The Daily Mail

[Nally Stand]

The Daily Mail have today published an article describing the Bloody Sunday murderers as "Britain's brave paras".

If ever a paper needed boycotted it's that horrible, vile rag. Not to mention it's "Irish" edition.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568874/If-terror-suspects-immunity-not-Britains-brave-Paras-Furious-MPs-demand-immunity-soldiers.html#ixzz2uc5qCEZ5

[AZOffaly]

Whatever about the nonsense about brave Paras, Cowardly cnuts more like, is there not an argument that says if you are letting one bunch of antagonists go free, why not the other bunch?

[Nally Stand]

Whatever about the nonsense about brave Paras, Cowardly cnuts more like, is there not an argument that says if you are letting one bunch of antagonists go free, why not the other bunch?

As has been pointed out AZ, one bunch of protagonists HAVE been going free. Over 25,000 republicans have served jail sentences. A cumulative 100,000 years in jail. How many british soldiers/RUC members served time for murder? Three. Including two who were released after a handful of years, handed guns and brought back into the army. One was promoted.

And yet people spout about the IRA getting an amnesty? Nauseating.

[AZOffaly]

No doubt Nally. But you have to start letting go of the past at some stage. Or is there a quota of 'time served' that must be reached before we call it quits?

I'm not going to preach to anyone up in NI who has been affected by the actions of the Paras, the RUC, the UDA, the UVF or anyone else. But in the abstract, if a conflict has ended, and the antagonists have been given a pass from future prosecution related to the war, why would you not pardon both sides? Is it because 1 side will have been seen to get off scot-free, while the other side has had to serve time in the past? We need an equaliser before we go in for our dinner? Not being smart, I just want to understand.

[gallsman]

It didn't take this to make the Daily mail a contemptible pile of shite.

[AZOffaly]

It didn't take this to make the Daily mail a contemptible pile of shite.

Also true. Two papers I never buy. The Sun and the Mail. They will never darken my doorstep.

[gallsman]

No doubt Nally. But you have to start letting go of the past at some stage. Or is there a quota of 'time served' that must be reached before we call it quits?

I'm not going to preach to anyone up in NI who has been affected by the actions of the Paras, the RUC, the UDA, the UVF or anyone else. But in the abstract, if a conflict has ended, and the antagonists have been given a pass from future prosecution related to the war, why would you not pardon both sides? Is it because 1 side will have been seen to get off scot-free, while the other side has had to serve time in the past? We need an equaliser before we go in for our dinner? Not being smart, I just want to understand.

While I see your point, there is a fundamental difference between paramilitaries and uniformed officers. As part of peace process, I accept early release being granted to Loyalists as much as Republicans. I could even tolerate amnesty. Soldiers and cops who committed atrocities are different matter altogether though - they represent the state.

[johnneycool]

No doubt Nally. But you have to start letting go of the past at some stage. Or is there a quota of 'time served' that must be reached before we call it quits?

I'm not going to preach to anyone up in NI who has been affected by the actions of the Paras, the RUC, the UDA, the UVF or anyone else. But in the abstract, if a conflict has ended, and the antagonists have been given a pass from future prosecution related to the war, why would you not pardon both sides? Is it because 1 side will have been seen to get off scot-free, while the other side has had to serve time in the past? We need an equaliser before we go in for our dinner? Not being smart, I just want to understand.

While I see your point, there is a fundamental difference between paramilitaries and uniformed officers. As part of peace process, I accept early release being granted to Loyalists as much as Republicans. I could even tolerate amnesty. Soldiers and cops who committed atrocities are different matter altogether though - they represent the state.

But in the eyes of Peter the punt and his cohorts its because they represented the state that they did no wrong, it was only the 'terrorists' in the IRA, INLA and whoever did wrong.

There is never any acknowledgement on the unionist side that state organisations actively did any wrong at any time.

[AZOffaly]

True. A subtle but important distinction alright. However the British have apologised for Bloody Sunday, as a state, so does that not at least mean that we should bite the bullet, no pun intended, with regard to the dicks who actually fired the shots?

[gallsman]

No doubt Nally. But you have to start letting go of the past at some stage. Or is there a quota of 'time served' that must be reached before we call it quits?

I'm not going to preach to anyone up in NI who has been affected by the actions of the Paras, the RUC, the UDA, the UVF or anyone else. But in the abstract, if a conflict has ended, and the antagonists have been given a pass from future prosecution related to the war, why would you not pardon both sides? Is it because 1 side will have been seen to get off scot-free, while the other side has had to serve time in the past? We need an equaliser before we go in for our dinner? Not being smart, I just want to understand.

While I see your point, there is a fundamental difference between paramilitaries and uniformed officers. As part of peace process, I accept early release being granted to Loyalists as much as Republicans. I could even tolerate amnesty. Soldiers and cops who committed atrocities are different matter altogether though - they represent the state.

But in the eyes of Peter the punt and his cohorts its because they represented the state that they did no wrong, it was only the 'terrorists' in the IRA, INLA and whoever did wrong.

There is never any acknowledgement on the unionist side that state organisations actively did any wrong at any time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that's the Loyalist position. Willie Frazer bounding about doesn't help. Increased tension and Poppy fascism in the lead up to Remembrance Sunday every year doesn't help either.

Unionists in the North and Daily Mail readers will never be able to see the subtle differences required in treatment of paramilitaries and soldiers/cops - this is partly responsible for the nonsense Unionists and Loyalists spout about there being a hierarchy of victims.

[AQMP]

No doubt Nally. But you have to start letting go of the past at some stage. Or is there a quota of 'time served' that must be reached before we call it quits?

I'm not going to preach to anyone up in NI who has been affected by the actions of the Paras, the RUC, the UDA, the UVF or anyone else. But in the abstract, if a conflict has ended, and the antagonists have been given a pass from future prosecution related to the war, why would you not pardon both sides? Is it because 1 side will have been seen to get off scot-free, while the other side has had to serve time in the past? We need an equaliser before we go in for our dinner? Not being smart, I just want to understand.

AZ you've been listening to Arlene, Jeffrey and Nigel (and Stephen Nolan) a bit too much.  

The result of this process (as far of my reading of it is) was not an amnesty nor was there a guarantee of immunity from future prosecution.  The letters said that at the time of writing the person concerned was not wanted for any case and there were no outstanding arrest warrants against said person.  They did state that if new evidence emerged or an extradition request was received that these would be processed/investigated in the normal way.  Remember this "scheme" was for OTRs only.  Theoretically it was open to anyone from any background (Plum Smyth has confirmed that it was open to loyalists).  The reason that only republicans benefited from it was that there are no known Loyalist, British Army, PSNI/RUC etc OTRs.

The Downey case is different from the rest in that John Downey should never have received such a letter as there was still an open arrest warrant for him from the Met in London.  The judge ruled that if it had come to trial then it was a clear case of entrapment and therefore there was little point in going forward.  (BTW for any nerds out there the full judgment makes very interesting reading).

[Nally Stand]

No doubt Nally. But you have to start letting go of the past at some stage. Or is there a quota of 'time served' that must be reached before we call it quits?

I'm not going to preach to anyone up in NI who has been affected by the actions of the Paras, the RUC, the UDA, the UVF or anyone else. But in the abstract, if a conflict has ended, and the antagonists have been given a pass from future prosecution related to the war, why would you not pardon both sides? Is it because 1 side will have been seen to get off scot-free, while the other side has had to serve time in the past? We need an equaliser before we go in for our dinner? Not being smart, I just want to understand.

AZ, I started this thread to draw attention to the Daily Mail and their description of the murderers of Bloody Sunday. I don't know how the area of prosecutions etc is going to be dealt with but there are a few things really pissing me off in the past few days. The gross lie is being force fed into people that the IRA are getting an amnesty. This is bull. It is not an amnesty. They can still be charges if new evidence comes up. Furthermore, the only individuals covered by this letters scheme are a relatively small number of OTRs, who, by the admission of the british government, are "an anomaly". It's a scheme which, as we also discovered yesterday, was open to loyalists as much as republicans. That loyalists had no names to submit to the scheme is not the fault of republicans. (It's probably hard for loyalism to have many OTRs when they have been enjoying state's co-operation and protection throughout the conflict). Another group who have no OTR's are the state forces, but sure who cares about their murders eh? Nobody it seems. Where do their crimes fit into all this? How can OTR's be compared to state forces who have never had to go 'on the run'? What is pissing me off is this LIE the media is driving for the past few days that there is an inequality in prosecutions and that republicans are getting "looked after". It's a lie that people like yourself are evidently starting to fall for, going by your post, and it's intimation that allowing the Bloody Sunday murderers to go scot free, would be somehow "balancing it up". If a full amnesty for all were to be called tomorrow, around 25,000 republicans would have served jail sentences totaling 100,000 years. Compared to how many state murderers? Well, lets count them on one hand.

[AZOffaly]

So you don't support a full amnesty for all, you want everyone who committed atrocities to be charged and convicted. That's fair enough.

I think it's a technicality that 'if new evidence' arises. These cases are very old, and how many are actively being investigated at this stage? Not many I'd say.

Anyway, as I said, the conditional amnesty (is that better?) for OTR is to be welcomed I think, but I can see why some people would be saying why not a similar conditional amnesty for the dicks in Derry.

[AQMP]

So you don't support a full amnesty for all, you want everyone who committed atrocities to be charged and convicted. That's fair enough.

I think it's a technicality that 'if new evidence' arises. These cases are very old, and how many are actively being investigated at this stage? Not many I'd say.

Anyway, as I said, the conditional amnesty (is that better?) for OTR is to be welcomed I think, but I can see why some people would be saying why not a similar conditional amnesty for the dicks in Derry.

Think you may have been replying to Nally, but nonetheless...according to what has been said by the DPP in Belfast there are a "handful" of open historical cases.

The OTRs who received these letters got them basically because there was either no evidence against or insufficient evidence that could reasonably lead to a conviction (indeed the judge in London did comment on the nature of the evidence against Downey).  Also it's worth bearing in mind that approx 25 OTRs got letters saying they were still wanted and would be scooped if they came back home.  With the Paras in Derry I suspect that they have a de facto "letter" in that it's highly unlikely criminal charges will be brought against them.

[Nally Stand]

So you don't support a full amnesty for all, you want everyone who committed atrocities to be charged and convicted. That's fair enough.

I haven't said what I support. On one hand it would be good to draw a line under it all, as people like Danny Morrison would support doing. On the other hand, drawing a line under it all would be the final act in absolving Britain of any culpability for what went on here for thirty years. Their refusal to convict members of the state forces has only been an unwritten rule. A full amnesty would make it a written rule. While 25,000 republicans went to jail and only a bare handful of british soldiers/RUC officers did, then that would be a funny type of justice legacy, and would potentially copper-fasten the long-running alienation of the families of collusion victims and the two-tier victimhood. Probably the best option, if there were no more convictions, would be a truth commission, and where the British would admit publically (as it has done so privately to Martin McGuinness) that it was not just a referee, but a protagonist, and come clean on it's collusion. I fear that's just too much to ask from them though (while they will continue to lecture republicans on peace and law and justice and respect).
"It took a Labour government under Tony Blair, for the first time, to recognise that the British government's policies in the north of Ireland were as much a part of the problem as anything that the IRA was doing. Because Tony Blair, in the week that led to the Good Friday negotiations, actually said to me, 'Martin I have read a number of history books and I accept that we were as responsible for the conflict in the north of Ireland, as anybody else.' That was a massive admission, for any British prime minister to make to the leaders of Irish republicanism."

I think it's a technicality that 'if new evidence' arises. These cases are very old, and how many are actively being investigated at this stage? Not many I'd say.

Anyway, as I said, the conditional amnesty (is that better?) for OTR is to be welcomed I think, but I can see why some people would be saying why not a similar conditional amnesty for the dicks in Derry.

The "dicks in Derry" are not an anomaly like the OTRs. They are the forces of the state and have never had to go on the run. What irritates me too is the constant fixation on the Bloody Sunday soldiers (as if they are somehow a parallel of OTRs) and whether they should be granted immunity. Is it because there was an apology for Bloody Sunday? Well, the IRA issued a full apology almost 15 years ago, but I didn't hear any unionists clambering to have immunity for them from then on. Why don't the people who bring up the Bloody Sunday murderers also bring up the murderers of Ballymurphy too for instance? Their silence on those particular murderers, and on hundreds of others, remains deafening. None of these OTRs have been granted immunity, and while no IRA members have immunity, then no British soldier should either.