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.