Bypassing the 20th Century – redux

In contrast to those of us who want to see with greater clarity what has gone on here some, in this case the Sinn Féin MLA, and member of the Policing Board, Martina Anderson [and SF’s Director of Unionist Outreach – Ed] would prefer us to not just ignore what we already know.. but to, in effect, forget it ever happened. As I said before – The 20th Century risks being a closed, and sealed, book with only précises of selected chapters being made available.

, , , , ,

  • Paul O

    Pete sort your writing out! That was the most complicated (or most cryptic?) head to a slugger thread in ages!

  • Token Dissent

    Moral schizophrenia on a grand sale. In a standard day at work a Shinner can (often correctly) call for investigations into alleged state illegality from 20/30 years ago, but in the same breath accuse those who seek to examine republican activity from the same period of harming the present by digging up the past. This process has hints of a Stalinist purging of history.

    Unfortunately I agree that for the greater social good it is probably required that paramilitary convictions shouldn’t be held against candidates for ‘safe’ jobs. But the suggestion that criminal records should be wiped completely is both immoral and a dangerous precedent.

  • Cato

    Perhaps it is time for her to be renamed the Director of Unionist Outrage.

  • Whilst I normally agree with Pete on the vital need to understand all that went on during the ‘long war.’ I feel the question of criminal records are a somewhat different matter. Not least because there are a number of jobs that one cannot get if one has a criminal record. There are also a number of nations who refuse to admit people who have certain criminal convictions.

    Myself I am in favor of annulling all criminal records dating back to the long war. However this should only be done if it is accompanied by a truth and reconciliation commission. Other wise there is a real danger of airbrushing history.

    As to the attitude of employers in general, I feel most would welcome the aforementioned, although it has to be said even with criminal records annulled it would be an extremely stupid employer who looked at a prospective employees CV and did not realize the gap in their work record may well be down to a spell in the Maze/where-ever.

  • jaffa

    Are you proposing that the data protected criminal record should be transferred to a public “truth and reconciliation” record Mick?

  • DJK

    Don’t other nations have a right to know if a perspective visitor has a terrorist conviction?

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Is Ms Anderson’s job to reach out to unionists, or to piss them off as much as she can?

  • Jaffa
    Just off the top of my head and this is not something I have not given much thought to, [although I will in the future] I feel it should be considered and I realize this will not go down with many former POWs. But I feel one of the reason many people are failing to support a T@RC is because they feel it will be one sided. i.e. those who worked for the state will be put through the ringer whilst those who fought it will gain all the benefits.

    Thus if we are ever to get to the bottom of State collusion in criminality, we must understand this attitude, so I see no reason why criminal records cannot some how come under any TRC remit. For example ex POWs could come before a closed session of the commission and submit their application for the annulment of their CR. Maybe people who suffered from the action that led them to jail should also be given an opportunity to attend this hearing to express their feelings about the individuals CR being annulled. As I wrote above this is off the top of my head.

    As to other nations being told about convictions, I am totally against it not least because in the Irish context most of these convictions took place more than a decade ago, if not longer. Thus if the ex pow has not re offended in that time I can see no reason why any foreign government should be informed about their past life.

  • Briso

    Everyone is at it. Even Rev Dr John Dunlop, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (from the Irish Times):

    ‘He said he would take as an example what happened in the Republic after the civil war. “They closed ranks and said, ‘let’s see if we can get on together’,” he said. It had led to stability. “I would shut down these inquiries straight away,” he said.’

  • Dev

    On the one hand, I think it’s wrong to just suggest we should just forget what has happened in the past and ‘move on’, primarily because those on all sides who have lost a loved one or have been scarred in some other way by the conflict can’t just move on and it would be unfair for society as a whole to effectively sweep them and their experiences under the carpet. I also think that if NI is ever to grow to be a mature society at ease with itself we all have to come to terms with the past.

    That said, I think it’s too easy just to characterise those who actively contributed to the violence of the past 40 years as monsters. It’s worth noting that a lot of people who joined paramilitary groups did so when they were teenagers and they should not necessarily continue to be denied entry into law-abiding, ‘normal’ society simply because they made a bad decision when they were at a very impressionable age. I’m not trying to be an apologist for terrorists, I just don’t think that the mistakes someone made in their youth should haunt them forever.

