Tories to dump Eames Bradley?

The BBC are reporting that Dennis Bradley has suggested that if they win the next General Election, the Conservatives will bin the Eames Bradley report. Bradley was speaking at the Progressive Unionist party Conference and said:

“If what I am hearing is correct, the Conservatives will bin this report.
“In its place they will suggest a memorial hospital and a moving on, leaving the past behind,”

Mr Bradley added: “It will not be as crude as that but it will amount to leaving the past to be dealt with by the passage of time and the death of those who feel most affected by the effects of the Troubles.”

He went on: “As those who carry the scars of the past know, and as the divisions in our society continue to illustrate, the past cannot be forgotten.
Buried memories fester in the unconscious minds of communities in conflict only to emerge later in even more distorted and virulent forms to poison minds and relationships.
The animosity between the communities continue, as is clear not least in the politics of the Stormont Assembly.
When future generations ask ‘why?’ they will, if reasons are not considered and recorded, make-up their own minds about what happened, based on age-old beliefs of the communities they come from.”
Clearly this will come as a source of great distress to Mr. Bradley. It is also true that not addressing the past may cause future problems. However, what neither Eames nor Bradley ever admitted was that their report did not help reconciliation but instead stoked the problems. Their report will have floundered (if it does) on its own immoral, intellectually lazy and dishonest nature.

Bradley may not want to admit it but the simple fact is that dismissing large numbers of submissions because they did not tally with what he and the noble Lord wanted was not an appropriate way to deal with the past. Nor were the repeated leaks to the press, especially those suggesting how distressed the unionist community would be with the report.

The report itself of course when it came was even worse. An effective amnesty after a five year period of procrastination was utterly immoral; even more so for the deceit of denying that it was an amnesty. The idea of wiping the slate clean for the likes of the Greysteel murderers so that they could not be prevented from getting jobs and services due to their terrorist past was also an example of complete moral turpitude.

Of course the most classic and potent example of the moral wasteland which Eames and Bradley had entered was the £12,000 (or Ford Focus) for the relatives of the victims whether they were Thomas Begley or Kathyrn Eakin. That recommendation was merely the most emblematic example of the depths to which Bradley and the supposedly noble Lord had deliberately and consciously descended, dragging the rest of their group with them. Then the utterly perverse attempts to declare that there was no hierarchy of victims because of the completely meaningless and irrelevant statement: “A mother’s tears are a mother’s tears” was to dig the pit yet deeper. The attempt then by Jarlath Burns to smear unionist politicians simply compounded the problem: especially when he singularly failed to name any names.

We will wait and see whether the Conservatives do win and whether they really will dump the whole of Eames Bradley. If they do the majority of all sections of the community will breath a collective sigh of relief whilst Eames Bradley and their acolytes can be left with nothing other than the dishonour of having been involved in such an utterly iniquitous report (and of course the large amounts of money they received for it: an update for the two ex clerics on thirty pieces of sliver).
That we learned of all this at the PUP conference is maybe appropriate as only the terrorist cheerleaders like the PUP will shed any tears: if the PUP are disappointed at this prospect that merely enhances my joy. It is of course much too soon to break open the champagne (never trust a Tory) but to quote a previous Conservative leader “Just Rejoice at that news.”

  • Driftwood

    Poor Denis, visibly upset that his ‘nice little earner’ may cease to be. The Golden Goose of profiting from other peoples misery will stop laying her substantial paycheque in to Mr Bradleys’ deep pockets.
    And Lord Eames could be forced to up his expenses claims to keep his aristocratic lifestyle instead of treating us to his hand wringing -I feel your pain-angst.

    Excellent news that 2 charlatans are being smoked out.

  • percy

    If there’s 2 people that really make posh unionists squirm and wriggle, its Denis Bradley and Brian Feeney.
    Dawn Purvis is right when she says:

    “You get no sense of the poverty, the slums that passed for houses, the sectarian rants and rabble-rousing politicians threatening to fight to the last drop of everyone else’s blood.”

    the rest of yous whiter than white?
    yeah my arse as Jim would say.

  • joeCanuck

    That’s shameful man playing, Driftwood.
    These two gentlemen were handed a pig’s ear and, unsurprisingly, were not able to produce a silk purse. Don’t shoot the messengers, even if they are misguided.
    I agree that the report should be shelved and a public memorial be erected. You can do a lot worse than a memorial hospital.

