Eames Bradley next phase

A couple of weeks ago Denis Bradley tried to defend and maybe even re introduce the £12,000 payment for the relatives of victims which had provoked so much anger when the Eames Bradley report was launched. Mick has already noted Malachi O’Doherty’s blog where Malachi explains that Bradley claimed at the John Hewitt summer school that the payment idea came from the victims commission. The last discussion on slugger focused on whether or not Bradley’s version of events was correct. Equally interesting, however, is what Bradley’s interjection may say about the Eames Bradley commission.
There now appears to be a clear difference opening up between the noble Lord and Mr. Bradley. Bradley still seems to support the payments whereas the noble Lord has sort of come round to the position that they were a mistake. This is interesting in part because it might give additional credence to the suggestion made by a number of commentators including David Simpson in Westminster that although the report bore the finger prints of Eames it followed Bradley’s agenda. By this reading of Eames Bradley it was Bradley who created most of the toxic report and Eames was truly the Lundy: less the complete traitor more the incompetent and moral coward; though the effect was similarly disastrous both for the report and Eames’s personal credibility. Eames’s recent lack of public appearance after his seemingly ineffectual self rehabilitation programme means that we cannot establish his current position. The other committee members have also remained remarkably silent after Jarlath Burns rather incompetent attempt to blame unionist politicians for being “almost duplicitous followed by him shutting up rather than putting up with a name.

The timing of Bradley’s interjection is interesting but is of course related to the fact that the government is publicly consulting on the paper. His comments probably have a number of purposes: firstly Bradley is no doubt a bit annoyed that his £12,000 idea has been so comprehensively rubbished with even the government dropping it extremely quickly. To see practically the whole of Northern Irish society lining up to describe the idea as foolish and having even his co chair Lord Eames accept that the idea was folly must be pretty galling. In addition, however, I have argued from the beginning that the £12,000 payment was (and is) so offensive that it may well have been a carapace to defend the rest of the report: that carapace was very rapidly blown off by the sheer weight of opprobrium it engendered. The removal of the £12,000 allows people to concentrate more on the other equally morally repugnant concepts in the report.

Just to recap on two of them:

Remember that the “Legacy Commission” would “…itself make recommendations on how a line might be drawn at the end of its five year mandate so that Northern Ireland may best move to a shared future.” fairly obviously although Eames Bradley will not admit to it there is a clear timetable for an amnesty after a suitable period of procrastination; as I noted at the time it is called “believable deny-ability”

Another part of the report which will not doubt be exposed to attack is its suggestion that the proposals of the Quigley Hamilton working group on released terrorists be given the force of law. To quote part of Quigley Hamilton 2.6“…a conviction arising from the conflict should not bar an applicant from obtaining employment, facilities, and goods or services unless that conviction is manifestly incompatible with the job, facility or service in question. The onus of demonstrating incompatibility would, in the view of the group, rest with whoever was alleging it and the seriousness of the offence would not, per se constitute adequate grounds”
and
“The report where an applicant is ruled out of consideration at any stage he/she should be given the opportunity to outline his/her perspective before a final decision is taken.”

All of these proposals are of course unacceptable to the vast majority of people here. However, I submit that the £12,000 (the Ford Focus) was designed in part to take the heat so that the rest of the document could go through relatively unscathed. Bradley miscalculated and in actual fact so appalling was the reaction to the Ford Focus of money that it was dropped very quickly. That helps expose the rest of the report and Bradley at any rate seems to understand that it will be just as unacceptable as the £12,000. Hence trying to move the debate back to the money may well be an attempt by Bradley to force people back to fighting about the money in order to reduce the attacks the other parts of the report which although less overtly obscene are in actual fact more dangerous and just as immoral.

Of course the noble Lord’s view on his co chair’s manoeuvring would be very interesting. Above I described Eames as maybe a Lundy. Cushy Glenn has recently suggested that Lundy after his actions later served bravely though I cannot find an online reference to this. Lord Eames of course could now come out and reaffirm his new view that the £12,000 was a bad idea. Indeed he could then go on to explain to us why the group ignored most of the evidence it received and explain how it managed to come up with the reviled document. Many feel that Bradley was the main instigator of the report and Eames could come out and confirm this; accept his own personal responsibility; apologise for the whole debacle and call for the report to be binned. If he did all that then actually he might find that he would again be acceptable to the reasonable people of Northern Ireland.

