National Humiliation

T runner

padma wrote: »

The whole island was, not just the northern half.

Yes. There was state and social anti-catholic sectarianism going on throughout Ireland for this period. There is a quote from a visitor who spoke to a landlord in 1780s. Ill paraphrase: The landlord boasted that so subservient and wretched were all the native Irish tenantry that many would consider it an honour if the landlord chose the tenants wife for the landlords bed. The mark of slavery, the visitor observed.

Son Of A Vidic

Happyman42 wrote: »

some people really need to examine their selective disgust and 'shock'.

Very true. But I wouldn't hold out too much hope of the happening amongst those who wear blinkers.

Fratton Fred

T runner wrote: »

Yes. There was state and social anti-catholic sectarianism going on throughout Ireland for this period. There is a quote from a visitor who spoke to a landlord in 1780s. Ill paraphrase: The landlord boasted that so subservient and wretched were all the native Irish tenantry that many would consider it an honour if the landlord chose the tenants wife for the landlords bed. The mark of slavery, the visitor observed.

How do you know the landlord wasn't a catholic?

maithanfear

LordSutch wrote: »

Also, I wonder what British people make of all these threads with slurs being attached to, and thrown at "The British" (and The Brits).
Surely its time to think of another way to describe the London government & the UK authorities of the time other than "The British"?


Can you imagine if an equivalent Boards.uk was constantly having a go at the Irish and the Paddies?

"So it was the Irish who planted the Warrington Bomb, or it was The Irish who did that murder, or The Irish who shot that policeman dead,
The Irish who blew up that bus, The Irish who shot him in the knee caps, etc".

Not too sure we would be comfortable if the actions of the PIRA/INLA were attributed to us "The Irish".

just a thought.

Depends who you consider 'we' to be. The Irish people never recognised the actions of the IRA as being sanctioned by the Irish government. The same cannot be said for the British or the 'Brits' as you put it.

Fratton Fred

maithanfear wrote: »

Depends who you consider 'we' to be. The Irish people never recognised the actions of the IRA as being sanctioned by the Irish government. The same cannot be said for the British or the 'Brits' as you put it.

In the same vein then, every person who put money in the collection tin for "the cause" should shoulder some blame for IRA atrocities.

maithanfear

Fratton Fred wrote: »

In the same vein then, every person who put money in the collection tin for "the cause" should shoulder some blame for IRA atrocities.

So should all British taxpayers who directly funded the UDA terror group that carried out the Castlerock killings. Maybe the OP has a point.

Fratton Fred

maithanfear wrote: »

So should all British taxpayers who directly funded the UDA terror group that carried out the Castlerock killings. Maybe the OP has a point.

Personally I don't get a choice about paying tax.

Seanchai

I searched this thread for 'Castlerock' in Derry. Not a mention of it. The same week those two English kids were killed in England by Irish republicans, four Irish men were killed in Ireland by British loyalists.

All victims are equal...

Chuck Stone

Seanchai wrote: »

I searched this thread for 'Castlerock' in Derry. Not a mention of it. The same week those two English kids were killed in England by Irish republicans, four Irish men were killed in Ireland by British loyalists.

If you went around the country with a pen and pad and asked random people 'could you name any children who were killed during the troubles' there'd be very very few who could name a child from the north and many who'd know the names of the kids killed in Warrington, of that I'm sure.

All victims are equal...

Civilians first.

Fratton Fred

Seanchai wrote: »

I searched this thread for 'Castlerock' in Derry. Not a mention of it. The same week those two English kids were killed in England by Irish republicans, four Irish men were killed in Ireland by British loyalists.

All victims are equal...

You missed post 16 then?

.jacksparrow.

Maybe they should spare a thought for the 1000s of children killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,that their army is responsible for.

gallag

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Maybe they should spare a thought for the 1000s of children killed in Iraq and Afghanistan,that their army is responsible for.

They? Who do you mean sir?

.jacksparrow.

gallag wrote: »

They? Who do you mean sir?

The producers of spirit fm good sir.

Nodin

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

The producers of spirit fm good sir.

Its an Irish radio station, so I don't think you could say it was "their" army.

.jacksparrow.

Nodin wrote: »

Its an Irish radio station, so I don't think you could say it was "their" army.

Ok my mistake and I will hold my hands up on this one.

djpbarry

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If you went around the country with a pen and pad and asked random people 'could you name any children who were killed during the troubles' there'd be very very few who could name a child from the north and many who'd know the names of the kids killed in Warrington, of that I'm sure.

I don't believe that for a second. Hell, you could pound the streets of London asking people to name the victims of the Warrington bombings and the most frequent response you'd get is "Where the **** is Warrington?"

What's your point anyway? The kids in question shouldn't be remembered? People should be forced to remember the names of all kids killed in terrorist attacks? What?

Chuck Stone

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't believe that for a second. Hell, you could pound the streets of London asking people to name the victims of the Warrington bombings and the most frequent response you'd get is "Where the **** is Warrington?"

I don't really care what you believe tbh. I'm confident that I'm right. Also, I didn't say London I said 'the country' and I live in Ireland.

What's your point anyway?