  • aquifer

    I’d rather give victims money than QCs.

    ‘As those who carry the scars of the past know, and as the divisions in our society continue to illustrate, the past cannot be forgotten.’

    Some are ‘carrying the scars’ for sure, but most people just got on with life. Maybe we should all get medals for fortitude under fire, as any one of us could have been stiffed at any time for thwarting armed thugs. Sometimes the healing that time brings is all we are going to get, but good nonetheless.

    The past can be forgotten, in dribs and drabs, and the squalid dishonest and demeaning bits should be obliterated by some extraordinarily good times.

    Maybe two people from the religious guilt industry are not the best people to teach us to party.

  • dosser

    I tend to agree that it’s good in some instances to clear a line under the past and let bygones be bygones. The Pacto de Olvido in Spain during the transition from dictatorship to democracy is a fairly good example of this point.

    Yet the point is very few people seem to able to perform such social amnesia, especially avowed critics of Eames/Bradley. These critics are the ones who constantly hark back to the Shankill bombing, Le Mon, or even the massacres of 1641; or if your political penchant is for Irish nationalism, Bloody Sunday, the Hunger Strikes and the Famine.

    The fact is Northern Irish society is mired in remembrance and politicians constantly evoke it in order to demonise the other ‘tribe’.

    Those who wish to put the past behind them have to put their money where their mouth is and stop constantly referring to history in order to score political points.

    I’m sceptical that this can be done.

  • Driftwood

    No Joe, it’s not man playing. These 2 ‘gentlemen’ probably couldn’t believe their luck at being handed an endless portfolio to produce waffle and expand the liberal guilt trip to include just about everyone. ‘Society was to blame your honour’.
    £££££££! With nudges on the fruit machine to keep on collecting the taxpayers dough.
    As for the shite about poverty and slums….Yeah, absolves people from personal responsibility doesn’t it? Pass the sick bag…
    Sure there’s another 8 months for Denis and Robin to fill their boots. After that they can be co-opted on to one of the many commissions/fruit machines installed by New Labour to milk the taxpayer. Don’t forget about them, Owen!

  • igor

    The assumption that we can ever resolve the past here is facile. To do so would suit none of the political class and few of the victims families. The families are also a minority who either want ‘the truth’ or the verification of ‘their truth’. The two are not the same. There are many conflicting agendas.

    What we have seen (not least in the debate around the hunger strike) is that there are those who dont want the truth revealed. Who did order the murder of Jean McConville? Will PIRA tell the Truth? Will an inquiry in Finucane do anything but enrich more ‘human rights’ lawyers?

    Denis argues that not closing this will leave others to develop their stories /attribute blame in the future. I have news for him. They will do that anyway. Any glimmers of trith that emerge will be swamped by screms of ‘awww but’ ‘themuns made us do it’ or ‘it’s all lies anyway’. They already have started and the ‘official’ narrative that will be presented will be what political and personal interests want to be heard not the truth

    We had our own attempt to find a way to move on in Eames Bradley but it has now collapsed for all intents and purposes. We need Nanny to tell us that enough is enough. Sorry but the past is past and we need to recognise that and move on. We cannot – should not – indulge you any more in this

  • Harry T

    If this is indeed the Conservatives approach they have my vote.

    Bradley and his ilk are living in Dreamworld if they ever believed that some type of ‘truth recovery’ process was going to heal divisions or change mindsets.

    Such a process would merely serve to provide another platform for all sides to restate their positions. This would not bring ‘closure’ to victims rather it would simply add to their pain.

    The Bloody Sunday debacle is a prime example. Does anyone really believe that whatever Saville comes up with will change the various, opposing, opinions of what occurred?

    Myth-making will continue as all sides have a vested interest in justifying their actions. For many many years to come there will be at least two narratives of the ‘conflict’.

    It’s all too raw. Too many bloody hands are still on the tiller of influence. Throwing millions at lawyers and sustaining a legion of civil servants and activists’ groups will not help.

    Put it to bed, build the hospital, look to the future and let history make the call.

  • Harry T

    Sorry igor. I went to put the kettle on and missed your post. You said it (much better) all, I needn’t have bothered.