    A truth and reconciliation commission is surely the best way forward, that way thw wrongs committed on all sides can be aired in public and perhaps those who seem incapable at the moment of seeing the conflict from any position other than thier own blinkered viewpoint (I’m looking at you SF and DUPers) can come to appreciated that they don’t hold a monopoly on hurt.

  • Suilven

    Somehow I think it unlikely that there’d be much reconciliation as the upshot of such a commission – more like the exact polar opposite.

  • Suilven

    Or, for that matter, truth.

  • PeaceandJustice

    I agree with Gregory Campbell on this matter. Sinn Fein-IRA wants all the murder, torture and ethnic cleansing they have been involved in to be wiped away as if it never happened.Yet, for example, we have the enquiry about one particular bloody Sunday in Londonderry but no enquiry about the SF-IRA bombing of Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday. Who ordered it? Are they now in Government? Is SF-IRA willing to use some of the money they obtained illegally to compensate the families of RUC/UDR/RIR members and the civilians who they murdered? etc etc Martina Anderson and her role within SF-IRA is a sick joke.

    From the UTV web site:
    ‘Mr Campbell, however, criticised the Sinn Fein Assembly member`s call for records to be cleared.

    “What I am hearing from Martina Anderson is we have been in conflict and we are now moving on, therefore clear the records of paramilitaries who have inflicted great hurt on people and let them get on with their lives,” he said.

    “I would be willing to sit down with Martina Anderson if Sinn Fein was to make a genuine restitution to the victims of IRA violence.

    “I want to see the colour of their money.

    “If they are saying we do recognise what we were involved in caused massive hurt and hardship and if they have tangible proposals in terms of restitution, then I would be prepared to look at it.”‘

  • Billy Pilgrim

    What’s so wrong with airbrushing history?

    Seriously, not kidding, honest question. Look at what happened in the aftermath of the civil war in places like Kerry and west Cork. These were places where the most brutal internecine violence took place (c.4000 deaths in just over a year, as opposed to c.3,800 in 30 years here in the north). Faced with the enormity of the horror they had all come through together, people there came to a collective decision that the airbrushing of history was exactly the right thing to do.

    Veterans of the civil war on both sides grew into old age and went to their graves, having never passed down to their children the bitterness of the war. There was a kind of conspiracy of silence about it. The effect was that the succeeding generations were protected from the poison of real hate. Within a couple of decades, violence was unthinkable, and the only remnant of the 1922-23 brutality was an antipathy (though not of a state/society/peace-threatening variety) between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.

    So I ask again (and please, spare me any passive-aggressive bullshit about Stalin) – what’s so wrong with “airbrushing history”?

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    Peac and Justice
    we have the enquiry about one particular bloody Sunday in Londonderry but no enquiry about the SF-IRA bombing of Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday. Who ordered it? Are they now in Government? Is SF-IRA

    Well for 1 thing Bloody Sunday was a government sanctioned event and no matter how much you scream about there being no difference there is! If the government can not hold themselves accountable for upholding the laws they enact how can they expect to hold any one else accountable for their laws.

    2 the only ones who could reasonably supply information as to the organization and staffing of these terrorist events is the IRA. Would you accept that what ever information the IRA supplied was truthfull or complete? And how would you compel them to supply this information? But in the enquiry into Bloody Sunday there are or atleast should be records and testimonials of supposedly truthfull and honourable men? And they can be complelled to testify and government egencies can be compelled to turn over evidence, or atleast the evidence they haven’t destroyed yet

    3 SF/IRA is a fanciful construct of delusionalist loyalists in a vain attempt to discredit a political party with views that contrast to their own. SF and the PIRA are certainly symbiotic organisations they are not the same organism

  • useful idiot

    “Well for 1 thing Bloody Sunday was a government sanctioned event and no matter how much you scream about there being no difference there is!”

    Martin McGuinness is in government.

    “2 the only ones who could reasonably supply information as to the organization and staffing of these terrorist events is the IRA.”

    Martin McGuinness is in government

    “SF/IRA is a fanciful construct of delusionalist loyalists in a vain attempt to discredit a political party with views that contrast to their own. SF and the PIRA are certainly symbiotic organisations they are not the same organism”

    Bollocks

  • DK

    “SF and the PIRA are certainly symbiotic organisations they are not the same organism”

    Bollocks ”

    I agree with Emerald Pimp – the trouble is that while SF was originally the political wing of the IRA and essentially a part of it, SF has now outgrown the IRA. Trouble is that the senior members of SF are drawn from the time when the relationship was very close. Time will cull them as the IRA is no longer a pre-requisite for SF membership, and the IRA members must be getting on themselves.

