No amnesty for British ministers

Yesterday morning, Wendy Austin asked Martin McGuinness whether the settling of the OTR issues would mean a concommitant end to inquiries into controversial killings by state forces. Well, he didn’t say yes, and he didn’t say no. But if Danny Morrison’s got his finger on the pulse of current thinking inside Sinn Fein,

  • stu

    “‘On the runs’ fled the North for a variety of reasons. Some had been injured in conflict-related incidents. Some had been beaten in custody and feared a repetition. Some skipped bail because of the corruption in the courts and the many miscarriages of justice. Some fled because of the work of informers.”

    And none of them fled the country because, say, they were terrorists with enough evidence against them to put them away?

    This is a poor performance, even by the standards of the Daily Ireland. MOPEry of the highest order.

  • Shore Road Resident

    How can a Shinner use the expression “got away with murder” and expect to have his point taken seriously?

  • Mike

    “There were exceptions and the few who were convicted, like Wright and Fisher, the murderers of Peter McBride, served derisory sentences”

    Screaming hypocrisy and disinformation from Mr Morrison there. Wright and Fisher were of course given early release at the same time as, and because, the early release scheme for paramilitary prisoners were enacted. Republicans supported all of this.

  • Mick O’Tick

    “No RUC officer had to go on the run for shooting unarmed civilians. No British soldier had to go on the run for massacring civil rights marchers or killing kids with plastic bullets. The forces of the state were protected and often given anonymity. The British Attorney General protected them with Public Interest Immunity Certificates to curtail investigations and inquiries. The degree of systematic cover-up is immense: for example, Sir John Stevens could only publish 17 pages out of his 3,000 page report on collusion.

    And you want to talk about hypocracy?

  • Brian Boru

    While I accept that if terrorists are to be released then also so should state-terrorists ie soldiers and police involved in intentional killings of innocent civilians. However, this does not mean we are not entitled to know the truth of what they did.

  • stu


    For every crime there needs to be a motive. Your above statement ‘soldiers and police involved in intentional killings of innocent civilians’ implies a crime.

    Please provide a motive. Without using the term ‘securocrat’ if possible.

  • Jo

    Surely there is an equivalent form of those words which SF use to justify the treatment of OTRs which would also extend to security forces?

    At the very least, they shouldnt be able to quote without challenge that “these things are all behind us now with the ending of the conflict” and then go on to support calls for enquiries (other than those already initiated).



    Well, if you don’t mind, I as a unionist can answer your question.
    In the case of the ( innocent ) Francisco Notarantonio it is widely believed that he was killed as a sop to loyalists, and in order to prevent them from killing another man who was a highly placed informer within the IRA.

    This post does not mean that I necessarily agree 100% with the republican analysis, but let’s not kid ourselves that there was never sufficient motive for the state to get its hands dirty.

    As for this subject in general, it is a non runner for a few reasons.
    but the main one is that those at the top look after themselves, they always have done, always will.The best anyone could hope for is that someone halfway up he ladder would be made to take the rap and become a sacrificial lamb.
    ( I vaguely recall an article by Danny Morrison on this very subject, whe he talked about Bomber Harris, if my memory serves me correctly )
    No one genuinely interested in true justice should find that acceptable.the question is, are Sinn Fein interested in true justice, or just interested in scoring cheap points, regardless of how just that is in real terms?

  • stu


    I agree that there were incidents where innocent people were killed. It would be churlish to maintain otherwise.

    Regarding your question- When the British Army arrived in Belfast it was welcomed with open arms by Catholic residents; you’ll be able to find many pictures of them having tea made for them on the Falls etc, and it wasn’t until they were attacked by Republicans and had to do what an army does (ie. shoot at stuff) that accusations about mowing down innocent civilians came up. To be honest, I think we both know what the answer is.

  • Brian Boru

    Stu, on what you said, the fact that in the case of the Loyalist murder of Catholic Seamus Ludlow in Co.Louth in the South, the DPP in NI refused to prosecute those who admitted to the RUC that they killed him surely counts as damning evidence of the collusion that was going on.

    The UDA wasnt even banned until 1990. How on earth can this be justified?

  • pauljames

    “Unionist leaders throughout the conflict supported repression, the illegal use of state violence, and acted as cheerleaders and apologists for those who tortured, abused and killed, and made excuses for loyalist paramilitary violence when they weren’t standing shoulder-to-shoulder beside them.”

    Can someone remind me again of the circumstances of Danny Morrisons last arrest and conviction?
    Hypocrisy, moi?