In the lead-up to the Good Friday Agreement, prisoners were crucial. Who could forget Mo Mowlam’s visit to the loyalist prisoners, in an effort to get them behind the peace talks; and the assent of republican prisoners to what was being negotiated was of equal importance.
The political parties and both governments were keenly aware that there would need to be a quid pro quo. In the Good Friday Agreement, we find these words:
“The governments continue to recognize the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, re-training and/or re-skilling, and further education.”
That was in in 1998. Eight years later in the St Andrew’s Agreement, we get:
“The government will work with business, trade unions and ex-prisoner groups to produce guidance for employers which will reduce barriers to employment and enhance re-integration of former prisoners”.
Did it work? Has the ex-prisoner part of our past been resolved? To quote Fr Jack: my arse. Efforts have been made to lump former political prisoners with ‘ordinary decent criminals’, and former political prisoners are very definite that since they went through special courts, were held in special jails and were released under special legislation, their rehabilitation should be equally special.
And so it is, only in negative ways. Former prisoners face a nightmare of legal barriers: accessing finance, accessing consumer credit licenses, securing service contracts, applying for taxi and bus operator licences, difficulties with getting insurance and mortgage, inability to adopt children, restrictions on travel in US, Canada and Australia, and a bar on employment in the civil service and many other fields.
The big ball-and-chain that ex-prisoners struggle with is employment. The fact that they’ve spent time in prison is a block on even lower-paid jobs. As one republican prisoner put it:
“I know some people that are chimney sweepers and have the best qualifications and I know ex-prisoners that are sitting on dumpers in building sites with the best qualifications, and a lot of boys who studied in jail done degrees in jail and got first class honours, they might as well be walking around the inside of a biscuit tin, because they are not going anywhere with them”
In short, what was promised in the Good Friday Agreement and in the St Andrew’s Agreement hasn’t been lived up to. Doors through which others walk without problem are nailed shut to ex-prisoners. It’s as though the judge said “Here’s your sentence – six years. Oh, and we’ll keep on penalizing you after that as well, until the day you die”.
We make much talk of citizenship and equality. It’s time both governments legislated so that those who would seek to go on punishing prisoners who’ve already paid the price would be forced to deal with those former prisoners on equal terms with everyone else. And if they don’t, prospective employers should be fined or, if necessary, sent to jail.
who could forget mo mowlams visit to loyalist prisoners….was that the time she agreed the sausage rolls were to small.
“The evil that men do…”
“Oh, and we’ll keep on penalizing you after that as well, until the day you die”.
According to Mr Mates (Spotlight 8.12.15) secrets, will remain secrets. He was talking abstractly about “methods used to gather intelligence.” Call it for what it was, Mr Mates, torture. Prisoners can give detailed accounts of what was done to them and who was doing it. There was nothing abstract about torture in Long Kesh, Crumlin Road, Ballykelly or Kenya.
“At the same time pliers is (sic) also applied to work as the apparatus of castrating the testicles, and also at the ears. All these is done (sic) so as to make everyone attended (sic) to confess whether true or not…” ‘Britain’s Gulag’ p. 207
Mr Mates, there was something unedifying about the sight of a group of contemporary black and tans assembled in Whitehall, a paratrooper gloating over his lack of scruples about shooting Catholics or Protestants and television footage of the inextricable links between the UDA and the British Army. Officers and gentlemen tell us it is their duty to uphold the law in a democracy, not to break it.
Mr Mates, Human Rights Day is observed every year on 10 December. It commemorates the day on which, in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This year’s Human Rights Day is devoted to the launch of a year-long campaign for the 50th anniversary of the two International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Poltical Rights, which were adopted by the United Nations on 16 December 1966. You may recall that this was just a few years before the British Army came to the north of Ireland to deal with the legacy of unionist misrule.
“The evil that men do…”
“Oh, and we’ll keep on penalizing you after that as well, until the day you die”.