  • useful idiot

    “I agree with Emerald Pimp – the trouble is that while SF was originally the political…Trouble is that the senior members of SF are drawn from the time when the relationship was very close.”

    Did you notice that this process deals with the past?

    You’re right that what middle class catholic boys pretending they’re radical think is irrelevant. Nobody’s asking them.

    Who selected Enniskillen as a target?

    Are they in government?

    Why do these deaths not deserve enquiry?

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Useful Idiot

    “Martin McGuinness is in government.”

    Yes, but he wasn’t at the time.

    Or are you suggesting that the Enniskillen massacre was state terrorism?

    But let’s say there was an “inquiry” into the Enniskillen bombing (of course there has already been one – ie the police inquiry that followed that terrible crime.)

    How would it work?

  • Billy Pilgrim

    UI

    “Who selected Enniskillen as a target?”

    I mean, who do you propose ask about this? What kind of inquiry would it be? How would you propose it gather information? How would you deal with people who simply denied ever having been involved in any way? I mean, it’d be easy to simply say: “I was never in the IRA, nothing to do with me.” Whereas, for example, we know exactly who did the shooting in the Bogside on Bloody Sunday.

    “Are they in government?”

    They weren’t at the time, so it wasn’t state-sanctioned. The state does not have to answer for IRA crimes, only its own. The IRA should have to answer for its crimes, and indeed many hundreds, if not thousands, of IRA volunteers have done so. (Many spent decades in prison, unlike soldiers and policemen.) However, how do you go about making the IRA answer for its crimes?

    I can understand that it’s frustrating, but how do you hold a public inquiry into the actions of the IRA? How does that work?

    “Why do these deaths not deserve enquiry?”

    They do, and they were all given police inquiries. Largely unsuccessful enquiries, admittedly, but enquiries nonetheless. A kind of truth came out. “It was the Ra did it.” The hard fact is that a public inquiry would be unlikely to dig up anything beyond that.

  • “What’s so wrong with airbrushing history?”

    Billy

    In the case of the six county’s I feel the reason it would be wrong to airbrush history is that the main beneficiaries of the Peace Process have been the very people who hold the most responsibility for the human suffering that took place during the long war. Thus it would be nonsensical and very dangerous to leave the judgement of history in such peoples hands.

    Who do I mean, The British State and certain institutions within it, plus the Paisleyites and a number of Republican politicians, all of whom carry a great responsibility for igniting, inflaming and prolonging the troubles.

    The fact that these three groups are at the fore of the opposition to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission simply reinforces my opinion that it is essential that all good people argue for such a commission. True I may be mistaken in this believe, but if so it is for those who oppose a T@RC to convince me otherwise.

    As to whether Enniskillen should fall within the remit of such a commission, of course it should, it was an outrage, not least as it displayed absolute contempt towards fallen warriors, which is not what Óglaigh Na hÉireann is about.

  • confused

    Be careful of those who try to re-write history.
    They must not succeed.
    If an attempt is made to erase convictions from records this can be easily prevented.
    A register should be prepared and every conviction noted recalling the name of perpetrator , offence, sentence, time spent in jail and brief details of the crime.
    This is a factual data base free from opinion or comment—-the bare facts to be interpreted by anyone who has an interest in such matters be they historians or Joe Public.
    All this information is already in the public domain.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Emerald Pimpernel – “Well for 1 thing Bloody Sunday was a government sanctioned event and no matter how much you scream about there being no difference there is!”

    So although SF-IRA claim it was a ‘war’, it’s OK to have enquiries about one bloody Sunday in Londonderry, but not another bloody Sunday in Enniskillen. The only conclusion I can draw is that Protestants were murdered in Enniskillen.

    Even Mark Durkan keeps going on about the Londonderry bloody Sunday but the SDLP have never asked for an enquiry into the Enniskillen bloody Sunday? Perhaps in the past they were scared of getting murdered by Sinn Fein-IRA. But what about now?