  • Just bear in mind that the Victims Commission endorsed the £12,000 payment before the publication of the report.
    They have tried to fudge that in their accounts of their communications with Eames Bradley but it is plain and clear from the letter they sent to them.

    “CVS welcomes the suggestion that CGDP would recommend an acknowledgement payment be made to families of those who have lost loved ones as a result of the conflict.”

    In that event, it was not such a radical decision for doubters in the Eames Bradley group to swing behind the idea. If Eames has be bounced into something he was instinctively against, then he was bounced from two sides.

  • Drumlins Rock

    Turgon, most Unionist seem to think the whole report is more or less binned, sadly I hope this is the case, such a vital opertunity wasted, has anyone any indications what the government proposes? I cant see how the rest can progress in any subtancial way, it would be difficult getting it through Westminister and impossible to get it through Stormont, sadly Eames has probably paid a terrible price for putting his name to this document, whilst often perfecting the art of fence sitting over the years he still quietly worked away for the members of his church and the wider community, it is sad that this report has cost him so much respect, Maybe its not to late if he were to withdraw his support for it completely.

  • west belfast

    For what its worth I believe that the victims commissioners gave Eames any reassurances he may have needed and they have a lot to answer for.

    Apart from that unionisms moral superiority never ceases to amaze me. Turgon and his ilk are using unionist victims which is nothing less than disgraceful.

    Fighting over the past is the biggest single despicable act leftover from the conflict. Until we all hold our hands up for what took place here for 40 years then we will never learn from it.

  • Bruno Spiro

    “All” were not responsible for “what took place here for 40 years”. This argument is employed by those who actually were responsible in an effort to submerge their guilt. Eames Bradley was about promoting that agenda.

  • Drumlins Rock

    west, I know quite a few victims, and Turgons views are mild compared to what they thought Eames and Bradley should do with thier report, as for fighting over the past the overwhelming raking up of past incidents comes from Republicans, who were directly responsible for the vast majority of killings but have not answered truthfully one question put to them.

  • ashamed of Church of Ireland

    sadly Eames has probably paid a terrible price for putting his name to this document,

    Did he fuck. He and Bradley are pocketing thousands from their hand wringing guff.

    If ‘Lord’ Eames wants to know why his church will not exist in 50 years, this whole tacky enterprise should remind him. Not that he’ll give a shit, nor any of the tawdry ‘victims’ commissioners who cannot believe their luck at winning the ‘post conflict’ lottery. £££££££££.

  • Drumlins Rock

    more to life than cash Ashamed, (although what they were paid was obscene), but i think he has been getting quite a few cold shoulders and the odd tongue lashing recently, for someone always so keen on pleasing everyone I imagine some of it would hit a nerve.
    And you have to admit the current incumbent makes him look like a pretty good Primate.

  • west belfast

    I rest my case.

    Pompous, ivory tower people who will only be happy if it all happens again.

    We were all to blame – some murdered, some stayed silent, some flamed the fires through hate filled words, some misruled their citizens. Some sat in Dublin and London and looked down at “their” own people.

    Some washed their hands and moved to the suburbs, some made thousands from the quagmire, some told themselves it was nothing to do with me and tutted at the television.

    Some voted for one side, others voted for other, others didnt bother to vote at all. Thousands joined paramilitaries and thousands turned a blind eye. Some acted outside the law when they were supposed to be the law and sent themselves to sleep telling themselves it was for the greater good.

    Some said catholics were heretics, some said protestants didnt belong to the true faith.

    All did something or worse did nothing. Evil prospers when good men do nothing.

    And now not content that we all share the blame – some would like to cast the first stone as we try to reheal a broken and deeply suspicious and shattered society.

    Recognise yourself anywhere? Shame on you all!

  • Drumlins Rock

    some murdered, some tutted,

    yeah they are both equally guilty in your book,

    grow up west

  • Guest

    well said “west Belfast”.Guilt is like a flu.Its usually gone before you get it unless it’s deadly.

  • Turgon

    west belfast,
    Your post sort of works in the Calvinist analysis of of religious guilt However, in the context of the terrorism here in Northern Ireland is is a complete red herring. Let us go through your lists:

    Some murdered: yes they would be pretty guilty; no argument there

    Some stayed silent: well not commenting on something is not a crime; withholding evidence is but what if you knew absolutely nothing about a crime. Did every single person have to publicly condemn every crime. I do condemn every one of them but I have no public platform (other than this blog) and I did not have that when most murders were committed. As such staying silent was something I (and most others) could not change.

