14 2 mins 13 yrs

I see that all of Northern Ireland’s main political parties have welcomed the decision to abandon the controversial £12,000 victim recognition payments proposed in the Eames-Bradley Report.

DUP leader Peter Robinson said: “The Secretary of State was in no doubt people in Northern Ireland would never accept this morally offensive idea. “The reality of devolved government has ensured that this proposal could not be imposed against our wishes.”

Is this the same Peter Robinson who sits in power with those who are terrorist godfathers? I think Peter should stay away from usng terms such as “morally offensive” given his own moral offensiveness.

I agree with TUV leader Jim Allister who referred to Shaun Woodward’s decision as a u-turn by the British Government.

He said: “It would have been much better if the Secretary of State had announced the payment would only be made to innocent victims. This would have demonstrated a distinction between the butchered and the butcher.”

So, did NOBODY like the idea?

Well, ne of the few voices of support for the controversial payments came from Victims’ Commissioner, Patricia McBride. Ms McBride, you may recall, is the sister of IRA terrorist Tony McBride, a killer who the SAS managed to despatch to eternity some years ago. I wonder why she thought it was a good idea to treat terrorised and terrorist the same when it comes to State handouts??? Furthermore, is it not high time that these truly ludicrous Victims Commissioners were also put into cold storage, Their posturing does nothing for anyone other than their bank managers.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. "It would have been much better if the Secretary of State had announced the payment would only be made to innocent victims."

    Who would decide which victims were innocent, Jim Allister? Better that nobody gets a payment than have endless squabbling and finger-pointing.

  2. I think those next of kin who weren’t offended by the payment should be allowed have it. Those offended by it could alawys let it be.
    Nobody should be allowed decide for the others.

    The cash could be paid directly into back accounts without any fuss. Shaun Woodward would then be able to announce how many were actually offended by it after all.

  3. What Jim Allister is calling for is also illegal. Current legislation lays out exactly what a Victim of the Troubles is. If the British Government were to pay money to "innocents", which would undoubtadely include members of the not so innocent Security Forces, then it would be in breach of their own legislation which would be illegal.

  4. Nobody should be paid compensation ..the IRA said it was a war and therefore everyone is a casualty of war and should received no compensation. I would, however, make exception for the people of Northern Ireland who were innocently killed by vicious bombing by a bunch of moronic individuals who now (how PC correct)are running the country.

  5. It was such an absurd idea that the only plausible explanations I can think of is that by putting the idea out there they have raised the bar for moronic ideas so when the next spectacularly ill considered idea to reward terrorists is promoted it will seem moderate in comparison.

  6. "Is this the same Peter Robinson who sits in power with those who are terrorist godfathers"

    Agreed, the hypocrisy is sickening.

  7. If a payment was to be made it should only have been made to non combatants in the conflict.

  8. Paul:

    Presumably that would include the sons and daughters of dead IRA men, those too young to have participated?

  9. Colm:

    Gimp. I’ll say no more, don’t wish to encourage you.


    I don’t think it should be made to anybody. But isn’t all this academic now?

  10. I agree Barry, I’m totally against payment of any kind however, in the context of a hypothetical scenario I believe it should only be paid to genuine non combatants.

Comments are closed.