  • percy

    driftwood,
    your comments merely underline the inability of some to see cause and effect, and deny the guiding hand of the hate-mongers behind the violence.
    exactly what bradley says is wrong.
    case proven

  • Dave

    “Buried memories fester in the unconscious minds of communities in conflict only to emerge later in even more distorted and virulent forms to poison minds and relationships.”

    Bradley is still proffering the discredited and morally repugnant concept of collective responsibility/guilt as the basis of his proposals.

    He would now have us believe that a ‘collective unconscious’ exists (“the unconscious minds of communities”) in addition to a collective conscience. So, just as society was personified as a guilt-ridden conscience, it is now personified as a soul troubled with repressed memories that will serve to make it incapable of forming healthy relationships (it might, for example, fall in love with another society but find that it is unable to consummate the relationship due to an erectile dysfunction that is a symptom of its unresolved past).

    Individuals, oddly enough, don’t seem to exist here. That’s odd because 99.5% of the individuals who comprise NI society did not feel a sudden urge to murder or maim other individuals. To hear Bradley tell it, one could be forgiven for thinking that a civil war had erupted rather than an organised murder campaign that was controlled by a small number of organised murder gangs and that had no similarity with a civil war whatsoever. Nope, most people did not murder anyone. A small number of murder gangs did that to further their own agendas.

    The fact that the organisers of those murder gangs have been rewarded with political power within the state may explain why Mr Bradley, a puppet of the state, is unable to finger the guilty parties so instead casts his bony finger at all and sundry.

  • west belfast

    Once again Turgon and co miss the point completely.

    There can be no line drawn on the past – it is being dealt with everyday of the week. Each time this line is drawn the legal system rubs it out. Whether that is HET, the Police Ombudsman, public inquiries or whatever else – the past is dripping out and will poison our society.

    By the way a line in the sand means exactly that -nothing more to be done – a de facto AMNESTY!! Which would suit the IRA and RUC special branch/MI5 just fine.

    Now lets see what Jim Allister and the rest of the backwoodsmen would make of that!

    Turgon – there is talk that FAIR now privately support the ‘ford focus’ moment because of the number of calls they have received from IRA victims. I guess they realised that when it was scrapped by Woodward all it meant was that all victims were still the same, just without any recognition – is there any truth to that?

  • Driftwood

    “You get no sense of the poverty, the slums that passed for houses, the sectarian rants and rabble-rousing politicians threatening to fight to the last drop of everyone else’s blood.”

    Did Purvis or Bradley say that?

    The 1st point is bollocks-We didn’t have an inside toilet so we killed a prod/taig. Yoho.
    Point 2. We all know who the rabble rousers (DUP) and murderers (SF) were, they’re now running our wee assembly.

    NONE of the rest of us were responsible for the criminal acts of others.

    SF have now accepted British rule, so we move on. We don’t forget that they were murderers, but we move on. We will soon have a Tory government that will piss on any funding for Eames/Bradley type ‘equivalence’. We move on to a positive future within the UK and leave the apologists for murder behind.

  • percy

    For a detective superintendant that’s a piss-poor analysis.
    Think I’ll stay with Bradley, as I’ve heard nothing yet to convince me otherwise on this thread.

  • Dave

    Percy, how can you have faith in a man who is is basing his justification on the theories of Carl Jung? Jung also beleived that the circular shape of UFOs were one of the classic ‘archetypes’ that were imprinted in the what he called the collective unconscious. That is not science, and even if you mistook it for such on the basis of the name of Jung, his theory is not empirically testable, so it is at best pseudoscientific tosh that should not be proffered as the justification for what Bradley is promoting. Besides, the theory of a collective unconscious it is based on the universal, so how could it be argued that local events could imprint? Pure tosh.

  • Dave

    If, as Bradley asserts, unionist misrule at Stormont was responsible for the formation of nationalist murder gangs and their violent acts, then they did nationalist violence continue for more than two decades after unionist misrule at Stormont came to an end, and why does it persist today? He claims that unionist misrule was responsible for PIRA, but how can he claim that it is responsible for RIRA or the Continuity IRA?

