“undermined from the start by being set up by the British government..”

A UUP sponsored motion in the Assembly today on the Eames/Bradley co-chaired Consultative Group on the Past seems to have provided an opportunity for the DUP and Sinn Féin to unite in criticism of the group. DUP MLA David Simpson is reported to have commented during the debate that

“One part of the group was briefing against another part of the group. In effect one part of the Eames/Bradley group sought to use the press to get its view of the Troubles and any potential amnesty into the public domain as a means of spiking internal opposition to the suggestion. As such there are serious question marks over the ability of this group to actually deliver because it is divided and because those divisions are being played out in the press over the issue of victims.”

While outside the Assembly chamber, SF MLA Jennifer McCann issued this statement

“The Consultative Group on the Past, while having genuine people with integrity in its membership was undermined from the start by being set up by the British government. I do not believe the Eames/ Bradley Group as it is called is the way forward in terms of the search for the Truth.”

Those criticisms have been made before. But I’ll note, again, that it had been suggested that when the Provisional IRA declined to meet with the Eames/Bradley group it indicated an intention to side-step Eames/Bradley and focus instead on the FOUR Victims Commissioners.. a potentially much less inquisitive group.. appointed by the First and Deputy First Ministers.The motion

That this Assembly calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to give their full support and co-operation to the operations of the Eames/Bradley Consultative group on the Past.

was accepted by the Assembly.

, , , , ,

  • I’d have thought that the membership of the Consultative group was agreed by London and Dublin following consultation with their ‘focus groups’.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Surely the IRA will only be focusing on ONE of the FOUR commissioners?

  • realst

    Surely the reason for 4 commissioners as opposed to 1 was an effort by all to make any ajudications become dragged out and tire the public.
    After all what are the chances of these 4 commissioners from various backgrounds arriving at the same conclusion to any specific case.
    And why not appoint 3 and an overseer from a totaly neutral perspective (perhaps a retired legal professional from abroad) who would have the final say.This would not have gone down well with any of the leaders who obviously prefer the truth to remain unobtainable for as long as possable.