According to Mr Mates (Spotlight 8.12.15) secrets, will remain secrets. He was talking abstractly about “methods used to gather intelligence.” Call it for what it was, Mr Mates, torture. Prisoners can give detailed accounts of what was done to them and who was doing it. There was nothing abstract about torture in Long Kesh, Crumlin Road, Ballykelly or Kenya.
“At the same time pliers is (sic) also applied to work as the apparatus of castrating the testicles, and also at the ears. All these is done (sic) so as to make everyone attended (sic) to confess whether true or not…” ‘Britain’s Gulag’ p. 207
Mr Mates, there was something unedifying about the sight of a group of contemporary black and tans assembled in Whitehall, a paratrooper gloating over his lack of scruples about shooting Catholics or Protestants and television footage of the inextricable links between the UDA and the British Army. Officers and gentlemen tell us it is their duty to uphold the law in a democracy, not to break it.
Mr Mates, Human Rights Day is observed every year on 10 December. It commemorates the day on which, in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This year’s Human Rights Day is devoted to the launch of a year-long campaign for the 50th anniversary of the two International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Poltical Rights, which were adopted by the United Nations on 16 December 1966. You may recall that this was just a few years before the British Army came to the north of Ireland to deal with the legacy of unionist misrule.
Technical hitch here? My comments appear in duplicate. Please rectify if at all possible.
Sorry are we supposed to feel some sympathy for them?
They took many lives and committed many criminal acts and then expect society to simply forget?
Most employers of reputable companies wouldn’t touch them with a bargepole and quite correctly as well
Neill – I think you’ve missed the point. Nobody’s asking for sympathy, as far as I know. Those engaged in conflict-related killings in many cases served their full sentence. Many others didn’t kill anyone. ‘Most employers of reputable companies wouldn’t touch them with a bargepole’ – right, and that’s exactly the point. Double jeopardy – punished twice – actually punished continuously – for the same crime. Some countries write into their constitution protection from double jeopardy.
Double jeopardy – punished twice – actually punished continuously – for the same crime. Some countries write into their constitution protection from double jeopardy.
I belive companies should be able to employ who they wish if they don’t want to employ ex convicts surely they should be within their rights doing so?
Would you allow a paedophile who has been released from jail a job which entails working with children?
Probably not, neill. So are you saying all ex-prisoners are paedophiles applying for jobs working with children? And no, companies aren’t free to turn people away if they want to, certainly not in all circumstances. Supposing you turned them away because they were black/Jewish/Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/Left-handed…etc? They’re judged (in Diplock courts) to having committed a crime. The great majority have served their sentence, rightly or wrongly. But now they will be restricted in all sorts of ways forever, including employment. That really doesn’t sound like justice to me and I think if you consider it openly, neill, you’ll come to the same conclusion.
Supposing you turned them away because they were black/Jewish/Catholic/Protestant/Muslim/Left-handed…etc
That is very different as well you know.
But now they will be restricted in all sorts of ways forever, including employment. That really doesn’t sound like justice to me and I think if you consider it openly, neill, you’ll come to the same conclusion.
If you cant live with the consequences of your actions don’t commit the crime what part of that is hard to live with?
So your happy that ex terrorists get better breaks than petty and hardened criminals where is the justice in that?
‘So your happy that ex terrorists get better breaks than petty and hardened criminals where is the justice in that?’ – I didn’t say that, neill, and I think you know I didn’t. The countries that have an anti-double jeopardy clause in their constitution have it for everyone. Likewise, I don’t think ordinary criminals should be penalised for a lifetime for their crimes (assuming they’ve not been sentenced to life, of course). Even right-wing US is getting that message. Check out what Republicans (the American type) are doing in Texas, for example.Most people – as well as the GFA and the ST Andrew’s Agreement – believe that former prisoners, paramilitary or not, should be re-integrated into society as fully as possible as quickly as possible. It makes sense. And is something nearer justice.
Sad.story.jude.
And.unjust.Jim.