    Bradley’s narrative here is consistent with the revised PIRA narrative that its organised murder campaign had the aim of securing equal civil and political rights between two ethnic groups within Northern Ireland, and so it became defunct when these rights (whatever they were alleged to be) were secured – or, at any rate, when power-sharing at Stormont replaced DUP-Shinner misrule to replace the UUP misrule that ended in 1972. The unrevised PIRA narrative held that the aim of PIRA’s organised murder campaign was to end British rule rather than to reform it and to assist in its administration. This might explain why violence continues after unionist misrule has ended, i.e. RIRA or the Continuity IRA have the aim of ending British rule rather than reforming it. If so, then how will unionist acceptance that it is responsible for PIRA’s organised murder campaign cause the RIRA or the Continuity IRA, and others of that ilk, secure and end to British rule and thereby secure and to the use of use violence toward that goal? Bradley has assured us that violence will end once the unionists accept that they created these organised murder gangs. Miniature piglets might also sprout purple polka dot wings and fly out of the ass of rainbow-coloured unicorn, of course.

    It will no doubt come as a surprise to unionists to learn that they were sitting on PIRA’s Army Council and duly directing its murder campaign when they – along with the rest of us – foolishly assumed that it was nationalists (and their handlers) who planned all of the murders that were directed by PIRA’s Army Council. But of course Bradley isn’t saying that unionists directed PIRA’s organised murder campaign but rather that they are guilty regardless. Those who murdered and those who directed the murderers to murder are not guilty whereas those who knew nothing about the murders until a neighbour, a friend, a colleague, or a relative was murdered are guilty. Interesting sense of logic and morality. Unionist politicians, however, are guilty of directing loyalist murder gangs according to Bradley. The evidence for this claim? A remark by a murderer that he knew the colour of the wallpaper in the homes of unionist politicians. I could probably tell you that from googling pics of interviews with them (assuming they didn’t paint their walls like everybody else did from the 80s onward).

    Bradley is really straining with his agenda to depict unionists as being morally equivalent to the organisers of murder gangs. Why does he have an agenda to promote equivalence where there is none? That is because the state now requires that those who object to the organisers of murder gangs being rewarded with political power over the society they terrorised should end their objection by accepting that equivalence exists. If it can be held that the unionist politicians were murderers just like the Shinners, then how can it be claimed that the Shinners are not fit for public office whereas unionist politicians are?

    Bradley does not speak of Truth & Justice Commission or even a Truth & Reconciliation Commission but only of a reconciliation process. How can people be reconciled without truth or justice? It is disgusting to censor truth and justice and to force reconciliation in denial of what is expediently censored. The man is a bloody disgrace, and there in nothing well-meaning or beneficial in his deliberate propaganda to mitigate the disgrace that he proffers on behalf of the corrupt state that he serves.

    There can be no truth because the nationalists would be seen as having been duped by British intelligence into accepting the legitimacy of British rule and formally renouncing their right to national self-determination in perpetuity; and there can be no justice because the Shinners would be removed from Stormont and placed into prison. There can’t be any reconciliation either because that is based on unionists accepting responsibility for crimes that they did not commit and accepting that those who did commit them should not be blamed.

  • Dave

    [b]Typo-free version![/b]

    If, as Bradley asserts, unionist misrule at Stormont was responsible for the formation of nationalist murder gangs and their violent acts, then why did nationalist violence continue for more than two decades after unionist misrule at Stormont came to an end, and why does it persist today? He claims that unionist misrule was responsible for PIRA, but how can he claim that it is responsible for RIRA or the Continuity IRA?

    Bradley’s narrative here is consistent with the revised PIRA narrative that its organised murder campaign had the aim of securing equal civil and political rights between two ethnic groups within Northern Ireland, and so it became defunct when these rights (whatever they were alleged to be) were secured – or, at any rate, when power-sharing at Stormont allowed DUP-Shinner misrule to replace the UUP misrule that ended in 1972. The unrevised PIRA narrative held that the aim of PIRA’s organised murder campaign was to end British rule rather than to reform it or to assist in its administration. This might explain why violence continues after unionist misrule has ended, i.e. RIRA and the Continuity IRA have the aim of ending British rule rather than reforming it. If so, then how will unionist acceptance that it is responsible for PIRA’s organised murder campaign cause the RIRA or the Continuity IRA, and others of that ilk, to secure an end to British rule and thereby secure an end to the use violence toward that goal? Bradley has assured us that violence will end once the unionists accept that they created these organised murder gangs. Miniature piglets might also sprout purple polka dot wings and fly out of the ass of rainbow-coloured unicorn, of course.

