who turned down the visit to meet the queen at croke park?

[Applesisapples]

The 'moving on' is a very difficult issue and will be very sensitive for a lot of people.

But if victims of republican violence have had to move and deal with Sinn Fein governing them (or alteratively, be called a dinosaur), then is a visit by the Queen not just something that victims of loyalist and/or state violence will have to stomach, however hard, as part of the bigger picture?

Nally made the following point earlier in the thread:

well I could put it like this, I know a local family who had a member murdered by loyalists. The dogs in the street know these loyalists were acting with security force collusion. That family has never been told the truth. How could I buy into the nonsense line that this visit moves people forward and still look into the eyes of anyone in that family?

By the same score, should Unionist politicians not be able to look straight into the eyes of victims in their communicty after going into government with SF?

By the way, this post isn't meant as 'whataboutery' - just making the point that 'we' all expect people to 'move on' to facilitate the bigger process. And it's going to be very difficult for a lot of people.

I'm sure they are just the same maguire. I'm sure some can deal with it while others find it extremely difficult.  I suppose it helps them when no one questions their victim status or screams in their face to "move on".

Who's victim status is being questioned? I assume you don't mean paramilitaries?

Those killed or maimed by British state forces where they have refused to admit any wrong doing and those killed due to collusion.  The same ones who never received any meaningful investigation in to their deaths never mind any justice.

Well actually if you look at the enquiries and their results then victims of the state have faired better than victims of the IRA. As a Nationalist/Republican I do have difficulties with some of the circumstances surrounding the deaths of some such as Loughgall, Rosemary Nelson. Unpalatable as it is though I wouldn't expect to the British to own up to collusion any more than I would expect Sinn Fein to denounce the actions of the IRA.

[Nally Stand]

Nally the IRA apology was conditional, the British have apologised where appropriate e.g. Bloody Sunday.

The IRA apology was not conditional...

"Sunday 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured..... It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives....The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants."

The British have apologised where appropriate e.g. Bloody Sunday.

No applesisapples, that is just an apology for the events of one particular day. There are hundreds of families out there bereaved by collusion. Britain has not even admitted involvement, never mind apologised to those families. When the Stevens Report into various accusations of collusion was concluded, the British Government released only 20 heavily edited pages of the 3,000 page report. That to me, is a long way of "Britain having apologised where appropriate". That is Britain continuing to cover up it's activities. Do victims of collusion not fall into this "appropriate for an apology" category?

It is time to move on but as I have stated previously there are some who aren't ready (on both sides) and who might never be ready. We should respect their postion and try and help where we can. It is not however helpful as some in this forum suggest, to insist that they must move on or be left behind.

Agreed

The IRA apology does not include British combatants and is therefore conditional as is the British apology. The point I am making is that a Sovereign Government can't issue the type of apology you want norwill the IRA issue the grovelling apology Willie Frazer demands. But I believe the words of the queen and the words you have quoted are sufficient at this time. It maybe that in 20 years time things will be different and a more wholesome and all encompassing apology is given by all.

The IRA apologising for combatant victims would have been tantamount to accepting that their entire campaign was wrong. The IRA made a full unconditional apology to ALL of it's innocent victims and acknowledged the hurt it had caused to the families of it's combatant victims. Why should the victims of state violence be told that they must settle for anything less than a reciprocation of this? You keep referring to "the British apology". When was this momentous apology, because I must have been away somewhere that day? The British only apologised to a small number of its victims, but outside of that, Britain still keeps up it's pretence that it was just an unfortunate peace-keeper or referee in a sectarian conflict. Collusion can no longer be described as "republican propaganda". It has been proven, so if there is to be no hierarchy of victims, then why can't the state's innocent victims receive the same apology from the state as innocent IRA victims received from the IRA?

People seem to have been conditioned into the view that this is acceptable. That we should lie down and live with it and HM's speech last week typified it. The Irish nation suffered unimaginable hardship at the hands of British monarchs and governments for centuries, and when the British head of state comes over and reads a speech which basically makes clear that Britain will not apologise for any of it, the Irish people (or a large section of) trip over themselves in praise of her and of her "excellent speech".