On a relatively minor but not insignificat point. When some 300 internees were illegally arrested and most of us subsequently interned in 1971, our fingerprints were taken. Now I have never been charged or convicted of any criminal offence all my life.So would sombody please tell me what happened to my prints? Were they destroyed or do they still exist in some remote corner of the North’s huge security chest? Coud I have them back please? Ps They also made us urinate in tiny cans with Batchelors’ Peas labels still on them. (Maybe that shows securocrats do have a sense of humour) But I hereby waive any right of return in respect of that liquid asset.
‘So your happy that ex terrorists get better breaks than petty and hardened criminals where is the justice in that?’ – I didn’t say that, neill, and I think you know I didn’t. The countries that have an anti-double jeopardy clause in their constitution have it for everyone. Likewise, I don’t think ordinary criminals should be penalised for a lifetime for their crimes (assuming they’ve not been sentenced to life, of course). Even right-wing US is getting that message. Check out what Republicans (the American type) are doing in Texas, for example.Most people – as well as the GFA and the ST Andrew’s Agreement – believe that former prisoners, paramilitary or not, should be re-integrated into society as fully as possible as quickly as possible. It makes sense. And is something nearer justice.
Justice for who Jude the criminal certainly not the victims family
Yes, indeed, neill, and fairly obviously – justice for the former prisoner who has already been punished. The victim’s family will of course still suffer (as will, very often, the family of the perpetrator) but we normally see justice as a violent act/crime balanced by prison/punishment. That’s normally what people mean when they say they want justice for what happened to their loved one – they accept that no punishment will undo the harm done. The fact that their suffering is lifelong is no justification for the perpetrator’s punishment being life-long. Except you believe in an eye for an eye, etc.
You have the patience of a saint, Jude. I applaud you for it.
Grma, Teri…
“Justice for who Jude the criminal certainly not the victims family”
Neill, you must be furious with the british state who not only protect the criminal murderers from their ranks, but slandered their innocent victims names to protect them.
Destroying evidence of acts of deliberate terrorism via MFR or FRU, where british state forces ununiformed and using non issue weapons and explosives killed unarmed civilians throughout this island. Even standard army killers were defended and the few that did spend time behind bars not only returned straight into the army, but received immediate promotions from charlie himself.
To the english, we are only paddies over here, yourself included my friend.
The worst injustices in this country were inflicted by the british state hands down.
Northern Ireland will never ever amount to anything until the rotten ties with england are unrooted from our shores.
Of course if you are a convicted murderer and a member of the British Army you will find yourself back in the ranks with no detriment to your career prospects.
Then if it happened that you were a senior police, military or intelligence officer you will find that your dabbling in dark deeds carries no stigma in fact it may even enhance your social status.
Or you could be a member of a corrupt and partial judiciary and find yourself in the House of Lords.
Punishment is only for the weak, the poor, the powerless and the oppressed.
Jude
It may be a cliche but it is true nonetheless that the victims (and their families) of these crimes suffer a life sentence too. Indeed you can also say they too are punished twice. First when the crime is committed and secondly when they see the perpetrator released, perhaps early, while their sentence goes on.
All of which makes it hard for the rest of society to care overmuch about what happens to ex-offenders.
Despite that we have a responsibility to try and provide the best treatment and rehabilitation possible for people coming out of prison.
It is better for them and it is better for society (both from a utilitarian point of view and for the general collective sense of being a moral society) .
“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”
This goes for political and non-political prisoners. Personally I see no distinction between them.