    It will no doubt come as a surprise to unionists to learn that they were sitting on PIRA’s Army Council and duly directing its murder campaign when they – along with the rest of us – foolishly assumed that it was nationalists (and their handlers) who planned all of the murders that were directed by PIRA’s Army Council. But of course Bradley isn’t saying that unionists directed PIRA’s organised murder campaign but rather that they are guilty regardless. Those who murdered and those who directed the murderers are not guilty whereas those who knew nothing about the murders until a neighbour, a friend, a colleague, or a relative was murdered are guilty. Interesting sense of logic and morality. Unionist politicians, however, are guilty of directing loyalist murder gangs according to Bradley. The evidence for this claim? A remark by a murderer that he knew the colour of the wallpaper in the homes of unionist politicians. I could probably tell you that from googling pics of interviews with them (assuming they didn’t paint their walls like everybody else did from the 80s onward).

    Bradley is really straining with his agenda to depict unionists as being morally equivalent to the organisers of murder gangs. Why does he have an agenda to promote equivalence where there is none? That is because the state now requires that those who object to the organisers of murder gangs being rewarded with political power over the society they terrorised should end their objection by accepting that equivalence exists. If it can be held that the unionist politicians were murderers just like the Shinners, then how can it be claimed that the Shinners are not fit for public office whereas unionist politicians are?

    Bradley does not speak of a Truth & Justice Commission or even a Truth & Reconciliation Commission but only of a reconciliation process. How can people be reconciled without truth or justice? It is disgusting to censor truth and justice and to force reconciliation in denial of what is expediently censored. The man is a bloody disgrace, and there in nothing well-meaning or beneficial in his deliberate propaganda to mitigate the disgrace that he proffers on behalf of the corrupt state that he serves.

    There can be no truth because the nationalists would be seen as having been duped by British intelligence into accepting the legitimacy of British rule and formally renouncing their right to national self-determination in perpetuity; and there can be no justice because the Shinners would be removed from Stormont and placed into prison. There can’t be any reconciliation either because that is based on unionists accepting responsibility for crimes that they did not commit and accepting that those who did commit them should not be blamed.

  • igor

    Could we run this discussion again in January when it will be even colder. The heat will warm us up

  • Richard Aardvark

    Har Har.

  • NONE of the rest of us were responsible for the criminal acts of others.

    Maybe not directly, but we helped sustain the environment in which it happened.

    For example, in the playground when I was at school, the IRA were “scum” and “bastards”, whereas the UDA/UVF were merely “idiots”, if anything at all. Even as children, we were complicit.

    How’s that for moral turpitude?

  • igor

    Andrew

    I agree. At age 6 you were just as responsible as those pulling the triggers. It was genetically programmed into you.

    PS you also carry the tribal responsibility for what your great great great great great granny did at the time of the Wolfe Tone rebellion / Boyne etc etc etc etc

  • percy

    thankyou for your honesty andrew …. Dave?

  • Greenflag

    harry t ,

    ‘For many many years to come there will be at least two narratives of the ‘conflict’.’

    Make that centuries. This is Ireland .We remember etc .

    ‘It’s all too raw. Too many bloody hands are still on the tiller of influence. Throwing millions at lawyers and sustaining a legion of civil servants and activists’ groups will not help.’

    Indeed -the lawyers have made more than enough out of the ‘troubles’ and the civil servants have jobs to do while they still have jobs .

    ‘Put it to bed, build the hospital, look to the future’

    Indeed .

    ‘ and let history make the call ‘

    You mean the history of the ‘winners’ 😉

  • Greenflag

    PS ,

    But when both sides lose then somebody else must have won ?

    For some odd reason probably to do with the uniqueness of the location those who are reported to have lost appear as ‘winners’ whereas those who are reported to have won a) don’t believe it or b) fell they have lost ?

  • I agree. At age 6 you were just as responsible as those pulling the triggers. It was genetically programmed into you.

    I didn’t say we were just as responsible. At age 6 we didn’t have an opinion. At age 11, we were hardly criminally responsible either but we were definitely part of the problem. To deny that is to misunderstand how conflicts start. You don’t get malaria in the desert.

  • Turgon

    Andrew Gallagher
    “You don’t get malaria in the desert.”