    Hate filled words are wrong but the vast majority of us never used any such.

    Misrule is wrong but I have never ruled anyone.

    I have never sat in London or Dublin and looked down and neither have most of us.

    Moving house does not make one guilty of anything: that is simply a ludicrous suggestion.

    Saying it was nothing to do with you is a perfectly valid comment and is accurate for the vast majority of us of whatever side who never wanted nor supported what happened.

    Voting does not make one guilty of murder.

    Most of us did not do nothing; rather we did exactly what the terrorists did not want us to do. We carried on being decent law abiding citizens and whether we were unionists or nationalists (or neither) we did not hate or kill or support the killing of anyone.

    The nonsense you articulate is part of the problem. There is a real attempt to say everyone was to blame in order to say no one was to blame and as such wash away the crimes of the criminals. This is a moral perversity which must be fought every time it raises its ugly head.

    By all means wallow in the self righteousness of your own self appointed guilt if that is what you want. In terms of the troubles my and most people in Northern Ireland’s consciences can and should be clean.

  • Guest

    “Some murdered: yes they would be pretty guilty; no argument there”-Turgon.

    I believe there is a huge argument there-probably one of the greatest/worst man has known.Was it alright to kill Nazi soldiers?Nazi civilians?
    where Iraqi soldiers fair game in the american/uk invasion?
    You get my point.
    The public is never guilty of anything because they can always change their minds/elect someone else but it is extremely dubious to say the least.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    Turgon: “Some stayed silent: well not commenting on something is not a crime; withholding evidence is but what if you knew absolutely nothing about a crime. Did every single person have to publicly condemn every crime. I do condemn every one of them but I have no public platform (other than this blog) and I did not have that when most murders were committed. As such staying silent was something I (and most others) could not change.”

    What was it that Burke is said to have said? “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Those who go along with the flow when there is evil afoot, those who refuse to look at evil and call it by its name, while not as culpable, their muteness may be mistaken for approval.

    Likewise, reflexive condemnation without any sort of credible follow-up is just noise.

    Guest: “Was it alright to kill Nazi soldiers? Nazi civilians? where(sic) Iraqi soldiers fair game in the american/uk invasion?”

    Yes, yes and yes. Pretty straight-forward, on the surface.

    Soldiers on the battlefield are, not to be cheeky, fair game.

    Once Hitler resorted to deliberate terror-bombing, German civilians became fair game.

    Guest: “The public is never guilty of anything because they can always change their minds/elect someone else but it is extremely dubious to say the least. ”

    That is hardly the lesson that was imparted upon Japan or Germany, among others.

  • YelloSmurf

    West Belfast, you go a bit far, not everyone supported the terrorists, some even tried to fight bigotry, secterianism and paramilitrism. Think the peace people, or (on a smaller scale) Jean McConville (who was killed for an act of charity to an other human being). However Turgon is wrong to say that how you vote doesn’t make a difference, or that staying silent doesn’t matter. Voting for a party which explicitly or implicitly supports terrorism (see SF, PUP, UDP, Ian Paisley reviewing the troops) is an implicit support for terrorism.

    Coming back to the subject of Eames Bradley, I honestly fail to see what Turgon finds so objectionable in this report bar the Ford Focus, which has been roundly denounced. Other than that peice of madness, it struck me as a very sensible report with a lot of useful things to say.

  • west belfast

    Perhaps I was a little dramatic in the point I was making but it got the reaction I expected from Turgon etc.

    As for growing up – take your patronising rant somewhere else.

    “Some murdered: yes they would be pretty guilty; no argument there”-Turgon.

    Now Turgon a simple question – is murder murder or do you have degrees of murder.

    Whats the difference between Bloody Sunday, La Mon and Greeysteel (to name but a few). I would say nothing at all – all murder.

    Whats the difference between Loughall and Warrenpoint? I would say nothing at all – murder – only difference is those who died knew what they were getting involved in.

    I am no pacifist and believe sometimes wars are inevitable but please do not give me the ‘just war’ nonsense. The 2nd world war had to be fought but it wasnt all the Germans fault – history is rewtitten by the winners after all.