I feel light-headed, gio – I’m in almost total agreement with you. It is indeed hard to be concerned about those who’ve hurt/wounded/damaged us through their actions, but the lock-up-throw-away-key philosophy is not smart, let alone not compassionate. I think like you there are similarities between political and non-political prisoners, in that with both every effort should be made to rehabilitate. The difference between them is that the political prisoners did what they did because of the times they found themselves in. I know this sounds like an airy excuse – although it isn’t. There is still free will and choice between violent actions and non-violent actions. (A side-issue but one worth thinking about: how many of those who rejected violence during the Troubles did so because they were morally opposed to violence, and how many because they were afraid of violence? The latter is a natural response but not one we hear talked about much)….Now where was I…Right. The degree to which political prisoners got,as they say, caught up in violence. People who believe in free will (and who weren’t violent ) often dismiss this notion. But ask yourself this: if the times that were in it didn’t play a part in people’s indulgence in violence, why is there such an astonishing surge in violence during the years of the Troubles – a surge which didn’t exist before and doesn’t exist now? On’y askin’, like…
an ordinary decent prisoner serves his time and wipes the slate clean, particularly if s/he is rehabilitated and does his/her best to lead a crime-free life
A political prisoner is released (early in some cases not all) under international agreement. These are people who would never have been in prison but for the circumstances in which they had grown up. They had known nothing but oppression and discrimination in their own country.They would never have seen the insides of a prison were it not for the political situation prevailing in Ireland at the time.
A political prisoner is released (early in some cases not all) under international agreement. These are people who would never have been in prison but for the circumstances in which they had grown up. They had known nothing but oppression and discrimination in their own country.They would never have seen the insides of a prison were it not for the political situation prevailing in Ireland at the time.
So they didn’t have to take any responsibility for their actions as they were fighting for their version of freedom how quaint how wrong.
Oppression and discrimination which I am doubtful was the real reason why they were fighting did that make it right for them to inflict oppression on people?
Neill – everyone is responsible for their actions. However, clearly circumstances during the Troubles were such that a lot of people resorted to violence. Sometimes people present this as if it were self-indulgence, unlike peaceful people. I don’t think that makes a lot of sense. Most IRA recruits were told – and knew – that there was a high chance they’d end up in prison or dead. Yet they opted to join. With no context, you could say they chose to join and engage in violence, so it’s on their own head. With a context – knowing that they might well be killed or end in prison – it’s a bit more complicated. Plus, of course, it doesn’t look at the history of the state and the actions of the ‘security forces’. Wasn’t there something in ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ about walking a mile in someone else’s shoes?
“Oppression and discrimination which I am doubtful was the real reason why they were fighting did that make it right for them to inflict oppression on people?”
How did the conflict start in your opinion neill?
” It may be a cliche but it is true nonetheless that the victims (and their families) of these crimes suffer a life sentence too. Indeed you can also say they too are punished twice. First when the crime is committed and secondly when they see the perpetrator released, perhaps early, while their sentence goes on.
All of which makes it hard for the rest of society to care overmuch about what happens to ex-offenders.
Despite that we have a responsibility to try and provide the best treatment and rehabilitation possible for people coming out of prison.
It is better for them and it is better for society (both from a utilitarian point of view and for the general collective sense of being a moral society) .
“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.”
This goes for political and non-political prisoners. Personally I see no distinction between them.”
You are in a wee world of your own gio.
You cant learn everything by reading it in a book.
Have you ever really met any of the people you are so quick to right off as ‘offenders’ in need of ‘rehabilitation’?
As for this place being a moral society, not ever going to happen while divided under british rule.
Thousands of criminals as you call it, didn’t just wake up one morning and decide they will destroy their own lives, that of their families and take the awful and life changing decision to engage in the conflict that was brought to them don’t forget, for no good reason.
You seem very happy to cosy up in westminster with the puppet masters who oversaw the state terrorism here, who ruined the lives of so many of our own people, who created the ‘criminals’ as you call them as well as having the blood of every single .victim throughout our conflicts on their hands.
You have no moral high ground in my eyes or anyone who has experienced their handiwork first hand young man.
I hope you never have to learn it, but hopefully when you grow up a bit, you will realise things are not so black and white as the appear in written words.
Of course that is your view not one that is widely shared by normal rational human beings in fairness.
jessica
Once again you make assumptions about me. I wish you would just stick to arguing what I have said. Your attempt to suggest I am too young and naive to understand things is pure manplaying
Anyway, as it happens I have worked with ex-offenders in rehab and I have met plenty of victims,of state forces and of paramilitary groups.
