Anger over Troubles payment plan

Albion 69 · 24-01-2009, 04:28 PM

"The families of dead IRA and Loyalist killers could receive up to £12,000 compensation under proposals to end the 'hierarchy of victims' of Northern Ireland's bloody past.

A Government appointed committee has recommended that relatives of those murdered during the Troubles should compensated for their pain and loss.
The money would also be paid if the victims were themselves murderers, opening up the prospect of the families of active Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries killed 'in action' will also receive payments.
The Consultative Group on the Past, set up by Tony Blair shortly before he stepped down as Prime Minister, is understood to want to end the 'hierarchy of victims' on the grounds that the pain felt by all those bereaved in Ulster's recent past is equal.
But Unionist politicians have expressed concern at the recommendations, claiming the scheme equates innocent victims with dead terrorists.
Northern Ireland's first minister, Peter Robinson, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said: "The DUP have consistently opposed any equation between the perpetrator of crimes during the Troubles and the innocent victim.
"Terrorists died carrying out their evil and wicked deeds while innocent men, women and children were wiped out by merciless gangsters."

Families of dead IRA and Loyalist killers could receive £12,000 for their loss - Telegraph

I'm with Peter Robinson on this one , not a penny of compensation should go to the families of terrorists ... Republican or Loyalist.

LA · 24-01-2009, 05:11 PM

I agree, no money should be compensated at all.

**Opinionated** · 24-01-2009, 06:14 PM

Not sure about this one really, on the one hand I can see its not the family left behind's fault which position was taken during the troubles and if it puts a full stop to the whole dark period than it's all not too higher price.
Even if they agree to it I can't see it happening, I understand that some victims of 7/7 still haven't received anything!

MightyMan · 29-01-2009, 12:12 AM

I don't think money should be involved at all, it can't replace the loss of a loved one and unfortunately there are always innocent casualties in war.

Tete123 · 29-01-2009, 05:14 AM

No money should be paid out in compensation. I understand a lot of innocent people were caught up in the troubles but the aim now should be looking forward, not backwards.

I would propose spending the money on local area regeneration, providing for the future generations a stable and secure environment, with exceptional education facilities and recreational amenities - with the purpose of never returning to the bleak days of sectarian violence.

**Opinionated** · 29-01-2009, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Tete123

I would propose spending the money on local area regeneration, providing for the future generations a stable and secure environment, with exceptional education facilities and recreational amenities - with the purpose of never returning to the bleak days of sectarian violence.

That's a really good idea, or maybe a monument to peace with a non-sectarian list of all the dead?

**Midas** · 29-01-2009, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Tete123

I would propose spending the money on local area regeneration, providing for the future generations a stable and secure environment, with exceptional education facilities and recreational amenities - with the purpose of never returning to the bleak days of sectarian violence.

One of the most sensible suggestions of how to handle this that I've seen

However I can foresee that there'd still be people unhappy with it and who'd feel cheated out of 'their' compensation for losing a family member through no direct fault of their own.

There's no pleasing all of the people, all of the time - was that originally said by Abraham Lincoln?

**Opinionated** · 29-01-2009, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Midas

There's no pleasing all of the people, all of the time - was that originally said by Abraham Lincoln?

He is undoubtedly the most famous to say it, but it's actually from a poem by John Lydgate.

**The voice of reason** · 30-01-2009, 03:34 PM

Compensation for what?

Is this a government admitting that they made the wrong decision by not pulling out of northern ireland?

For those innocent people who were caught up in the troubles, those minding their own business and victims of bombs, then maybe they do have a case for some sort of compensation.

But what about those people who chose terrorism, and got killed because of their actions, i wouldn't give them or their families a brass cent. they knew what they were doing was wrong, so did their families. any money that goes in that direction only insults the memory of those innocent victims that lost their lives because of terrorists.

that being said, our government is great at insulting the memory of anyone and everyone....did blair not honour the war dea with a wreath on rememberance day only to start another unjust war in Iraq.

i'm sure those who died in both wars would be mightily proud of Tony Blairs actions...

**albannach** · 31-01-2009, 09:48 PM

any way to help the people of ulster move on from their troubled past should be considered , call it compensation , blood money or whatever.
No matter what is considered , i doubt you will find any agreement but then i never thought i would see mcguinness and paisley in the same room.
I just wish the people of ulster all the best and i think we all hope time will be a great healer

**Michael Deery** · 08-09-2009, 06:22 AM

Gordon Brown feels heat after snubbing IRA victims' plea for Libya payout - Times Online

Mr. Brown has come out in support of IRA victims claiming compensation.

I'm against this. Why are victims of terrorism worth more than victims of regular crime?

**Midas** · 08-09-2009, 08:04 AM

Hi Michael, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

Before anything else can I make a couple of quick points about posting in the forum. If you haven't read the rules yet, please do; you can find them here. Knowing what’s appropriate and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle! You might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. Also please respect other people’s views; they mightn’t be the same as yours but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just different.

If you need help with anything at all, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; details can be found here.

Perhaps you’d care to introduce yourself, which you can do here, or tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

But to answer your post:

Originally Posted by Michael Deery

Gordon Brown feels heat after snubbing IRA victims' plea for Libya payout - Times Online

Mr. Brown has come out in support of IRA victims claiming compensation.

I'm against this. Why are victims of terrorism worth more than victims of regular crime?

I have to say that I agree with you. As you say, the fact that someone is killed or injured by a terrorist act shouldn't make them any more worthy of receiving compensation than if they were killed or injured in the course of regular crime. Maybe the whole criminal compensation structure needs a shake up, I really don't know, I've never had anything to do with it or to my knowledge know anyone who has, but if there is a 'problem', that would seem to be the right starting point, not singling out victims of one particular sort of crime for preferential treatment.

**Fraxinus** · 17-09-2009, 08:27 PM

The British government has been patchy on their calls for Libyan compensation because the British government actively carried out acts of state terrorism in Ireland. From arming Loyalist paramilitaries, to British agents colluding with Loyalists groups in bombing Dublin and Monaghan. And that's not even including British moles that were active in the IRA and who took part in more bloodshed.
No wonder they wanted to give blanket compensation, they know they have blood on their hands and they don't want anyone squealing.