    Emerald Pimpernel – “the only ones who could reasonably supply information as to the organization and staffing of these terrorist events is the IRA … how would you compel them to supply this information?”
    Well, there should be no need to compel them. They should do it as part of their so-called Unionist Outreach. For SF-IRA to call it a war and then say you can only trust the British Government to give truthful answers seems absurd! If SF-IRA members in Government are not willing to stand up and tell the truth about their evil deeds, there is no point talking about Unionist Outreach.

  • useful idiot

    “But let’s say there was an “inquiry” into the Enniskillen bombing (of course there has already been one – ie the police inquiry that followed that terrible crime.)

    How would it work?”

    Absolutely no idea. How about a unilateral submission from the Unionist Outreach Officer to get the ball rolling. Why should it be dragged from the sole legitimate government of Ireland? Surely they’d give it up voluntarily to set an example to the Brits.

    You mean well Billy but this is a problem of perspective and you’re being unusually one-eyed.

    We are simply demanding equality and fairness from each other.

    The catholic (let’s not play about with semantics) sees IRA “criminals” pursued for extra-judicial killing and asks “why not the state?”

    The protestant sees soldiers and policemen pursued by the public representatives of the IRA and the vote chasing SDLP and asks “why not the IRA?”

    That’s it really. The stomach churning, teeth grinding, potentially catholic resenting problem is the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein.

    As it always has been.

    Straight forward blood-to-the-head incompetent fuck-up as an explanation for Enniskillen is one understandable and even forgiveable (given some sense of remorse) thing.

    Psuedo-progressive, 1st class honours Martina Anderson / Mick Hall, class war bullshit justifications for strapping petrol tanks to windows to burn the Collie Club alive is perhaps more than any reasonable person should be asked to swallow.

    Better out than in and all that.

  • Turgon

    This latest outing by Martina Anderson seems the same as her last (unionist outreach) viz essentially about her political profile (presumably sanctioned by Shinner HQ). It does show how seriously she (and they) take the previous nonsense about Unionist Outreach. I can think of few better ways of antagonising unionists. Anyone foolish enough to take it seriously last time must surely have the whit to think again (though I am sure they won’t).

    Let’s not forget that some of these people got life sentences. Technically they could be brought back to prison so air brushing their crimes out of existence is completely unacceptable. Many of these crimes were among the worst crimes ever committed.

    Dev yes if these people behaved in a reasonable fashion after release they can rejoin normal society. Still they have demonstrated a tendancy to violence and inappropriate behaviour that most people from their background did not. You cannot simply ignore this or magic it away. Furthermore where is the evidence they have recogonised that what they did was morally wrong? There must be some jobs etc. that people with a tendancy to violence should be kept away from e.g. I would not want them teaching my children. I also would not want people who committed theft and fraud working in the bank I use just because they were dishonest for some sort of “cause”, presumably they will not have unlearned these “skills”.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Turgon – “There must be some jobs etc. that people with a tendancy to violence should be kept away from e.g. I would not want them teaching my children.”

    Exactly. However, the Irish Republic had no problem allowing Owen Carron (Sinn Fein-IRA) to teach in a state school. Even though he had been arrested in NI and had jumped bail. Can you imagine the reaction if a Loyalist had jumped bail in Eire and was given a job in a NI school.

    So there is another one to add to the enquiry list: Why was a terrorist on the run given a job teaching school children in Eire? How many children did he incite to carry out terrorist crimes? We need answers from the Government of Eire.

  • Turgon

    Billy Pilgrim- “They do, and they were all given police inquiries. Largely unsuccessful enquiries, admittedly, but enquiries nonetheless. A kind of truth came out. “It was the Ra did it.” The hard fact is that a public inquiry would be unlikely to dig up anything beyond that.”

    Exactly there was an enquiry into Bloody Sunday which was deemed as unsucessful and unsatisfactory so a further one has been held after endless demands.

    Well what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander what about an enquiry into Enniskillen. The IRA are not the only ones who could tell us. If Special Branch were allowed to tell us what they thought about who ordered it planned it etc. they could tell us. There was never enough evidence to charge or convict anyone but in a public enquiry they could be named and shamed. After all is that not what is going to happen in the Bloody Sunday enquiry. Yes some will believe the IRA and not Special Branch but we can all probably work out who we will believe beforehand.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Turgon

    “Exactly there was an enquiry into Bloody Sunday which was deemed as unsucessful and unsatisfactory so a further one has been held after endless demands.”