[An Gaeilgoir]

While we are at it, better get the Danes/ Norweigans over to apologise for the viking invasion.

[Applesisapples]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

[Applesisapples]

While we are at it, better get the Danes/ Norweigans over to apologise for the viking invasion.

Not relevent or helpful.

[An Gaeilgoir]

While we are at it, better get the Danes/ Norweigans over to apologise for the viking invasion.

Not relevent or helpful.

Didn't know the blog police were conducting audits today! 

[Nally Stand]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

I sill don't know where you are getting this idea from that Britain has apologised where appropriate. I mentioned a local family earlier who fell victim to collusion and they would beg to differ that Britain has apologised where appropriate. As, I'm sure, would several hundred other families for that matter.

[haranguerer]

While we are at it, better get the Danes/ Norweigans over to apologise for the viking invasion.

Not relevent or helpful.

Didn't know the blog police were conducting audits today! 

If they ever did apples would have very few posts left

[An Gaeilgoir]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

I sill don't know where you are getting this idea from that Britain has apologised where appropriate. I mentioned a local family earlier who fell victim to collusion and they would beg to differ that Britain has apologised where appropriate. As, I'm sure, would several hundred other families for that matter.

Nally stand, been reading your posts recently,  i am curious about what form this apology would/ should take, would a Bloody Sunday type one from Cameron do, covering all nationalist victims of the crown forces dating back to cromwell, or would a truth and reconcelliation type forum need to be set up i.e South Africa, i am not been smart here or anything but i am curious on the format.

[Nally Stand]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

I sill don't know where you are getting this idea from that Britain has apologised where appropriate. I mentioned a local family earlier who fell victim to collusion and they would beg to differ that Britain has apologised where appropriate. As, I'm sure, would several hundred other families for that matter.

Nally stand, been reading your posts recently,  i am curious about what form this apology would/ should take, would a Bloody Sunday type one from Cameron do, covering all nationalist victims of the crown forces dating back to cromwell, or would a truth and reconcelliation type forum need to be set up i.e South Africa, i am not been smart here or anything but i am curious on the format.

Personally speaking, wouldn't it be a great start if we had a British Head of State or Head of Government making some form of a spoken statement? Though I'm sure many recent victims families would like to see a truth and reconciliation forum so that full transparency could be achieved into how they lost their loved ones. And that means from every side. I don't pretend to be an expert on how such a forum would work so I wouldn't want to say a whole lot about it. My general point is simply that the families of the states victims should be absolutely entitled to the same acknowledgement and apology from the state as the IRA offered to it's victims back in 2002. It would at least be a starting point for truth and reconciliation to be taken seriously from.

[An Gaeilgoir]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

I sill don't know where you are getting this idea from that Britain has apologised where appropriate. I mentioned a local family earlier who fell victim to collusion and they would beg to differ that Britain has apologised where appropriate. As, I'm sure, would several hundred other families for that matter.

Nally stand, been reading your posts recently,  i am curious about what form this apology would/ should take, would a Bloody Sunday type one from Cameron do, covering all nationalist victims of the crown forces dating back to cromwell, or would a truth and reconcelliation type forum need to be set up i.e South Africa, i am not been smart here or anything but i am curious on the format.

Personally speaking, wouldn't it be a great start if we had a British Head of State or Head of Government making some form of a spoken statement? Though I'm sure many recent victims families would like to see a truth and reconciliation forum so that full transparency could be achieved into how they lost their loved ones. And that means from every side. I don't pretend to be an expert on how such a forum would work so I wouldn't want to say a whole lot about it. My general point is simply that the families of the states victims should be absolutely entitled to the same acknowledgement and apology from the state as the IRA offered to it's victims back in 2002. It would at least be a starting point for truth and reconciliation to be taken seriously from.

Fair enough, i really think that after lizzies visit last week down here, moves will be made to close out this issue, if for no other reason than to give the dissidents even less of an agenda. I don't claim to know whats its like to spend 40 years looking for answers or justice for a loved one who died or was killed by whoever. But its some life sentence.

[LeoMc]

Nally the IRA apology was conditional, the British have apologised where appropriate e.g. Bloody Sunday.

The IRA apology was not conditional...

"Sunday 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured..... It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives....The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants."

