdered by loyalists because he was a Catholic in the wrong place and the wrong time?
4 a loyalist terrorist blown up by his own bomb while attempting to kill Catholics?
Which of these, if any, do you think should receive a payment (or indeed ‘recognition’)?
PS two of them had a choice about what they were doing. Two didn’t.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:12 PM‘a teenager murdered by loyalists because he was a Catholic in the wrong place and the wrong time? ‘
thanks for that one cynic as it prompted a very simple question. in the proposed payout, would the family of Thomas Devlin be in eligble for the 12K?. where exactly are the lines drawn in these proposals?
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:42 PMCynic,
As far as I can see, they all died and hence are all victims. Their families in each case will have suffered and are also victims. Seems pretty straightforward.
There will always be material differences. As for morality, well this is as subjective as victimhood…Initially I was against the payment but am now seeing where they are coming from.
‘Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.’(Oscar Wilde)
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:42 PM*Yawn*
I seem to recall lecturing folks yonks ago that truth and justice went out the window when you elected those who are most responsible for creating victims to positions of power wherein they could influence what level of truth and justice was dispensed to their victims. While some may now feign shock, horror and all manner of indignation, there should be no surprise that victimizers would not allow the focus to be placed on their victims, thereby recasting bogus ‘peacemakers’ as bigots and violent thugs, and reminding everyobody of the ilk they voted for. Blame puppets like Eames & Bradley, but blame yourselves most of all.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:53 PMAs far as I can see, they all died and hence are all victims…...........
totally obnoxious, criminals arent victims theyre CRIMINALS.Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:57 PMC
It is not wise to quote Wilde to support any view, as he, after all is only a comic genius and should not be taken seriously but enjoyed for his odd view of life which does not include morality.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 05:58 PMLet’s face it, Willie Frazer just LOVES an opportunity to stir the sectarian pot. All he undertstands is the politics of the manufactured outrage. Why does this blatantly sectarian bigot (don’t believe me? read his website) continue to be treated as someone newsworthy?
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:00 PMulsterfan said
“It is not wise to quote Wilde to support any view, as he, after all is only a comic genius”
Often its the elements of truth that makes some comedy great.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:10 PMAdams was approached and was told he was scum.
That’s better than any 12k I am sure. Just the ability to approach him and to say that without fear of force or retaliation was worth it.
Sometimes you just gotta get it off your chest.
It will help, I think the payment is a good idea, despite what people say, 12k is still 12k.
I actually admire Willie Fraser in a way his nothing to lose approach and confrontation with republicans does deliver a sort of nihilism on what republicans view as narrative.
When someone says you’re a murderer, you’re a murderer, state or civilian who is politicised. You’re still a murderer, part politician, part terrorist and part gangster, but I can’t help be struck by the nihilism of it all and in that case, all round, 12k for nihilism aint bad. Usually nothing comes after a war of nothingness.
To the future we look, and be grateful that we had better political leadership in the late 90s that plucked us, the younger people, out of that nonsense.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:34 PMCynic- There were some people killed by security forces that were not terrorists. Bloody Sunday is one example.
I think there is a distinction in your list. I haven’t stated otherwise that I think terrorist should get sums of money. Thats your assumption.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:39 PMPresumably the relatives of paramilitaries killed by their mates as part of drug feuds etc, Jim Gray and others will get rewarded. What an obscene mess. Surely Gordon Brown will put a stop to this nonsense. The mainland taxpayer doesn’t need this extra waste of money which could be far better spent on Cancer Research. Even better, why dont the main churches pay for it. Love to see Eames face then.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:53 PMWhen Neville Chamberlian returned from his meeting with Herr Hitler in 1938 he could at least claim that his appeasment document was believed to ensure “peace for our time” and to avoid bloodshed.
The Eames Bradley document follows the bloodshed yet appeasement of the men of violence is at its core.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 06:57 PMCynic/Driftwood
Just to clarify: ‘terrorists’ blown up by their own bomb or Jim Gray won’t be getting anything - they’re dead. It’s an important consideration.
Also Cynic
It’s telling that you automatically assume anyone killed by the Security Forces was a terrorist.
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 07:43 PMI know you will never ever agree why young men and women joined the IRA (and neither should you) - do you at least understand why they did?
The only intimidation I ever experienced was by the RUC and British Army - I’ll never forget those experiences but I dont believe they were evil pyschopaths - they were told that we were a hostile community and treated us as such.
We all have stories to tell - do you all accept this is my story?
Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 07:54 PMDec, I did refer to ‘relatives of’. So relatives of drug dealers get rewarded. Great.
This was a sectarian war between Roman catholics and Protestants. Let the Churches pay out. Us atheists shouldn’t pay for their silly squabble.Posted by on Jan 28, 2009 @ 08:26 PM