    As analogies go that is particularly poor. One gets malaria because one is bitten by a female Anopheles mosquito which is carrying the parasite. It is not the fault of the person bitten that they got malaria or do you feel that children in Africa “deserve” it? Of course you do not but that suggestion is as offensive as your suggestion that we are in part responsible for the troubles.

    Equally someone is murdered by terrorists because terrorists kill them. It is not the fault of anyone but the terrorists.

    The problem with your analysis is that it begins by suggesting that we all has “some responsibility” and then can rapidly go on to saying we are all guilty. Then it proceeds that the least guilty are the terrorists because they have at least admitted what they have done.

    It is all complete nonsense and offensive nonsense at that. If one did not participate in terrorist activity then one has no criminal responsibility. If one did not intellectually or morally support terrorism (which was the case with the majority of people) then one has absolutely no moral responsibility guilt etc.

    Your analogy is that somehow by being unionist or nationalist and holding to that position we “forced” the terrorists to kill people: that is nonsense. It would be the same argument as saying that by not handing one’s money to a mugger one is partly responsible for being assaulted or by not consenting to sex a woman is in part responsible for her own rape. If you tried to put that argument forward you would be met with overwhelming opprobrium and rightly so. Why then is it acceptable to advance the utter nonsense that any of us who were innocent we actually guilty for the troubles.

    The extension of your examples is that Kathyrn Eakin or at least her parents are responsible for her death. That is a foul and loathsome suggestion. The extension is that those murdered at Darkley were in some way responsible for their own deaths: again a loathsome suggestion.

    Dave’s analysis is consistently the best on this as is his explanation that in reality this narrative is about justifying the moral and legal surrender to criminal murderers.

  • Driftwood

    Andrew Gallagher
    I do indeed remember the trauma I suffered when ‘Big’ Jim Fegan informed us in the primary school playground one December morning that Santa had been shot dead by the UDA for giving presents to Catholics. A seminal moment as the ‘Troubles’ impacted on me for the 1st time.
    However, since I took no part in any subsequent violence, I am at a loss to understand your analogy.
    But,as a ‘victim’, can I have a VW Golf instead of a Ford Focus please?

  • Turgon

    Driftwood,
    “But,as a ‘victim’, can I have a VW Golf instead of a Ford Focus please?”

    LOL but you fail to understand. The moral fudge and waffle brigade have told you how to feel guilty, have told you about what sort of “victim” you are and now will tell you exactly what you must do and what you will get. As such you should be grateful with your Ford Focus. To ask for a Golf might suggest a difference and a hierarchy which would never do.

  • west belfast

    Those who pulled the triggers – whether the IRA, loyalists or the State – were the hard edge of an intolerant society where one section believed they had all the right on there side.

    Nearly 20,000 republicans and loyalists went to prison for paramilitary activity. I would assume that the majority of members of the IRA/UVF etc never spent time in jail. Then we had the many in the State who deserved also to go to prison but were lucky enough to be making the laws.

    That means most likely at least over 50000 men and women where directly associated with the violence – and that does not include those who hid guns, spied, colluded, voted! Of course all of those were sons, daughers, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters.

    That takes the number of people with a daily knowledge of the violence into the hundreds of thousands. So to say that wider society bears no responsibility is to let them off far to lightly.

    What you really mean is that YOU feel no responsibility because you feel you had all the right on your side. Well you didn’t have it all, like me you had some.

    Some day just try to put yourselves in the shoes of your enemies – it will not change your view of the world but it will broaden your horizon.

  • Turgon

    west belfast,
    You make a long list of assumptions there and end up with 20,000 possible terrorists. Now since the population of NI is 1.7 million and the troubles lasted 30 years we probably have well over 2.5 million people from whom that 20,000 is drawn. Hence, actually it is a very small minority 1 in 125 and that is being generous in your calculations.

    Turning to the relatives: the idea that one is involved in criminality because one’s relatives might be criminals is an appalling slur on the relatives. Do you think Thomas Begley’s parents were guilty of anything? I certainly do not.

    All the rest are completely innocent. In terms of voting, I may not like people voting for SF but that is not the same thing as being a terrorist.

    If you West Belfast wish to wallow in some self appointed guilt (or indeed if you are truly guilty) that is for your conscience but we the normal people here are completely innocent whatever our political views.

