Eames and Bradley meet Gordon Brown

Robin Eames and Dennis Bradley (who were controversially appointed co-chairs of the Consultative Group on the Past) have shown the report of their group to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The BBC are reporting that Eames Bradley “has met more than 100 individuals and groups in the last 18 months. It has also received more than 250 written submissions.” It appears that the 2061 letters opposing an amnesty for terrorists may have been conveniently ignored by Eames Bradley: they were certainly treated rather dismissively a year ago. Eames Bradley claim there will be no amnesty for terrorists. I have always been extremely dubious of that claim (though I suspect there will be a weasel worded way by which they can pretend it is true). Ironically I see that Gerry Adams is also most dubious about Eames Bradley: I suppose in his case it is for fear that Eames Bradley might be interested in more than the quarter truth process to which he seems willing to subscribe. Either way as I have argued before, if Eames or Bradley thought honestly about the nature of their task they would have realised a long time ago that their group is not fit for purpose.


    Most people acknowledge that Republicans & Loyalists carried out most of the atrocities during this period. HOWEVER, given the recent Mount Vernon and Stakeknife revelations, we now must also be told the TRUE role that successive British governments, MI5 and RUC Special Branch played in the conflict AND to what extent their knowledge & control of state death squads went. This affects EVERY one of us who lived through the last 40 years and NO combatant is immune from scrutiny. Indeed the State, as the supposed upholder, carrier and bearer of laws & morals is surely under more obligation to tell the truth. The fact is that Britain operated OFFICIAL assassination policies for the good part of 35 years and CANNOT lecture others while hiding it’s own grim role. WHY would this Labour government introduce ‘Immunity Certificates’ and ‘Inquiry Bills’ unless it had something to hide? Britain SHOULD NOT even dare lecture and point the finger UNLESS it is prepared to contemplate it’s own navel AND reveal the truth about it’s OWN murder gangs. This is NOT just Republican propoganda, Protestant families like the McCords in North Belfast, Allens in Ballymoney & Robbs and McIlwaines in Mid Ulster have asked exactly the same.

  • dub


    I note in your other piece that you have demostrably failed to adduce one single objective fact to back up your statement that the Eames Bradley group is not “fit for purpose”. Instead you accuse them of failures in the lateral thinking department. This from somebody who glorifies certifiable lunatics who worry about trousers on womens’ legs. And this from somebody who can only see terrorists in sinn fein but has never voiced any protest about being governed by a government in England which has routinely used political assasination and bomb attacks to stoke up the ethnic, national and political divides on this island. Remove the whopping beam from your own eye first.

  • Barnshee

    Sigh -explains it once again

    The Government is the cabinet acting through parliament. There is no way the “government”
    “operated OFFICIAL assassination policies” ( unlike ROI politicans,I do not recall british politicans being involved in arms smuggling)

    People employed by the government? now that`s a different matter. I do agree “we now must also be told the TRUE role that successive British governments, MI5 and RUC Special Branch ” –name all the informers and inside men.

    Then watch the shit really hit the fan

  • Brian Walker

    Some people of course relish the fall of the pound out of bigotry but leaving them aside…
    With the UK recession now official, the indicators aren’t good., see e.g the Guardian story..

    “The UK economy contracted by a worse-than-expected 1.5% between October and December from the previous quarter, beating the quarterly declines seen during the 1990s recession, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed today. This followed a 0.6% slump in the third quarter. Nick Kounis at Fortis said: “This report confirms that the economy is in deep recession and adds to the case for further aggressive Bank of England policy easing. The probability that the central bank will need to turn to a quantitative easing policy is rising.”

    The City had expected the economy to shrink by 1.2% in the fourth quarter. Over the whole of last year, the economy expanded by just 0.7% – the weakest since 1992.

    The pound hit a 23-year low of $1.3595 after the figures were released.”

    For me, here’s the simple upside from an FT story..

    “…. at the heart of Sir Andrew’s confidence is the fall in sterling. “The most important benefit is that our exports are more competitive and we are continuing to attract inward investment as [UK] assets are cheaper to buy.”

    But a cheap pound has so far failed to make an impact on exports because other countries can’t afford to buy..

    The heavily qualified upside is well put by Camilla Cavendish in the Times – that the government have undersold the second rescue package and urgently need to disclose the extent of the liabilities.

    “The result is that instead of welcoming the Treasury’s huge new “asset protection” insurance scheme, which will insure banks against the worst losses, the market fears that this insurance will be made prohibitively expensive by politicians bent on revenge. The Government’s refusal to announce the details of the scheme until the end of February – five whole weeks away – has created a dangerous vacuum filled by fear. The insurance scheme is the right answer to restore stability. The details are genuinely tricky to work out. But they need to be made clear next week, not next month.”

    There’s something in this, I think. Gordon Brown tried to boost confidence on the Today programme this morning, dismissing the notorious Jim Rogers “sterling is finished “ comments as the self-interest of speculators” and insisting that they key to a solution lay in the international response at the G20 meeting in London an April 2. In this atmosphere, that means quite a long wait for an uncertain outcome.

    On that Big Picture, Will Hutton put the key issues in a seminal article in the New Statesman.


    “Who, after a generation in which the only thinking permitted has been that which promotes markets, has even a semi-workable scheme to propose on currencies and banks?”

    Hutton argues for a publicly owned “reconstruction bank” rather than full nationalisation.

    And the black downside? The IMF haven’t got enough money to cover a UK loan, so looming are swingeing pubic spending cuts including pay along mooted Irish lines and higher interest rates, all meaning much higher unemployment. But somehow, given the plus side of plenty of real assets,low interest rates and the benefit side of a low pound, panic should be contained.

    I’m no expert, but haven’t we learned the hard lesson, not to take our cue from the money markets?

  • Brian Walker

    Many apologies – I opened too many tabs at once and posted the above on the economy in the wrong place…

  • Jimmy

    I’ve just read today on the BBC website in relation to this story, that Eames and Bradley are proposing that every family of ‘anyone’ combatants, innocents and the in betweens, who have died as a result of the troubles are to receive £12,000 each.
    Have Eames and Bradley moved to cloud cuckoo land and not informed us? It’s a proposed £40 million payout. I think 40 million could be better spent on survivors and moving on, presumably those who did die their families received compensation (I don’t include paramilitaries in that)? Why the need for a financial payout? Surely no amount would compensate for the loss. I think Eames and Bradley are victims-reactioaries of the money drain culture that defines Northern Ireland; just throw money at it and it might go away.


  • Mack


    A slight correction, the Government is the executive instituted as the Prime Minister and his cabinet selected from the elected officials of the legislature, thus breaking the separation of powers required for a purist’s democracy. The same mistake replicated in Ireland, unfortunately 🙁

    Why did the parties not institute proper separation of powers for Northern Ireland, when they had the chance?

    If the executive and legislature were elected separately it would be possible to vote in (for example) socially liberal law makers while electing free market fundamentalists into the executive. The people could give unfettered power (control over both institutions) to a political party when they felt it appropriate, or they could damp the excesses of one who’s popularity was fading..

  • iluvni

    Time to wind up these ludicrous Consultative Groups. Pay the families of terrorist filth 12K …are they nuts?
    Another costly exercise from those who gorge on the peace process gravy train.