A man of peace

[screenmachine]

People like this should be given more air time than the likes of that Frazer twat, if the media and public ignored him he'd soon go away. When he was issuing slab with his writ i was secretly wishing for slab to appear and have a go at him but alas he was only left standing lookin like a fool...

[Doogie Browser]

People like this should be given more air time than the likes of that Frazer t**t, if the media and public ignored him he'd soon go away. When he was issuing slab with his writ i was secretly wishing for slab to appear and have a go at him but alas he was only left standing lookin like a fool...

Exactly, Frazer is an embarrassment.  This mans compassion is touching given what he has lost.

[windyshepardhenderson]

Nothing but admiration for this man. willie frazer's name should not even be spoken in the same breath.

[Evil Genius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8398895.stm

I have respected him for quite a while but it really must have taken an enormous amount of strength to do what he did in meeting Adams

A man to be admired. The place needs more like him. It's a pity Michelle Williamson etc. wouldn't take a leaf out of his book, but I don't know how I'd react in the same situation. Forgiveness would probably well down the list of emotions.

I admire Alan McBride for the stance he is taking, and wish him only the best in his search for answers etc. However, I must take exception to your bringing Michelle Williamson into the debate in this manner.

For those unfamiliar with the name, Williamson lost both her parents in the same Shankill bomb atrocity as McBride. Subsequently, she has campaigned prominently against eg the early release of the bomber who survived the explosion, or for 'compensation' [sic]  to be paid eg to the family of the bomber who died in the bombing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130113/Families-IRA-victims-confront-Republicans-report-recommends-terrorists-relatives-given-12-000-each.html

Their contrasting reactions raise a very interesting point about forgiveness etc. Clearly, if more people could find it within themselves to react like McBride, it may lead quicker to reconciliation etc. But in the end, why should the onus be on the victims  of terror to put right past wrongs? Why should there be any prescribed reaction to such events? If one victim finds solace from gaining "understanding" (McBride), but another by gaining "justice" (Williamson), why should we applaud one, but deny the other?

If something like that were to be visited upon me, I would hope that my reaction might be nearer that of McBride's than Williamson's - if for no other reason than that by his enormous charity, he may have better chance of finding closure through understanding, than Williamson has via justice.

But if that weren't the case, I'm fucked if, having had my loved ones taken from me through no fault of my own, I also had taken away from me the right to reconcile myself with my loss in the way of my choosing*.

In the end, the onus to find understanding and reconciliation must come initially from the vermin who commit the atrocities, not their victims, if we ever are to find true acceptance and peace.


* - Any choice should, of course, be legal and not designed to encourage reprisals or otherwise protract the conflict etc.

 

[theskull1]

point well made EG

[Rossfan]

Mr McBride -- a true example to us all. Fair play to him.

[gallsman]

Pay nothing to anyone.

[ardmhachaabu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8398895.stm

I have respected him for quite a while but it really must have taken an enormous amount of strength to do what he did in meeting Adams

A man to be admired. The place needs more like him. It's a pity Michelle Williamson etc. wouldn't take a leaf out of his book, but I don't know how I'd react in the same situation. Forgiveness would probably well down the list of emotions.

I admire Alan McBride for the stance he is taking, and wish him only the best in his search for answers etc. However, I must take exception to your bringing Michelle Williamson into the debate in this manner.

For those unfamiliar with the name, Williamson lost both her parents in the same Shankill bomb atrocity as McBride. Subsequently, she has campaigned prominently against eg the early release of the bomber who survived the explosion, or for 'compensation' [sic]  to be paid eg to the family of the bomber who died in the bombing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130113/Families-IRA-victims-confront-Republicans-report-recommends-terrorists-relatives-given-12-000-each.html

Their contrasting reactions raise a very interesting point about forgiveness etc. Clearly, if more people could find it within themselves to react like McBride, it may lead quicker to reconciliation etc. But in the end, why should the onus be on the victims  of terror to put right past wrongs? Why should there be any prescribed reaction to such events? If one victim finds solace from gaining "understanding" (McBride), but another by gaining "justice" (Williamson), why should we applaud one, but deny the other?

If something like that were to be visited upon me, I would hope that my reaction might be nearer that of McBride's than Williamson's - if for no other reason than that by his enormous charity, he may have better chance of finding closure through understanding, than Williamson has via justice.

But if that weren't the case, I'm fucked if, having had my loved ones taken from me through no fault of my own, I also had taken away from me the right to reconcile myself with my loss in the way of my choosing*.

In the end, the onus to find understanding and reconciliation must come initially from the vermin who commit the atrocities, not their victims, if we ever are to find true acceptance and peace.


* - Any choice should, of course, be legal and not designed to encourage reprisals or otherwise protract the conflict etc.

Catch yourself on.  Williamson is going through grief and she is being used by certain extreme elements of unionism.  Don't kid yourself as to which approach works better for the person.  I can guarantee you that McBride's response has done more for him as a person than all the bitterness Williamson comes out with has done for her as a person (her actions have been understandable but not best for her as a person, I hasten to add)

Alan is a beacon of hope in our society in my opinion.  I know some former UVF men also have the same sort of ideas as espoused by David Ervine, believe it or not Ervine and McBride weren't that far apart politically by the time Ervine died.  He was another man I had a lot of time for and he's the only public PUP figure I haven't met - Billy Hutch is sound as a pound, wee Hughie hasn't a bad bone in his body and Dawn Purvis is a very genuine person altogether. 