The British have apologised where appropriate e.g. Bloody Sunday.

No applesisapples, that is just an apology for the events of one particular day. There are hundreds of families out there bereaved by collusion. Britain has not even admitted involvement, never mind apologised to those families. When the Stevens Report into various accusations of collusion was concluded, the British Government released only 20 heavily edited pages of the 3,000 page report. That to me, is a long way of "Britain having apologised where appropriate". That is Britain continuing to cover up it's activities. Do victims of collusion not fall into this "appropriate for an apology" category?

It is time to move on but as I have stated previously there are some who aren't ready (on both sides) and who might never be ready. We should respect their postion and try and help where we can. It is not however helpful as some in this forum suggest, to insist that they must move on or be left behind.

Agreed

The IRA apology does not include British combatants and is therefore conditional as is the British apology. The point I am making is that a Sovereign Government can't issue the type of apology you want norwill the IRA issue the grovelling apology Willie Frazer demands. But I believe the words of the queen and the words you have quoted are sufficient at this time. It maybe that in 20 years time things will be different and a more wholesome and all encompassing apology is given by all.

The IRA apologising for combatant victims would have been tantamount to accepting that their entire campaign was wrong. The IRA made a full unconditional apology to ALL of it's innocent victims and acknowledged the hurt it had caused to the families of it's combatant victims. Why should the victims of state violence be told that they must settle for anything less than a reciprocation of this? You keep referring to "the British apology". When was this momentous apology, because I must have been away somewhere that day? The British only apologised to a small number of its victims, but outside of that, Britain still keeps up it's pretence that it was just an unfortunate peace-keeper or referee in a sectarian conflict. Collusion can no longer be described as "republican propaganda". It has been proven, so if there is to be no hierarchy of victims, then why can't the state's innocent victims receive the same apology from the state as innocent IRA victims received from the IRA?

People seem to have been conditioned into the view that this is acceptable. That we should lie down and live with it and HM's speech last week typified it. The Irish nation suffered unimaginable hardship at the hands of British monarchs and governments for centuries, and when the British head of state comes over and reads a speech which basically makes clear that Britain will not apologise for any of it, the Irish people (or a large section of) trip over themselves in praise of her and of her "excellent speech".

Personally I would put a head of states expression of regret on a par with an anonymous statement in An Phoblacht / Republican news but I am sure everyone has their own opinion on what is required.

[Nally Stand]

Nally the IRA apology was conditional, the British have apologised where appropriate e.g. Bloody Sunday.

The IRA apology was not conditional...

"Sunday 21 July marks the 30th anniversary of an IRA operation in Belfast in 1972 which resulted in nine people being killed and many more injured..... It is therefore appropriate on the anniversary of this tragic event, that we address all of the deaths and injuries of non-combatants caused by us.

We offer our sincere apologies and condolences to their families.

There have been fatalities amongst combatants on all sides. We also acknowledge the grief and pain of their relatives....The future will not be found in denying collective failures and mistakes or closing minds and hearts to the plight of those who have been hurt. That includes all of the victims of the conflict, combatants and non-combatants."

The British have apologised where appropriate e.g. Bloody Sunday.

No applesisapples, that is just an apology for the events of one particular day. There are hundreds of families out there bereaved by collusion. Britain has not even admitted involvement, never mind apologised to those families. When the Stevens Report into various accusations of collusion was concluded, the British Government released only 20 heavily edited pages of the 3,000 page report. That to me, is a long way of "Britain having apologised where appropriate". That is Britain continuing to cover up it's activities. Do victims of collusion not fall into this "appropriate for an apology" category?

It is time to move on but as I have stated previously there are some who aren't ready (on both sides) and who might never be ready. We should respect their postion and try and help where we can. It is not however helpful as some in this forum suggest, to insist that they must move on or be left behind.

Agreed

The IRA apology does not include British combatants and is therefore conditional as is the British apology. The point I am making is that a Sovereign Government can't issue the type of apology you want norwill the IRA issue the grovelling apology Willie Frazer demands. But I believe the words of the queen and the words you have quoted are sufficient at this time. It maybe that in 20 years time things will be different and a more wholesome and all encompassing apology is given by all.