    The difference is that the Widgery Inquiry incriminated the victims. If the police inquiry into the Enniskillen atrocity had found that the Remembrance Day observers had been terrorists and that the IRA’s actions had been proportionate, reasonable and unavoidable, then I’d agree that that should be a reckoning that deserved to be revisited, and an inquiry that deserved to be rerun.

    The thing with Bloody Sunday was that innocent people were assassinated twice over – first literally, secondly in terms of their character. They were murdered by the state, then the state pissed on their graves. That makes them different from the IRA’s victims, who at least received official dignity.

    “Well what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander what about an enquiry into Enniskillen. The IRA are not the only ones who could tell us. If Special Branch were allowed to tell us what they thought about who ordered it planned it etc. they could tell us.”

    So you think the state was involved with Enniskillen? That indeed would be new evidence.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    UI

    “How would it work?”

    Absolutely no idea.”

    Then think about it. You think the Bloody Sunday tribunal came from nowhere? The families campaigned for three decades ffs. They knew exactly the kind of tribunal they thought appropriate. They did their feckin’ homework. If you want an inquiry into whatever atrocity you have in mind, do yours!

    “How about a unilateral submission from the Unionist Outreach Officer to get the ball rolling.”

    Good luck. You think life is about presents? You think the Bloody Sunday tribunal came about as a result of British government munificence? Dream on! You earn what you get in this life! You want Martina et al to fess up? I wish you luck. Stop whinging and start working.

    “You mean well Billy but this is a problem of perspective and you’re being unusually one-eyed.”

    No, I’m just coming from a different perspective from your own. The state should have different standards from the IRA. Even if it doesn’t, the state has records.

    “We are simply demanding equality and fairness from each other.”

    Bullshit. We’ve all known for the last forty years that the IRA were villains. And yes, they were. But we’ve also been hearing that the state forces were heroes. Well no, they weren’t. From a moderate, non-violent republican perspective, they were feckin’ Nazis. I want that to be recorded in the history of the last forty years.

    “Straight forward blood-to-the-head incompetent fuck-up as an explanation for Enniskillen is one understandable and even forgiveable (given some sense of remorse) thing. Psuedo-progressive, 1st class honours Martina Anderson / Mick Hall, class war bullshit justifications for strapping petrol tanks to windows to burn the Collie Club alive is perhaps more than any reasonable person should be asked to swallow.”

    Fair enough. But I don’t buy this notion that the hypocrisy of SF gives unionism an alibi for realising that the history of the last forty years (actually, 85 years) is more complex than mainstream unionism is prepared to accept.

  • Turgon

    Billy Pilgrim- “they were feckin’ Nazis”.
    I take it you do not actually mean that or maybe you (like Alex Reid etc.) are so daft you do. Are you deliberately trying to antagonise unionists? Lets remember the Nazis systematically murdered 6-8 million jews (and lots of gypsies, homosexuals, jehovah’s witnesses, communists) in gas chambers multiple firing squads, gas vans, by systematic deliberate starvation, death marches (I could go on for several pages). You did not like the police and army – fine. But I cannot remember the gas chambers (maybe Bob McGowan and Trowbridge H Ford (where has he gone) have seen them in their extensive travels through the occupied six counties). All calling the security forces Nazi’s does is antagonise unionists (and possibly quite a few nationalists), insult the memory of those who died under the Nazis and of course demonstrate your ignorance (probably willful) of history.

    Turning back to the main point there is actually a fundemental similarity between Bloody Sunday and Enniskillen – a lot of people died and some feel that what happened has not been fully investigated.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Turgon

    “Billy Pilgrim- “they were feckin’ Nazis”.
    I take it you do not actually mean that or maybe you (like Alex Reid etc.) are so daft you do.”

    Just a little poetic licence. Of course they weren’t literally Nazis. But you get my point.

    “Are you deliberately trying to antagonise unionists?”

    I’m expressing my feelings – feelings that would be quite commonplace within the nationalist community. And I, unlike most nationalists, had a relative in the police.

    “Turning back to the main point there is actually a fundemental similarity between Bloody Sunday and Enniskillen – a lot of people died and some feel that what happened has not been fully investigated.”

    Oh ffs, you can find “fundamental similarities” between virtually anything. A cat and a table both have four legs. So? The important point isn’t that there might be similarities – it’s that there are loads of dissimilarities.