    On the other points – turning a blind eye was a disgraceful action of the middle and upper classes during the Troubles – they left the working classes to bleed when their views and bigotries were every bit as bad.

    “Hate filled words are wrong but the vast majority of us never used any such.” – Turgon.

    But hundreds of thousands voted for those who did whether that was Paisley or those in Sinn Fein.

    I feel you are the one wallowing in self-righteousness if you accept not as much as a degree of contributing to the society we live in, now and then. Until we all accept that we are far from perfect I fear we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

    Finally I thought Eames Bradley did their best with a poisoned chalice. It is not perfect as has been widely commented on but for me it is the beginning of a much needed debate in our communities.

    A debate that too many neither want nor seem capable of having.

  • YelloSmurf

    West Belfast

    You are wrong.

    Whats the difference between Loughall and Warrenpoint? I would say nothing at all – murder – only difference is those who died knew what they were getting involved in.

    The people involved were ordinary people with wives and families who were just trying to do thier jobs. Compare to the self appointed vigilantes who really knew what they were getting themselves into.

    Murder is, by definition, an unjustifiable killing.

  • fin

    “law abiding citizens” this comment is no different than “I was only following orders” if the laws or orders are morally right not an issue, however if they are morally wrong than it is an issue.

    “Law abiding” – the B Specials were recruited from the ranks of the UVF, the RUC and UDR from the ranks of the B Specials. So who has implemented the law in NI since its creation the UVF?

    Who created the laws of NI was it a democratically elected government selected from all parts of the community?

    For nationalists the unionist arguement of ‘Law abiding’ is very much the emperors new clothes, since NIs creation you have dressed yourself in this language equating it with ‘morally right’

    Turgon outside of the unionist community noone believed the laws or the police of NI to be acceptable to anyone but unionists, ‘law abiding’ in truth was abiding by the laws of the unionist community.

    Do you ever think it strange Turgon that with the removal of the unionist police force and unionist government and its replacement with a powersharing government and a representative police force most people are ‘law abiding’

    ‘Turgons Law’ has been created, once a unionist blogger relies on the arguement of ‘decent law abiding citizens’ the debate is over, the bottom has been reached.

  • west belfast

    YelloSmurf

    These are my opinions and by definition are neither right nor wrong – just my opinion.

    I could easily say you are wrong as the Law was corrupt and therefore it was right to confront the law of the land – but then again it is your opinion which I will respect if not agree with.

    You were obviously lucky enough not to experience the evil doing of the forces of law – some of us did experience them and to rubbish our views is not acceptable.

  • Gerry

    “The RUC were recruited from the ranks of the B Specials”.

    This nonsense illustrates the warped fantasy that is the Republican mindset.

    I was in the RUC and was seven years old when the B Specials ceased to exist. Although I did not ever actually apply to join the B Specials I am doubtful I would have been enlisted, but perhaps I’m wrong and they had a children’s unit to combat the Fianna na hÉireann.

  • west belfast

    Gerry

    as someone who believed in the state to such an extent that you joined the RUC can I ask one question.

    Were those killed by the State at Loughall murdered?

    My view is that they were murdered because the state could have easily have arrested them but they wanted to take out the IRA brigade in that part of Tyrone. Now as I believe it was a war I cannot have it both ways – therefore I would argue that it was completely understandable that the state took the decision to murder.

    Likewise others cannot have it both ways in that it was ok for the state to murder but others did not have the right to resist the state they did not believe in.

    You may hate republicans, and probably with good reason, but it does not lessen the fact that they believed they were right every bit as you and your colleagues in the RUC believed you were right.

  • Drumlins Rock

    A little boy was born yesterday, named after his grandfather whom he will never know, he was a truely Godly man respected by everyone he knew, shot in the back by that IRA brigade in one of thier previous attacks, he wasn’t a soldier he was just an ordinary policeman who served everyone in that mainly nationalist community, he wasnt given a chance to surrender by the same men you are holding up as heros, would they have surrendered without a shoot out? of course not, they were armed and ready to kill.
    I still believe in a life shuold only be taken in defence of your own or someone elses directly at risk, did Loughgall fully meet that? I think there is enough reason to believe it did, but even if it didnt in this case I have no sympathy for those IRA members killed and at least my friends have some scense that one group of murders paid the price of their evil.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    wb: “I am no pacifist and believe sometimes wars are inevitable but please do not give me the ‘just war’ nonsense. The 2nd world war had to be fought but it wasnt all the Germans fault – history is rewtitten (sic) by the winners after all.”

    comme ci, comme ca — the failures of the French and British were largely in weakness, not strength, although the treaty at the end of the
    “Great War” didn’t help. Had they stood by the Czech’s, they could have traded a large war for a small one. Had the Russians not granted the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, the Austrian paper-hanger would have had to be more circumspect in its actions.

    That said, the fellas over-running borders were pretty much dressed in grey and festooned with Iron Crosses… ‘cept when they were wearing Red Stars.

  • Dread Cthulhu

    wb: “My view is that they were murdered because the state could have easily have arrested them but they wanted to take out the IRA brigade in that part of Tyrone. Now as I believe it was a war I cannot have it both ways – therefore I would argue that it was completely understandable that the state took the decision to murder.”

    Ah, but you *are* trying to have it both ways — killing in war is not murder. You want the protective rhetorical cloak of “war,” yet still seek to paint your foes as “murderers.”

    If, as you say, it was war, then it was war — they were not victims, but armed combatants. They knew what they were getting into and what the consequences of that choice were — one cannot rationally choose to deem a conflict a war and then complain about the fortunes of said war.

  • Scotty

    “Voting for a party which explicitly or implicitly supports terrorism (see SF, PUP, UDP, Ian Paisley reviewing the troops) is an implicit support for terrorism”

    Not to forget all those politiians from all shadesof Unionism that went to John Bingham’s funeral YS.

    Why do you think they were there?

  • west belfast

    DC – this has the potential to go seriously off topic!

    However – WW2 – I believe that it was right to go to war with the Nazis and the Battle of Britain was probably that countrys finest hour – perhaps their only finest hour!

    But the rize of Nazism (and it could have easily have been Communism) can be traced back to the shambolic Treaty of Versailles and the establishment of a fatally flawed Weimar Republic.

    To shackle Germany with reparations that wouldnt be paid for 100 years was a mistake. With the collapse of the Dawes Plan after the wall st crash plunged the country into turmoil and into the arms of extremism.

    The lands that were taken off Germany after WW1 were another huge mistake. This allowed Hitler to portray his racist notion of lebensraum and re-establishing national pride.

    But to argue that murder was not committed by all sides during WW2 is an insult to those in the concentration camps as well as those poor souls in Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima. Thats why they are called war crimes.

  • YelloSmurf

    West Belfast,

    I did not mean to rubbish your views, but I feel strongly that those who are simply doing thier jobs are not legitimate targets for murder (in most circumstances). I do not deny that the the forces of law and order acted very badly on occaision (some specific incidents which are, arguably murder, spring to mind), but a distinction should be made between these incidents and ordinary Police Men and Women, who were just earning a living.

  • west belfast

    Thats a fair argument Yellosmurf.

    I realise it is difficult to comprehend my mindset but if you had grown up through the 70s and 80s in west belfast and witnessed what I witnessed then you would not have the respect for the security forces that you have.

    In saying that I totally understand and respect your viewpoint but I get annoyed that because of my views towards the RUC and British Army that that makes me someone opposed to law and order.

    The IRA did many despicable things that I would and could never stand over or defend. Those actions were undoubtedly directed from their leadership.

    I just want any unionist to admit that this also happened from the State – not a few rotten apples.

    I have to say that I really regret what was allowed to happen here over the last 40 years – that is why I strongly argue against people I know who would have sympathies with the dissidents but my voice is lessened by unionisms failure to stand up and acknowlegde their role in the mayhem called ‘The Troubles’.

  • Reader

    fin: Who created the laws of NI was it a democratically elected government selected from all parts of the community?
    Since most of NI’s laws were inherited or copied from Westminster, then yes. Also, Stormont was democratically elected. As for the ‘all parts of the community’ bit – how many unionists were ever in government in the Free State or the Republic of Ireland?

  • Dread Cthulhu

    wb: “But to argue that murder was not committed by all sides during WW2 is an insult to those in the concentration camps as well as those poor souls in Coventry, Dresden and Hiroshima. Thats why they are called war crimes. ”

    The camps were not a part of the war, WB — they pre-dated the war, for starters. Likewise, they were directed at civilians, solely for the elimination of “undesireables.” This was murder, but, like as not, would have proceeded, albeit on a smaller scale, without the war. You deliberately seek to conflate one with the other, incorrectly.