You consider a certain group to be deserving of special status I do not. We have to differ on that..
I agree the government and state forces have blood on their hands, of course.
Would you agree the primary responsibility for bloodshed must be with the individual who chose to use violence? Personal responsibility for ones actions!
Still maybe when I grow up a bit I will see things differently.
“You consider a certain group to be deserving of special status I do not.”
I think it is you, Gio, who should stick to arguing what others have said. No one is arguing for special status. They are arguing for equality. Why should ex political prisoners be discriminated against still?
Ceannaire
I commented here to agree with Jude that ex paramilitary prisoners require both humane treatment in prison and rehabilition (training while inside and support when released) the same as any prisoner.
Point out where I said they should be discriminated against?
From my reading of jessica’s comments I took her to believe that republican prisoners (possibly loyalists too) should not be treated like ordinary criminals,in other words they deserve some special status. Maybe I got that wrong,but here are a few of her remarks which seem to suggest they are not just ordinary criminals:
“Have you ever really met any of the people you are so quick to right off as ‘offenders’ in need of ‘rehabilitation’?”
“Thousands of criminals as you call it, didn’t just wake up one morning and decide they will destroy their own lives…”
“who created the ‘criminals’ as you call them…”
But if, as you say, no-one is arguing for special status then we are in agreement.
I think the former political prisoners make the point themselves: they believe that everyone who’s been in prison deserves help to reintegrate and contribute in society; but they are very clear that they do not wish to be classed as common criminals themselves. That makes perfect sense to me; otherwise the massive surge in law-breaking that occurred during the Troubles is without a source. It has a source, and it’s different from that which motivated/motivates the ordinary criminal.
“But if, as you say, no-one is arguing for special status then we are in agreement.”
Let me simplify Gio.
You are calling irish combatants both loyalist and republican, prisoners and comparing them with common criminals.
The state who charged them with criminal convictions, even they recognised they were political prisoners. The same state you have now agreed has blood on its hands, the same state that has sanctioned murder and protected its own combatants.
Why should they have special status over the irish combatants whether they have been prisoners or not?
I would rather live among these loyalist and republican combatants than among the filth in westminster.
jessica
I can’t follow what you are accusing me of.
You say:
“Why should they have special status over the irish combatants whether they have been prisoners or not?! Who?
I am not in favour of special status for anyone.
I am in favour of proper rehabilitation for all ex-prisoners.
I can’t make it any clearer than that.
Gio, I do understand what you are saying and I agree with the principle but there is a bigger picture which you are missing completely.
Answer me this.
Do you feel the british state troops who committed off the record acts of terrorism under the guises of MRF and FRU etc…or the paid state agents who committed the same acts and often much worse than the prisoners you refer to, are not currently already getting special treatment as ex combatants compared to those who were imprisoned for their part in the conflict?
The state is protecting them under the guise of national security. Commenters currently are coming out with lines that these documents will never be allowed see the light of day as it would be unfathomable for the people here to know just how much atrocity was committed under the prior knowledge of the state and treated as an acceptable level of violence. I imagine there would be names familiar in wesminster not to mention our own political parties, I would be interested to see how David Trimble’s nobel prize would sit should his name sit alongside Ronnie Flannagan on such documents involving the activities of Billy Wright for example.
Are these prisoners being punished for what they did or for getting sentenced?
If it is for what they did, then how can you accept sitting in parliament with people who are giving special treatment to their own employees who did the same things and for which there is evidence but is being denied release to the victims for the benefit of the state who were complicity behind them?
It is not only the prisoners in need of rehabilitation gio. It is unfair to pick them out for punishment and allow the state to choose who to protect and reward for the exact same and indeed worse acts.
The southern state here know plenty about it. I believe they have been bought off.
The pressure is mounting and this will come to light in the near future. It will never, ever go away as some might think at the moment.