    However, if people want an inquiry into Enniskillen then let them campaign for one. I’d be prepared to look at their proposals with an open mind. (I’d have to warn though, that going by the experience of the Bloody Sunday families, it’ll be around the year 2025 before they get their inquiry.)

    But don’t tell me how people feel. Tell me what they’re proposing.

  • Turgon

    Billy Pilgrim “Just a little poetic licence. Of course they weren’t literally Nazis. But you get my point.”

    No I do not get your point. I am sorry but the concept of invoking poetic licence and calling people Nazis is a little difficult for me to grasp. So now the police and army were not Nazis but you still did not like them. How about watching that poetic licence you have effortlessly antagonised this unionist but I bet you do not care.

  • PeaceandJustice

    Billy Pilgrim – “if people want an inquiry into Enniskillen then let them campaign for one.”

    What you are missing is that SF-IRA say they want to reach out the hand of friendship to Unionists. Therefore, Unionists shouldn’t have to have a long campaign to get to the truth. SF-IRA knows what happened as they were the ones doing the killing, destroying families etc. We need generosity from SF-IRA. We have to accept SF-IRA people with blood dripping from their hands in positions of power in Stormont. That’s why we need SF-IRA to be sincere and open if there is to be healing in society. The question is – do the leaders of the SF-IRA death squads really want true peace? Or do they just want an absence of ‘war’ – for now?

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>We have to accept SF-IRA people with blood dripping from their hands in positions of power in Stormont.<

  • useful idiot

    The double standards are yours Prince and this wriggling whataboutery is pathetic. It’s late on a Friday night. Are you pissed?

    On another thread you’re demanding that unionists enter into a “healthy” relationship with republicans. You conveniently ignore the reality of police reform, positive discrimination, the withdrawl of British troops, the saville inquiry, power sharing in place in Stormont, the release of republican prisoners, accomodations that unionists and more importantly the wider protestant community have supported.

    You scoff at the very simple request that SF might offer what they demand from others; that the people who ordered, planned and executed the Enniskillen bomb might reveal and explain themselves so that, for example, the 11 children maimed by it might see who hurt them, understand their motives and maybe get some peace of mind. Those people had no interest in the release of loyalist prisoners or unionists getting ministries at Stormont – they’ve taken nothing from this process. They don’t deserve cheap quips. Why do you want to continue to persecute them?

    Just what kind of “healthy” relationship do you have in mind?

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>On another thread you’re demanding that unionists enter into a “healthy” relationship with republicans. You conveniently ignore the reality of police reform, positive discrimination, the withdrawl of British troops, the saville inquiry, power sharing in place in Stormont, the release of republican prisoners, accomodations that unionists and more importantly the wider protestant community have supported.< >You scoff at the very simple request that SF might offer what they demand from others;<

  • Prince Eoghan

    >>On another thread you’re demanding that unionists enter into a “healthy” relationship with republicans.<

  • ui

    “Is highlighting Unionist hypocrisy on ‘bloody hands’ tantamount to being guilty of the silly accusations you are levelling at me?”

    Yes. You’re deliberately dragging the thread off topic and you havn’t explained your haughty “healthy relationship” line. What is the basis for this relationship? Clearly not mutual respect.

    “Aye! when did they ever support any of this?”

    23 May 1998? The DUP was the only main opposition and they were the minority party. They only increased their position thorugh IRA stalling on decommisioning and still they knew they had to accept power sharing to maintain the electoral support they’ve been lent in recent years.

  • the Emerald Pimpernel

    Useless Idiot you have just couched paisleys demand for sack cloth and ashes into a less shrill and by your standards perfectly reasonable demand but get over it.
    If you want an enquiry into Enniskillen then by all means demand one from your MP. It will get you exactly no where except you will hear the same bleating from the securocrats about every thing they “know”
    Some how every thing they “know” is not based on hard evidence but on conjecture and here say.
    Just like the Norhtern Bank robbery the securocrats will attempt to hand the IRA the shitty end of the stick with out the benefit of evidence and you will believe them because you want to believe them.