    As for the bombing campaigns, that was a choice, a deliberate choice, on the part of the Third Reich. Once Germany and Japan decided to follow a strategy of total war, as evidenced by the bombing campaign against England and the war in China, it would have been irresponsible of the Allies to not reply in kind. It would serve only to prolong the war, comfort the enemy and undermine moral on the home front.

    Dresden was, among other things, a logistical center. Hiroshima was a manufacturing center, while Nagasaki was, among other things, a naval port — legitimate targets of war, given that which had gone on before. They are primarily called “war crimes” by those who were A) on the receiving end, with a convenient lapse of memory of previous misbehavior on their nations part and B) those who weren’t born and are generations removed from the decision who are making a snap decision without considering either the options at hand at the time (read the profile of Operation Coronet / Olympic for the invasion of Japan) or the without having undergone the burdens of the war.

  • west belfast

    DC

    I have to at least applaud your ability to defend the indefensible.

    Surely it is commonly believed that Hiroshima was a message to the USSR from the USA – simple war games.

    But to take your logic then the IRA were right to kill British soldiers because of the centuries of violence against the Irish people.

    Once again you are justifying violence and terror – by your rationale the reason for the genocide in Dresden is “because the Germans did it first”.

    You seem to glory in the horrors of war. This is usually done by those who A. have never experienced war or violence up front and personal and B. those who were born years after the event and only read the books they agree with.

    I have never said bombing Dresden wasnt an outworking of a viscious war but please dont glory in its horror.

  • fin

    reader, no dice. 45% of NI is/was Catholic, yet – I believe – only one Catholic minister served in government, and that was shortly before Stormont collapsed. For all there faults it is insulting to compare government in Ireland and the reat of the UK to the government which existed in NI.

    Where else in the UK or Ireland did gerrymandering exist.

    I would say that Conor Cruise O’Brien was probably Irelands best known Unionist politican and minister.
    The Earl of Dunraven and Thomas Westropp Bennett served in the Senate, the Earl of Granard and the Provost of Trinity College Dublin was appointment to the President of Ireland’s advisory body, the Council of State. A unionist party in Donegal existed until recently, at councillor level the Dublin borough of Rathmines had a unionist majority up to the late 1920s. Of course apart from those unionist politicans there have always been a strong representation of Prodestants in Irish political life beginning with the first president.

    Of course unionists were a tiny percentage of the population in Ireland compared to the 45% of the population in NI which is nationalist, can you list some nationalists and catholics who made it in politics in NI?

  • Reader

    fin: reader, no dice. 45% of NI is/was Catholic, yet – I believe – only one Catholic minister served in government, and that was shortly before Stormont collapsed.
    There was a bit of a shortage of Catholic Unionists. I do blame the unionist party for a lot of that, but *not* for failing to appoint anti-partitionists to government. By the way, I do not accept your 45% figure for the major part of the Stormont era – the usual working value is 33%, and then underrepresented because of abstentionism and the FPTP system.
    fin: Where else in the UK or Ireland did gerrymandering exist.
    Do you think there was gerrymandering for Stormont seats? I doubt it. Face it – during the Stormont era there was never a Nationalist Government waiting in the wings.
    As for the rest of the stuff: When did CCO’B advocate the the RoI rejoin the Union? That is what it takes to make a southern unionist.
    What’s this Rathmines nonsense? Newry had a nationalist council – let alone a borough. Yet what does that prove?
    Bennett wasn’t a Unionist; None of your presidents has ever been a unionist; The Nationalist parties in Northern Ireland have lasted longer than the unionist party in Donegal.
    In short – take another look at your analogies.

  • Mike

    west belfast

    In your attempt to claim “we are all guilty” (and therefore get the actual murderers off the hook) you equate “moving to the suburbs” with committing mass murder.

    Complete and utter drivel.

  • YelloSmurf

    Reader

    You can not deny that the Londonerry Corporation was Gerrymandered to give an artificial Unionist majority. Even if there were the same number of voters per ward then the property restrictions (which were abandoned in GB much earlyer than here), linking housing to voting meant that Unionist found it easier to get houses and therefore easier to get votes. (Someone is going to point out that some Unionists lived in hovels as well, but that does not change the overall trend.)

  • west belfast

    Guess we all know where you live Mike! Those tulips could do with a bit of pruning!