This fuss - kicked up by the Protestants - is quite absurd !

They are complaining that "on the run" fugitives (ie NOT yet convicted) have been given an amnesty by the UK Government as part of the Northern Ireland agreement.

IF these people HAD already been convicted then they would have received an amnesty anyway (as part of the deal).

So ... an amnesty if you HAVE been convicted but no amnesty if you have not - only in the Proddies minds could this make any kind of sense !

You prejudge a complicated series of matters - the details of which are, as yet, vague/unknown.

An amnesty if you may have murdered 50 people 40 years ago, but the full weight of the law against you if someone says you touched their bum 40 years ago. We would get to see more episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1970s if they had been hosted by IRA killers rather than Radio 1 DJs.

Andy wrote:
An amnesty if you may have murdered 50 people 40 years ago, but the full weight of the law against you if someone says you touched their bum 40 years ago. We would get to see more episodes of Top Of The Pops from the 1970s if they had been hosted by IRA killers rather than Radio 1 DJs.

Possibly true ... but without the amnesty there would have been NO peace deal in Northern Ireland.

Successive UK government had been talking to the IRA (always denied at the time LOL !) and it was clear that there was no military solution. ONLY a deal with the IRA would bring peace.

In The Know wrote:

They are complaining that "on the run" fugitives (ie NOT yet convicted) have been given an amnesty by the UK Government as part of the Northern Ireland agreement.

IF these people HAD already been convicted then they would have received an amnesty anyway (as part of the deal)

To give a total/blanket amnesty to everyone - without knowing/assessing/judging what crime(s) they had committed - was an error. Say the Unionists - and they're right.

Serious crimes against children, police, judiciary - could have been committed; is it not prudent/logical to ascertain what crimes you're forgiving?

Would, say, an attempted assassination of the PM or Queen not be outside the scope of the amnesty?

And bearing in mind who we dealing with - such crimes are not beyond the imagination...

Don't forget the success and 'healing' that the Truth and Reconciliation process had on South Africa.
It was a difficult process for everyone, but it enabled a line to be drawn between the period of hatred and war and a more peaceful cohabitation of former enemies

Gnomo wrote:
Don't forget the success and 'healing' that the Truth and Reconciliation process had on South Africa.
It was a difficult process for everyone, but it enabled a line to be drawn between the period of hatred and war and a more peaceful cohabitation of former enemies

Exactly, Gnomo

There HAD to be a line drawn.

It was a brave decision by Blair (one of a few !)

Sadly, the wrong decision. To pardon all - without even knowing what barbarism, atrocities or bombings they perpetrated.

And, they are still out there (living freely) - on both sides...

A truce was needed, but not one - where its only a matter of time before the violence starts again.

Now. More clarity.

Peter Hain, ex-NI Secretary says that the letters sent to republican paramilitary suspects 'made it clear they could be still arrested if other evidence emerged...they were not amnesties or immunities or get out of jail cards'.

Currently, five cases are being considered - with more likely. For these people to expect a life-long free pass is now seen to be clearly wrong. Their 2007 letters simply stated 'they were no longer wanted by the police'.

Amnesty? Not quiet, it now seems...

This whole furore has been "whipped up" by the DUP (Unionists) as a face-saving exercise.

It's quite clear that these letters ARE a form of amnesty - otherwise what would be the point of sending them? Shouldn't everyone in the UK have a letter saying "you are not wanted by the police at the moment, but may be arrested in future, if evidence emerges"? It's an utterly futile exercise.

It's clear that the Unionists knew all about this all along ... but did not want to be "seen" as agreeing to it (hence no legislation).

Mr Robinson threw a paddy ... threatened to resign unless he got a Judicial Review.
He has NOT got a Judicial Review ... just a Judge lead inquiry with very limited terms of reference (still, enough for him to save face).

Speaking after a meeting with Secretary of State Theresa Villiers, Mr McGuinness said: "It has been shown, particularly over the last 24 hours, that this is a matter that has been discussed on a number of occasions at the Policing Board.

"All the political parties knew it and I think that the contribution to the Policing Board meeting in 2010 from Assistant Chief Constable Drew Harris is very revealing in terms of the amount of knowledge people knew.

"Drew Harris outlined the fact that there was a scheme.

"Everybody at that meeting knew that there was a scheme and that over a period of years that scheme was being proceeded with."

Minutes of a NI Policing Board meeting in April 2010 indicate that members were briefed on the matter of On the Runs. Three members of the DUP were present at that meeting.

For the Unionists to now claim that they knew nothing about it is ridiculous.

It has also been revealed that 13 Royal Prerogatives of Mercy were granted (ie Royal Pardons) under the On the Runs scheme.

Among the 13 was James McArdle, the man responsible for the 1996 London Docklands bombing that killed two people.

The fact that a Judge this week refused to proceed with a case (where the alleged defendant had received such an amnesty letter) PLUS the Royal Pardons, ensures that the deal reached by Tony Blair and the IRA WILL be honoured and that no one who received such an amnesty letter will ever face trial.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
no one who received such an amnesty letter will ever face trial


Peter Hain - ex-Northern Ireland Secretary - is not recounting the facts then?

And why are six already being questioned?

The then secretary of state, Peter Hain wanted the scheme to be run in secret. The PSNI had prepared a statement for journalists, should the scheme get into the public domain, but the work was never disclosed.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26359906