    The difference between Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday is that Bloody Sunday is murder by government officials, sanctioned belatedly by virtue of the most blatant of cover ups. The men who participated in the murder of the Derry teenagers can be compelled to testify by virtue of their position in power and their duty to queen and country. Every soldier has the duty to disobey any order that he knows to be illegal, so how exactly did the chain of command convince a group of squaddies to murder unarmed teenagers? Were they told their actions were sanctioned? Who set an armed group of soldiers to kill civil rights marchers? Why? You talk of Blood on hands, everybody from the lowest squaddie up the chain of command right to the prime ministers office has blood on their hands. and its their unwillingness to admit it that has turned the blood to a stain that will not wash out

    The same could be said for the Enniskillen bomb, but how do you compel any one to testify against them selves. Would any evidence be reliable or would it just be conjecture? If the securocrats supplied you with a rat how could you voir dire their veracity? Would you end up confering immunity onto the guilty parties in exchange for their testimony? How would that affect their testimony?

    The only way you could possibly have a fair and honest enquiry is to confer immunity on any one and every one that the IRA proposes as witnesses would this be an acceptable proposal to you?

    What if the IRA demanded blanket immunity for any and all crimes they may have committed in exchange for their testimony? And would the government and loyalists really want all their skeletons revealed?

    Would you really be happier knowing just how involved your own government was with the activities of the IRA and that they chose to not act on information for “security reasons”

    There really is no equating Bloody Sunday with Enniskillen except to say both resulted in the murder of innocents

  • ui

    “get over it”.

    republican outreach?

    and there’s the cheap “paisley said something like it and he’s an evil bigot so you must be one too” syllogism again.

    “What if the IRA demanded blanket immunity for any and all crimes they may have committed in exchange for their testimony? And would the government and loyalists really want all their skeletons revealed?”

    Did you miss the GFA?? Sean Kelly is walking around free. What do the Enniskillen bombers have to fear?

    SF are happy to champion restorative justice when they’re running it. What’s different here?

    “There really is no equating Bloody Sunday with Enniskillen except to say both resulted in the murder of innocents”

    Both the actions of armies fighting in a civil war?

  • Sean

    and there’s the cheap “paisley said something like it and he’s an evil bigot so you must be one too” syllogism again.

    Did I say that ? NO What I said was paisley said it and it didn’t work for him either so get over it

    “What if the IRA demanded blanket immunity for any and all crimes they may have committed in exchange for their testimony? And would the government and loyalists really want all their skeletons revealed?”

    Did you miss the GFA?? Sean Kelly is walking around free. What do the Enniskillen bombers have to fear?

    Theres a big difference between those already convicted and those never indicted, you would have to confer on them the right to never be arrested or incarcerated for even 1 minute.

    Both the actions of armies fighting in a civil war?
    No the british never recognized it as a war or they would have treated the prisoners according to the Geneva conventions… unless you are saying that thatchers and her cabinet are war criminals? lets call Brussels, maybe she can get the same cell as Milosevich

  • lib2016

    “…maybe she can get the same cell as Milosevich.”

    and be joined soon by Blair and Bush? The world is changing fast and the grand old British Army tactic of shooting unarmed civilians is going out of style.

    Mind you they never seem to do well when the civilians get armed and start returning fire so it’s a tactic which doesn’t even have the merit of longterm success.

    The British are globally regarded as tyrants and murderers. Even a diplomat like Kofi Annan felt forced to point out in his retirement address that the Iraq adventure was a warcrime.

    Bloody Sunday will go down with previous massacres by the British. The current Enquiry is simply an attempt to prevent a free Irish government from having it’s own public enquiry in a few years.

    As for British inspired Holocausts? The British were more inclined to use (misuse?) natural forces whether giving blankets harbouring disease to Native Americans or causing famine in India. The Nazis were more efficient but didn’t differ in intent. They were merely modernising the methods of the British Empire as they had earlier modernised it’s racist philosophy.

  • PeaceandJustice

    It’s clear by the comments from Sinn Fein-IRA supporters on this site that they are not interested in real peace with their Unionist neighbours. Their so-called Unionist outreach is just another game in their long and dirty little war. Sinn Fein-IRA death squads have been involved in murder, torture and ethnic cleansing. Yet, their is no humility from Sinn Fein-IRA. The Sinn Fein-IRA terrorist Deputy FM Martin ‘The Butcher’ McGuinness is not sorry about his past in the Sinn Fein-IRA death squads. No apologies to the families left behind after Sinn Fein-IRA had kicked down their doors and murdered their loved ones in front of the family. If it was a ‘war’, then Sinn Fein-IRA are ‘war’ criminals. When will Unionists get justice?