“I agree the government and state forces have blood on their hands, of course.”
But you still think it is ok to just ignore it, ignore the slander they have put on the victims names by publically claiming they were criminals deserving to die.
Ignore the double standards, ignore the destroying of evidence, abuse of government in redacting and denying access to evidence to protect the powers that be, ignore bumping off solicitors for being too good at their jobs, bumping off people to cover up past deeds.
And you come on here saying Sinn Fein should be buddying up to them in westminster like your SDLP buddies.
If you don’t feel any certain group is deserving of special status, then you could not justify those comments.
The truth is, you willingly accept special status for state combatants but are incapable of comprehending how combatants from the civilian community might deserve the same.
It is not me who is saying one side deserves special status, it is you and you are on your own on that.
Either the state comes clean and state offenses are dealt with in courts and in the jails with criminal records the lot, both for soldiers and those in high office you signed off on murder, or equal status is shared throughout.
But don’t come on here attacking the easier target, while at the same time propping up the true monster.
“Would you agree the primary responsibility for bloodshed must be with the individual who chose to use violence? Personal responsibility for ones actions!
Still maybe when I grow up a bit I will see things differently.”
Gio. Crimes are individual actions by small groups of people for selfish reasons.
War is criminality and murder and defined where there are over 1000 victims in a single year.
Below 1000, it is called a conflict.
The responsibility for the causes of conflict is never down to one individual but more complex. You don’t seem to comprehend that and as I said before, I hope you never have to learn it first hand.
Within conflict, there is a military command structure. So you tell me, is the squaddie sent over to Iraq to kill personally responsible for his actions, or does the responsibility go higher up the chain of command?
Should they be tried for murder when they return from combat or should they keep the special status they have which you don’t feel applies to the civilian combatants on both sides here?
Jessica
As Gio has pointed out to you before,you seem to be making unwarranted assumptions about things that he has never said.Even Jude on this particular blog said that he was in almost total agreement with him(a rare occurrence )!
“As Gio has pointed out to you before,you seem to be making unwarranted assumptions about things that he has never said”
I have made no unwarranted assumptions about gio.
Gio has bought into the fabrication that the british state were an arbitrator in the conflict which is a falsehood that is slowly getting harder for them to hide behind. If he does not like being called pro british then perhaps his conscience is being pricked by it for good reason.
Argenta
Thanks for your comment.
I was beginning to doubt my sanity!
“Argenta
Thanks for your comment.
I was beginning to doubt my sanity!”
You are not the most astute gio.
Thanks jessica.
It is not lost on me gio, your refusal like that of neill to answer my simple questions aimed at breaking the egocentric nature of your arguments.
We could argue forever and a day if only ever see things from our own natural self-centred point of view. Usually such refusal to consider the point of view of our opponents is a deliberate attempt to convince them that we are right, to get them to agree with us and manipulate them into doing what we want them to do.
While I have agreed with your points in context, you have refused to acknowledge the point of view I have clearly pointed out. Why?
You have claimed not to be a unionist but a poor republican in support of the sdlp and in favour of republicans participating in westminster and embracing british rule.
To be honest, I don’t see much difference between yourself and more obvious unionists here such as neill and argenta other than perhaps you are of a more convoluted nature,
jessica
You have been fairly rude towards me on this thread, you have constructed a number of strawman arguments and attributed views to me which I do not have.
That is why I have lost the will to go on (for now).
NO rudeness allowed, Jessica…
I am very sorry gio if I was rude.
It was never my intention but I accept I can be pig headedly determined to make a point.
On that note, perhaps a simple one line question could clear up all confusion I have on your views.
Do you agree that all state agents should no longer be protected by the state but put on trial for their actions, that likewise all past members of the MRF and FRU have the evidence that exists for their crimes released and they are also put on trial and that the signatories up through the higher echelons of military command and the political corridors of Westminster are also examined by international courts for crimes against humanity?
gio, the questions I asked of you were very pertinent to the topic,
Feel free to avoid answering them whatever way you feel suits you best.
jessica
An apology followed almost immediately by another dig.
Your one line simple question contains several questions.
And as the topic was the treatment of prisoners I would say you are well off topic.
However if it makes you happy I am in favour of openness about all the activities of the state you allude to. Where there is evidence of crime I would like to see it tested in court, though it is unlikely to happen.
I take it we are including all those who were involved in unresolved paramilitary killings such as the Jean McConville case too?
So can we agree on no special treatment for any ex-prisoners?
“And as the topic was the treatment of prisoners I would say you are well off topic.”
First of all, the apology was the latter of the posts if you look at the timestamps.
Secondly, the topic was never about the treatment of prisoners, it was about living up to the post conflict agreement on dealing with political prisoners in return for their support in ending the conflict. Breach of agreements are a breach of trust.
“So can we agree on no special treatment for any ex-prisoners?”
Yes, I agree there should be no special treatment for any ex-prisoners but also no discriminatory treatment either and I consider the spad bill to be an example of this and a breach of agreement.
But I also feel that it makes a mockery of calling for no special treatment for any ex-political prisoners while the state still protects its agents and still holds evidential information on paramilitary killings including that of Jean McConville which involved state agents remember, for which there is growing pressure for them to release.
Some ex state agents have sine turned to god and are now ministers and would have information that would be earth shattering
I believe a deadline should be put out for anyone to come forward offering amnesty for any past actions, after which any past actions uncovered will be treated as criminal. This should include ex agents who’s time in protection under national security is running out.
The families of victims should also have a right to choose for their specific cases to be excluded from the amnesty should they wish.
Two names promptly came to mind, Esteemed Blogmeister, on reading the blog today dealing with a topic which is news to this pair of Free Southern Stateen eyes: Colm O’Gorman and Hiroo Onada.
The reason why Colm O’Gorman knocked on one’s mental door first was on account of his being the Big Kahuna in Amnesty Ireland, a morally superior organisation one assumed would have been, erm, trumpetting today’s topic from the RTE tree tops .
Prior to landing his currently plumply-remunerated plum job, CO’G was the biggest wheel in an organization called One in Four. This was one of the most strident outfits involved in the hugely successful outfitting of Child Abuse in clerical garb. And not just any clerical garb, but specifically in the garb of the RC clergy aka 3 in 100.
Now Amnesty Ireland lists six issues of primary concern, dealing with human rights or rather the abuse of same. Curiously, Colm O’Gorman’s own narrow focus interests seem to precisely overlap with those which are cherry-picked by the mono-vocal media for him to comment upon.
And comment them upon them he does, and then some. He is renowned for bringing a feisty, erm, bison-like fury to bear upon those who would dare to disagree with him, in the secure knowledge his tongue lashing will be uninterrupted by a preternaturally accommodating host / hostess.
And of his tongue lashings there are lashings. It has been reckoned he appears on RTE and like-minded opposition stations as often as both the weather forecast tocsin and the (gulp) angelus bells theyselves.
That he should have chosen to sing dumb on the topic du jour may or, in fairness, going forward, not have something to do with one particular part in his past chequered career. The part when he belonged to the DL wing of the PD’s when he managed to accumulate all of 3% of the first preference votes in his beloved Wexican constituency. (3% seems to be a recurring motif).
Fascinatingly enough, another Wexican contemporary of his, who belongs to the DL wing of FF, has also gone on to camp-bed down in the studio circuit while enunciating views indistinguishable from those of Colm O’Gorman. That would be the equally ubiquitous Noel Whelan, BL. Btw, the DL wing of the two parties, one cadaverous, the other moribund, refers to Deposit Loser.
Hiroo Onada was the Second Lieutenant in the Japanese Imperial Army who hid out for thirty years on Lubang Island in the Pacific after his country had surrendered. The title of his autobiography has a curiously Norneverlandish ring to it:
-No Surrender: My Thirty Years War.