  • wanna job

    Posted by Andrew Gallagher
    Andrew I know exactly what you mean and so do a lot of ordinary people dont even try to reason with turgon and his type on either side.They need conflict they live for it.IT is after all and has always been their bread and butter and now he wants to be elected and fill his boots with the rest of them. Feck me turgon reckons him and Jim Allister are just normal people.
    Submit word free if only we were free of all the really clever people like turgon who know whats best for us.

  • Turgon,

    As analogies go that is particularly poor.

    Yes, it was a little sloppy. Was it really necessary to lecture me on disease vectors though?

    If one did not intellectually or morally support terrorism (which was the case with the majority of people) then one has absolutely no moral responsibility guilt etc.

    It must be wonderful to be so assured of your saintliness.

    Wanna Job: thanks, but I’m in a grumpy mood this evening and feel the need…

  • You can catch the video of Denis Bradley’s full speech at the PUP conference over in Alan in Belfast.

  • west belfast

    Turgon

    this is not about guilt. I do not ask you to repent for your support of the security forces who were the oppressors of my community.

    The point is that to say that only those who pulled the triggers were to blame is naive. Its a bit like saying the German people bore no responsibility for the Nazis.

    The IRA/UVF/RUC/UDA/UDR/INLA/British Army etc all had a support base to hide behind and to get assistance from.

    I take your point that not all families would have known what their kin were doing – I’m sure some of the relatives of RUC Special Branch would have been appalled at their actions.

    Getting back to my original point – the only way to ‘draw a line in the sand’ is to have an amnesty.

  • Freddie

    Usual bollocks from the apologists for the murder gangs.

    I’d rather have the ‘oppression’ experienced by the Republican community than the bombs and bullets it chose to export to mine.

  • west belfast

    Freddie

    Usual bollocks from the ‘my victim is more important than your victim’ brigade.

    Just a wee reminder that West Belfast suffered more casulaties than any other part of the North during the conflict. So what part of war torn Bangor were you from then?

    Anyway – all those in favour of an amnesty (aka drawing a line in the sand) raise their hands!

  • Laughing (though not so much) Unionist

    And those with blood on their hands can promptly put them down again. Murderers you are, murderers you remain, and everyone but you says so. Everyone. London, Dublin, Brussels, DC, heavens, even VC all agree: NI’s terrorists were just so – criminal killers. That you’ve only each other to hug says it all really. Still, I Dictionary Dave’s doubtless doing a good job keeping McMurderous’ seat warm for him.

  • Reader

    Greenflag: You mean the history of the ‘winners’ 😉
    This was Western Europe in the late 20th Century. *No* dirty secret is safe; and yet all sides will have their apologists. The losers (who?) were not exterminated, the winners (who?) do not have absolute power.
    I think history can look after itself.

  • Freddie

    West Belfast has also way above its quota of murderers and cut-throats, maybe it’s something in the water or the outside bogs.

    That they did not wish to stray too far from the homeplace to indulge their passions is perhaps something that the ‘community’ may wish to ponder.

  • Dave

    Thank you for the compliment, Turgon. I think the state-sponsored Eames/Bradley project is about reconciling people to the dismal fact that those who terrorised them now govern them, and that’s about the only form of reconciliation that concerns them.

  • west belfast

    And we have a winner … sectarian bigot of the year goes to …. Freddie. Congratulations! I though most of the cut-throats came from Aldershot! I’m sure all those innocent people who died in Iraq and Afghanistan are very angry at those pesky IRA men.

    And Laughing Unionist – don’t think the 350,000 Sinn Fein voters see it that way. In fact not sure the DUP or UUP see it that way as they are happy to share power with the Shinners. In fact not sure Dublin, London etc etc see it that way at all!

    Also can you list the criminals you talk about? If the British Army/UDR/RUC are on the list I will be very surprised but heartened.

    The view must be great from your ivory tower.

    Anyway – all those in favour of an amnesty (aka drawing a line in the sand) raise their hands!

  • Greenflag

    reader ,

    ‘This was Western Europe in the late 20th Century.’

    It was ? You might think that and strictly in geographic terms you would be correct . In political /tribal /ethnic /religious division terms it was more like the Balkans and or the Middle East . The only reason there were’nt 40,000 or 50,000 dead or more is because of the actions of both British and Irish Governments .

    ‘I think history can look after itself.’

    ?
    History does’nt look after anything . It happens and just when you think it may have come to an end -it starts all over again .