The IRA apologising for combatant victims would have been tantamount to accepting that their entire campaign was wrong. The IRA made a full unconditional apology to ALL of it's innocent victims and acknowledged the hurt it had caused to the families of it's combatant victims. Why should the victims of state violence be told that they must settle for anything less than a reciprocation of this? You keep referring to "the British apology". When was this momentous apology, because I must have been away somewhere that day? The British only apologised to a small number of its victims, but outside of that, Britain still keeps up it's pretence that it was just an unfortunate peace-keeper or referee in a sectarian conflict. Collusion can no longer be described as "republican propaganda". It has been proven, so if there is to be no hierarchy of victims, then why can't the state's innocent victims receive the same apology from the state as innocent IRA victims received from the IRA?

People seem to have been conditioned into the view that this is acceptable. That we should lie down and live with it and HM's speech last week typified it. The Irish nation suffered unimaginable hardship at the hands of British monarchs and governments for centuries, and when the British head of state comes over and reads a speech which basically makes clear that Britain will not apologise for any of it, the Irish people (or a large section of) trip over themselves in praise of her and of her "excellent speech".

Personally I would put a head of states expression of regret on a par with an anonymous statement in An Phoblacht / Republican news but I am sure everyone has their own opinion on what is required.

Well it was still an IRA apology, was it not? I couldn't care less if the british apology was sent into a newspaper and signed off with nothing but "Sincerely, HM's Government"; it would still be what it would be - an apology.

[Applesisapples]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

I sill don't know where you are getting this idea from that Britain has apologised where appropriate. I mentioned a local family earlier who fell victim to collusion and they would beg to differ that Britain has apologised where appropriate. As, I'm sure, would several hundred other families for that matter.

Be realistic Nally, they are never going to acknowledge collusion.

[ross matt]

Nally, the British State has apologised where appropriate to innocent victims. You need to realise that the war was fought through propaganda as well as pyysical means. I am not saying the the British are justified in the position they are taking. However we need to recognise that as a sovereign state it will not give an unconditional apology to combatants such as Loughgall and Gibralter. And yes in these incidents I take issue with the "it's not a war" line from the British who then shoot unarmed IRA people but the IRA were equally hypocritical in declaring it a war yet complaining that they weren't arrested. Both were and are playing the propaganda game. I am a nationalist who suports the aim of a UI. All I am saying is that we need to take a balanced and realistic view of what is achievable.

I sill don't know where you are getting this idea from that Britain has apologised where appropriate. I mentioned a local family earlier who fell victim to collusion and they would beg to differ that Britain has apologised where appropriate. As, I'm sure, would several hundred other families for that matter.

Nally stand, been reading your posts recently,  i am curious about what form this apology would/ should take, would a Bloody Sunday type one from Cameron do, covering all nationalist victims of the crown forces dating back to cromwell, or would a truth and reconcelliation type forum need to be set up i.e South Africa, i am not been smart here or anything but i am curious on the format.

Personally speaking, wouldn't it be a great start if we had a British Head of State or Head of Government making some form of a spoken statement? Though I'm sure many recent victims families would like to see a truth and reconciliation forum so that full transparency could be achieved into how they lost their loved ones. And that means from every side. I don't pretend to be an expert on how such a forum would work so I wouldn't want to say a whole lot about it. My general point is simply that the families of the states victims should be absolutely entitled to the same acknowledgement and apology from the state as the IRA offered to it's victims back in 2002. It would at least be a starting point for truth and reconciliation to be taken seriously from.

Think I posted a few days ago here that would be the way to go. But there is a flip side to that coin. Apart from providing info on graves of disappeared etc the IRA would have to reveal Adam & McGuinness's full role as paramilitary leaders not to mention the atrocities committed during their "term". The same for loyalist politicians. British collusion of course amongst other things would be opened up. But for SF it could open a can of worms. Not sure they'd want it. I do agree with you however that the Queen's apology didnt go far enough and that there is far too much significance being made of her visit and statement. But you also have to bear in mind the provos apology in the poblacht or wherever probably gives little comfort to the relatives of the men, women and children killed in Warrington, Birmingham, Guilford, Enniskillen not to mention Marie McConville's kids. The victims you're talking about dont have a monoply on grief.