Anyway, Alan is about the most courageous and committed person I know of when it comes to trying to find reconciliation between the Nationalist and Unionist communities (for want of a better way of explaining the situation)

[Yes I Would]

Sweet Lord, Who the hell is Wee Hughie?

[ardmhachaabu]

Hugh Smyth, former Lord Mayor of Belfast (a couple of times, I think)

[longrunsthefox]

Sweet Lord, Who the hell is Wee Hughie?

Ach sure, do you not know Wee Hughie  ...

He's gone to school, wee Hughie,
An' him not four,
Sure I saw the fright was in him
When he left the door.
I watched him to the cornero' the big turf stack,
An' the more his feet went forrit,
Still his head turned back.
I followed to the turnin
'When they passed it by,
God help him he was cryin',
An' maybe so was I.

[Evil Genius]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8398895.stm

I have respected him for quite a while but it really must have taken an enormous amount of strength to do what he did in meeting Adams

A man to be admired. The place needs more like him. It's a pity Michelle Williamson etc. wouldn't take a leaf out of his book, but I don't know how I'd react in the same situation. Forgiveness would probably well down the list of emotions.

I admire Alan McBride for the stance he is taking, and wish him only the best in his search for answers etc. However, I must take exception to your bringing Michelle Williamson into the debate in this manner.

For those unfamiliar with the name, Williamson lost both her parents in the same Shankill bomb atrocity as McBride. Subsequently, she has campaigned prominently against eg the early release of the bomber who survived the explosion, or for 'compensation' [sic]  to be paid eg to the family of the bomber who died in the bombing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130113/Families-IRA-victims-confront-Republicans-report-recommends-terrorists-relatives-given-12-000-each.html

Their contrasting reactions raise a very interesting point about forgiveness etc. Clearly, if more people could find it within themselves to react like McBride, it may lead quicker to reconciliation etc. But in the end, why should the onus be on the victims  of terror to put right past wrongs? Why should there be any prescribed reaction to such events? If one victim finds solace from gaining "understanding" (McBride), but another by gaining "justice" (Williamson), why should we applaud one, but deny the other?

If something like that were to be visited upon me, I would hope that my reaction might be nearer that of McBride's than Williamson's - if for no other reason than that by his enormous charity, he may have better chance of finding closure through understanding, than Williamson has via justice.

But if that weren't the case, I'm fucked if, having had my loved ones taken from me through no fault of my own, I also had taken away from me the right to reconcile myself with my loss in the way of my choosing*.

In the end, the onus to find understanding and reconciliation must come initially from the vermin who commit the atrocities, not their victims, if we ever are to find true acceptance and peace.


* - Any choice should, of course, be legal and not designed to encourage reprisals or otherwise protract the conflict etc.

Catch yourself on.  Williamson is going through grief and she is being used by certain extreme elements of unionism.  Don't kid yourself as to which approach works better for the person.  I can guarantee you that McBride's response has done more for him as a person than all the bitterness Williamson comes out with has done for her as a person (her actions have been understandable but not best for her as a person, I hasten to add)

Alan is a beacon of hope in our society in my opinion.  I know some former UVF men also have the same sort of ideas as espoused by David Ervine, believe it or not Ervine and McBride weren't that far apart politically by the time Ervine died.  He was another man I had a lot of time for and he's the only public PUP figure I haven't met - Billy Hutch is sound as a pound, wee Hughie hasn't a bad bone in his body and Dawn Purvis is a very genuine person altogether. 

Anyway, Alan is about the most courageous and committed person I know of when it comes to trying to find reconciliation between the Nationalist and Unionist communities (for want of a better way of explaining the situation)

Oh ffs!
Is it that you cannot understand anything more subtle than a "Sun" headline, or simply that don't bother to read the posts you're replying to?

I did not denigrate or criticise McBride in any way; in fact, I said if I ever found myself in his position, I hoped I might react similarly.

Nor did I commend Williamson for her reaction.

Rather, when TB drew a disparaging comparison between the two, I stated the opinion that this was unfair. For so long as she stays within the law etc (which she has, btw), Williamson has every right to react in whatever way she feels will best reconcile her with her loss.

Otherwise, it only rubs salt into her wounds to deny her the basic human right to react as she has, following the denial of a normal family life.

And as for your "guarantee" that you know better than she does what's right for her, that displays a breathtaking arrogance.

Let both of them - and the others affected - deal with their loss in the way of their choosing; they are after all, the victims in all this and didn't someone famous say that there should be no "hierarchy of victims"? 

[Orior]

Sweet Lord, Who the hell is Wee Hughie?

Ach sure, do you not know Wee Hughie  ...

He's gone to school, wee Hughie,
An' him not four,
Sure I saw the fright was in him
When he left the door.
I watched him to the cornero' the big turf stack,
An' the more his feet went forrit,
Still his head turned back.
I followed to the turnin
'When they passed it by,
God help him he was cryin',
An' maybe so was I.

Very good. Wee Shughie.

I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing that