The following is a statement issued by RFJ CEO Mark Thompson on the announcement by British Secretary of State James Brokenshire that he is making a visit to the US.
“Relatives for Justice note the visit by the British Secretary of State to the United States.
“It has been deeply disappointing that the British Government has not met its moral and legal obligations to victims and survivors of the conflict.
“Rather than concentrating on the full implementation of the Stormont House Agreement the British Government has frustrated all processes to deal with the past. They have stood by while the inquest courts and Police Ombudsman’s Office have been deliberately starved of necessary resources despite full clear professional plans of remedy for families that have the full support of the most senior legal figure in the north, the Lord Chief Justice, the UN and EU Human Rights Commissioner. And in the most sinister of fashions the British Government has insisted on a ‘national security’ veto, which has torpedoed the political agreements reached in the form of the Stormont House Agreement legacy proposals.
“Recently the British Government has announced that they wish to unilaterally consult on legacy proposals, which do not have political agreement. Many have viewed this as a cynical exercise in delay, with consensus on these contentious matters being obviously impossible. Further it is believed by many that this cynicism is another exercise in continuing state impunity, with the British state not wishing to be investigated or held to account for its role in state killings or collusion.
“The British Government has clear legal obligations to victims and survivors of the conflict under the European Convention of Human Rights, it is long since past time they stood aside and allowed for independent and robust mechanisms that can deliver to all victims to be put in place. The UK is not impartial.
“We believe that James Brokenshire should be asked the following questions while he is on his visit:
- Why is it that British Government have insisted on a ‘national security’ veto regarding illegal murders and killings by illegal groups in which its agents were both secreted and operated from within?
- Why did the British Government – “The Conservative Party” – mobilize and orchestrate a campaign of former British soldiers and its MP’s to prevent any investigations and or prosecutions of British soldiers involved in killings or collusion?
- What secret deals were done between the Conservative Party and the DUP on the legacy of the conflict? This is particularly pertinent as both of the Conservative Party and the DUP have “colluded” together to prevent independent examination of the past and the implementation of all agreements re investigations; a matter referred to by the late Martin McGuinness in media interviews following his resignation.”
What exactly does the Stormont House Agreement say about legacy?
So, in essence, the British government are burning their obligations under the GFA and the St. Andrews Agreement?
What obligations?
Well Tam, theres quite a few now – let’s take a quick wander through them together one at a time…..
How’s the Bill of Rights coming on…..?
How about 50:50 recruitment to the RUC/PSNI?
How about the obligations to introduce an Irish Language Act – leave aside the fact that the DUP are now pretending to be a jelly that refuses to be nailed to the wall, that’s merely showboating for the galleries – the DUP know that they’re going to relent on this issue. It’s yet another Sham fight……
How about those legally-binding committments to facilitate Legacy issues? How much Justice has anyone actually had in the last 20 years?
The Bill of Rights commitment has nothing to do with legacy and has already been met.
50:50 recruitment wasn’t in GFA or St Andrews and has nothing to do with legacy.
Gaelic language has nothing to do with legacy.
As for the “legally-binding committments to facilitate Legacy issues”, could you explain what these are? I asked earlier and nobody answered.
Annex B.
The 50/50 recruitment to the PSNI will continue until the Patten recommendations are fulfilled.
What actually happened is that 50/50 recruitment was arbitrarily abandoned; and the PSNI then paid off a large section of RUC men with wheelbarrows full of cash on a Friday afternoon, to then rejoin as “civilian staff” and hence outside Pattens remit on a Monday morning.
By their own highly-skewed numbers, at present, 31% of cops are Catholic, all concentrated in the lower ranks.
So essentially, it’s fair to say that the Billy Boys and the Bully Boys are still very much in control.
How’s that for “reform”!
Thanks for the info but what has it got to do with legacy?
Ps. How have you managed to find the committments to the Bill of Rights as “met”???
That’s bizarre.
How is it bizarre? The Government was committed to considering supplementary provisions to the ECHR, which it did, concluding that none was necessary.
Oh right.
So, the British government unilaterally decided everything was hunky-dorey in Narnia and always would be, and concluded that one of the main nationalist sweeties of the GFA didn’t need to be honoured, even if it was only for housekeeping or confidence-building purposes.
Once again, Britannia waives the Rules.
What, pray tell, is the benefit of an internationally-binding agreement if one party simply ignores the bits it doesn’t like?
Perfidious Albion indeed.
All that was required under the GFA was a consultation on rights supplementary to the ECHR. That happened some time ago, so It has been honoured. Nothing has been waived, no bits have been ignored, no Perfidious Albion.
Id guess Tony Taylor might disagree with you.
Incidentally, will you be joining the demonstration demanding his release after more than 500 days in incarceration?
Any casual observer might conclude that even the basic tenets of the Magna Carta don’t apply in Nornironlamd if cruel Britannia is left to it’s own devices.
But you’ve reassured us that a Bill of Rights wasn’t necessary, so that’s alright then.
Tam , you’re either very naive ,gullible or sparring for an unwinnable argument….you , if you’ve read the GFA , you’ll know that it’s an international agreement , registered with the UN , and Britain’s usual perfidy and guilefulness will not work anymore …..just as their war crimes here will eventually be exposed to the glare of the world’s media !
You can’t explain what the SHA says about legacy either?
for some reason you remind me of another poster here, who I haven’t heard from for some time, he/she routinely answered questions by asking them…………………
Tam
You can Google “Stormont House Agreement” yourself.
Paragraphs 21-56 refer.
Para 31 seems to be one that specifically is being failed.
Ps. You’re not here to be spoonfed, or play the Village Idiot.
Thanks, huge, I’ll look that up.
I had a look, huge, and it says the Executive is to find ways to improve how inquests work. Is that right? Shouldn’t the blame lie with the Executive rather than the British government?
You think the Westminster Defence Committee’s wish list for State Amnesties is compatible with what was agreed at GFA, SAA or SHA?
Tam , maybe it escaped your attention , but I never mentioned the SHA . I was referring to the GFA and the SAA…..both legally binding . Everyone , and I’ll not mince my words , knows that the British and the DUP are renown for their cozenage and dishonesty and I simply alluded to the fact that soon they WILL be answerable for their crimes.
But you were replying to my question about SHA .
By the way neither GFA nor SAA are legally binding. They are political agreements.
Tam , where does you knowledge of the law come from ? The GFA and the SAA are international agreements ,legally binding in law exactly the same sort of International agreement that took Britain into the EEC in 1972 ,……just because Britain has ignored or trampled over agreements for centuries doesn’t mean that they weren’t binding contracts. In the GFA ,provision was made for an ILA and a BOR ….signed by the British Government . Provision for an ILA was also in the SAA …..signed by the DUP…..legally binding !
If they’re legally binding how can they be enforced?
The international agreement that took Britain into the EEC in 1972 was not legally binding. Legislation was needed. And the agreement to take it out will similarly need legislation.
Parliament is sovereign.
Step aside MT, here comes Tam.
thinking the same thing, did you read my comment Gearoid?
Tá mé réidh agus ag fanach….
Tam , less of the ambivalence and attempted jig-dancing on a hot plate….. you sign an International agreement and once ratified by your government ….it is legally binding…. as Britain will find out when she becomes the complete and utter pariah of Europe. Unfortunately, for we Irish, who are very low on the list of priorities , we’ll suffer the most but that’ll be the final catalyst for the re-unification of our country….. Béidh ar lá linn
Morally binding but not legally binding. How can it be enforced? You didn’t explain.
You have the audacity to associate Britain and morality in the one sentence…. surely the oxymoron of all time….. it IS legally binding but within a few years it’ll be irrelevant…. we know where we’re going …. you’re welcome to join us….but no duplicity from now on it….Sin é
If it’s legally binding how is it enforced?