Thursday, November 09, 2006
SDLP: Judgement arises from a ‘culture of side deals’…
Patricia Lewsley sees wider implications for the High Court’s judgement that Peter Hain was in breach of the Ministerial Code of Practice:
Today’s ruling is a big and welcome setback for the culture of side deals that has bedevilled the process for so long. The appointment was unfair to victims and placed the interim Victims Commissioner in a very difficult position. The SDLP’s problem was never with Bertha McDougall – rather with the nature of her appointment. The Secretary of State and the DUP must have realised the position this would have placed her in yet for political expediency they carried on with their plans. Using victims and survivors needs and rights as political pawns should never have happened. It should not be allowed to happen again.”
Mick Fealty @ 05:33 PM
Nevin
thanks
I am still in the dark as to the basis for Misfitz’s allegations.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 08:13 AMAnd that Bertie is the problenm with N. Ireland you are all sitting in your own wee dark cell afraid to strike a match and get some light !!
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 08:38 AMMF: “the Bloomfield definition which of course completely tuled out state victims”
Where in that Bloomfield report does it suggest a hierarcy of victims? It is 70 pages long, so I went to the summary which suggests a memorial of all victims whether RUC, UDA, UVF or IRA. There are a lot of suggestions, including some that are security force specific - so I assume that it is cherry-picking those aspects that people are using to discredit the report? Or is it because he’s a brit.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 09:07 AMIs it not a bit daft of the SDLP to say “yes, yes, yes” (as its Deputy Leader did last night) to a deal about which they do not know any of the details?
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 09:29 AMBertie, perhaps Miss Fitz could post a quote from the report which either confirms her allegation or which contradicts/nullifies the quotes I’ve posted.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 11:53 AMI think Comrade Stalin’s troll like entries are symptomatic of the frustration the Shinners are experiencing at the moment. It can be no easy task trying to convince the bhoys to support the PSNI. There is a huge difference between trying to get someone into public office and trying to get someone to stop blowing up, abducting and/or murdering their fellow countrymen.
This is a very weak retort from the Shinners and it looks as though the SDLP have them on the back foot, again.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 12:04 PMThis is the relevant part of the report which has given rise to the feeling of some that the Bloomfield Report first introduced this notion of the hierarchy of victims, or in other words the worthiness of some victims over others.
‘’Many people feel strongly that any person engaged in unlawful activity who is killed or injured in pursuit of it a victim only of his own criminality and deserves no recognition for it.’’
I should point our that Mrs McDougall has been very fair and impartial in her tenure as VC, and has been out and about with victims groups of all hues and persuasions. It would not be accurate to reflect how she feels about the issues now until her report has been published and until a more clear idea emerges of her recommendations.
I take Mark’s point that the Report may not even be published depending on the nature of any future legal action and outcomes on the appointment. What a pity if the whole process has to start again, and if it does what of the Victims Forum that is expected to be established?
As can be seen from comments even here, there are great differences between people in their view and perception of victim/terrorist/perpetrator. That remains one of the great challenges for the moment at least
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 06:32 PMmiss fitz
The Bloomfield Report did not introduce the hierarchy of victims. It has always been with us and I hope always will.
“’Many people feel strongly that any person engaged in unlawful activity who is killed or injured in pursuit of it a victim only of his own criminality and deserves no recognition for it.’’
Which is NOT the same as saying that he or anyone else doesn’t recognise the victims of any particular organisation, including the legitimate state forces, acting within the law or otherwise. This relates to the status of the victim (i.e. innocent or guilty). It does not relate to the status of the killers, which was the substance of your allegation.
The hierachy of victims is not dependant on who they are victims of.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 07:13 PMGoing back to the start of this thread, perhaps Comrade Stalin could give us some examples of the side-deals which the SDLP/John Hume made. The reality is that, to their electoral cost, the SDLP were too fixated in trying to solve the problem rather than systematically pursuing their own self-interest in their side-deals, as Sinn Fein has consistently done.
Adams has jettisoned every “principle” that SF supposedly ever stood for. He has turned his support base inside-out and, maybe he deserves some credit for this, has anaesthetised physical force nationalism. It’s pretty hard to know what the Sinn Fein version of “republicanism” means any more.
Posted by on Nov 10, 2006 @ 07:15 PM