The Free Southern Stateen suffers from Hiroo Onada Syndrome, big time. The Dirty Thirty Years War endures and will not go away as long as there is a (perceived) political gain to be got. The recent Cahilligula-style appointment to the Senate / Seanad Eireann is the most vivid example of late of how it stays put and will not go away, you know.
Hiroo Onada (H.O.), stayed put even after local Filipino villagers had left leaflets in Japanese for him to read,on a Katie Daly basis : ‘The war has ended; come down from the mountains’. The sniffy mono-sound monopoly media on Liffeyside prefers to say put on its high moral ground and not surrender to Realpoliik. Stereotypically, its political serfs do ditto.
Today’s topic is not the only issue involving human rights which the courageous Colm O’Gorman shies away from. For one who shares a surname with the real and original name in leprechaun of his beloved Wexico, Loch Garman, one would assume he’d be vocal to the point of being hoarse about it.
Has he ever raised his Model County modulated baritone in protest against the use of the one racist word still permitted in polite society south of the Black Pig’s Dyke? Gaeilgeoir (normally misspelt to rub Saxa into the wound of the unsexy).
Ca hait? Cathain? / Where? When?
Incidentally, the original motto in leprechaun of the Clann O’Gorman was ‘Tosach Catha agus Deireadh Air’ / ‘First in the Fight and Last in the Battle’. Still is, oddly enough.
Meanwhile, the motto of Amnesty Ireland is : ‘Better to light a candle than curse the darkness’. Which allows one to segue seamlessly (if one is of such a bogoak monolithic mind) into the leprechaun for excommunication: ‘coinneal-bha’. Which literally translates as ‘candle-quench’.
No better excommunicationers than the high-minded hierarchy of the DOBlin media in Baile Atha to indulge in a spot of the old coinneal-bha.
Will Amnesty Ireland get to light a candle or two over the Chistrmas season? They will, they will.
Just remember to think of Hirro Onada with a hearty:
-H.O. ! H.O.! H.O.!
Splendid as ever, Perkin. And there’s me was feeling guilty that I didn’t really um like Colm or Noel (not the First N, of course)…
Neill, if you were a member of the disgraced and now disbanded RUC should you be re-employed in security work anywhere or, perish the thought, be re-employed in the PSNI? Or do you just fire off questions for the craic?
Do you spend all your time coming up with stupid questions?
Not worthy of you, neill – at least provide e.g.s of your charge?
Why don’t you answer some pertinent questions and stop indulging in idiotic non sequitur answers?
Only when I am asked pertinent questions.
“Only when I am asked pertinent questions.”
Well neill, I have asked before but will try again, what do you think were the main circumstances that led to the troubles conflict?
I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts as I am sure would most readers.
Please share
Jude, not forgetting, the party’s that agreed the GFA and St Andrew’s and were “committed” to helping ex prisoners in employment etc, were the same party’s (apart from Sinn Fein) who supported and enacted Jim Allister’s SPAD Bill, that further alienated and discriminated ex prisoners. Talk about irony, but then again it’s typical Stormont!
its typical stormont…
yep the jails are filling again,prisoners being beaten.interment by remand ect.typical stormont as you say.
Another example on why Irish republican volunteers are head and shoulders above other combatants here in Ireland. Not only were they offered two probabilities if they joined the IRA I.e death or jail, they should’ve been also aware that after the event of going to prison any equality on offer for other citizens wouldn’t be avilable to them. I would like to see the face of a British squaddie being offered the same probabilities. ‘Tour the world; learn new skills; make new friends; earn a living’ lol.
so a gang sitting drinking all day in a pub decides to go out and cut somebodys ears of gouge out their eyes and then cut their throat then dump them in an entry wants special treatment.their only crime was getting caught as far as they were concerned.
Jessica
To copy your typical response style—–“You are not the most astute,Gio”
The words pot,kettle and black come to mind!!
“The words pot,kettle and black come to mind!!”
You are certainly both on the same page im sure argenta and play of each other well