I've omitted your ridiculous leading questions because they don't deserve attention. Would you stop doing that ? It's tiresome.

The point I'm making is that the deaths of the two children in England managed to cause a huge out-pouring of grief on both sides of the Irish sea while the killings of children in the north seemed not to. Were children who were killed in the north lesser value than children killed across the Irish Sea?

Let me explain something to you. While the troubles stayed in the north the British and Irish governments didn't really give a **** and perhaps that's why the deaths of children in the 6 counties didn't fill the pages of the British Tabloids and Irish papers.

Fratton Fred

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the deaths of the two children in England managed to cause a huge out-pouring of grief on both sides of the Irish sea while the killings of children in the north seemed not to. Were children who were killed in the north lesser value than children killed across the Irish Sea?

Let me explain something to you. While the troubles stayed in the north the British and Irish governments didn't really give a **** and perhaps that's why the deaths of children in the 6 counties didn't fill the pages of the British Tabloids and Irish papers.

I think you have a valid point there.

I also believe that of Gerry McCabe had been in the RUC or the Met police, his killers would have been let out under the gfa.

Chuck Stone

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I also believe that of Gerry McCabe had been in the RUC or the Met police, his killers would have been let out under the gfa.

It's a given. Even the moderate Unionist Alliance Party called out the Irish Govt on the Mc Cabe killers' release issue.

The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (APNI) accused the Irish government of double standards after it was disclosed that those convicted of killing Jerry McCabe, who was a Detective in the Garda Síochána (the Irish police), would not be included in the early release scheme.

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch99.htm#Apr

Regardless, I don't know how the hell anyone who lost a loved one in the troubles coped with their killers being released. I'd imagine there were many bereaved people tossing in their beds at night knowing that the person who took their loved one's life was walking the streets. I think it would have chewed me up and made me bitter.

djpbarry

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't really care what you believe tbh. I'm confident that I'm right.

Oh I'm sure you are. Doesn't change the fact that it's just your opinion though.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Also, I didn't say London I said 'the country' and I live in Ireland.

I was making the point that few people in the UK could name the victims of the Warrington bombings, never mind Ireland.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the deaths of the two children in England managed to cause a huge out-pouring of grief on both sides of the Irish sea while the killings of children in the north seemed not to.

I'd say you've got a pretty selective memory, because I remember the Omagh bombing, for example, being a pretty big deal in both the UK and in Ireland. I distinctly remember a minutes' silence being observed across the country.

Chuck Stone

djpbarry wrote: »

Oh I'm sure you are. Doesn't change the fact that it's just your opinion though

Meh. It's more than just an opinion. Think of it as being a conclusion arrived at by having a very keen interest in the north and the human condition in general.

I was making the point that few people in the UK could name the victims of the Warrington bombings, never mind Ireland.

I'd agree that there'd probably be a higher % of people here who'd know the names of the Warrington children than in England which is underscores my point even more.

I'd say you've got a pretty selective memory, because I remember the Omagh bombing, for example

See below.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I felt genuinely horrified and sickened the day of the bomb in Omagh. I remember the girl I was seeing asking 'what's wrong with you'?.

To her the North may as well have been in Patagonia but even though our family had left the North for Cork City a good few years earlier my connection still felt strong (and always will I reckon).

We were supposed to be going out that night but I just went to my parents house for the evening because I knew I wouldn't have been able to enjoy myself and it wouldn't have felt right.

djpbarry

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Meh. It's more than just an opinion.

No, it's not.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd agree that there'd probably be a higher % of people here who'd know the names of the Warrington children than in England...

I wouldn't.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

See below.

What does that prove?

sparkling sea

Seanchai wrote: »

I searched this thread for 'Castlerock' in Derry. Not a mention of it. The same week those two English kids were killed in England by Irish republicans, four Irish men were killed in Ireland by British loyalists.

All victims are equal...

Pathetic and shameful.

sparkling sea

Stop basing your arguements on a false premise or even worse a falllacy.

People who were in the British army (despite how wrong some of there actions may have been) were doing a job and following the instructions of a democratically elected British government; the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted and still want to be part of the UK

The IRA on the other hand were not in any way, shape or form democratic - they didn't and couldn't speak for the majority because the majority did not support their f*cked up idealism.

Chuck Stone

djpbarry wrote: »

No, it's not.

Oh yes it is...

I wouldn't.

Again, I'm confident that you're wrong. It'd be an interesting study I'm confident my hypothesis would be shown to be correct.

What does that prove?

You accused me of having a 'selective memory' and cited the Omagh bomb of 1998 and the reaction to it in an attempt to lend weight to your 'selective memory' accusation.

I remember it well and I remember how I felt that day and the local and international revulsion to it too. In a tragic way it put a lid on the peace process where everyone just thought 'enough is enough'.

The reaction to Omagh was universal revulsion. The reaction to the violent deaths of children was not universal.

Chuck Stone

sparkling sea wrote: »

People who were in the British army (despite how wrong some of there actions may have been) were doing a job and following the instructions of a democratically elected British government; the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted and still want to be part of the UK

The IRA on the other hand were not in any way, shape or form democratic - they didn't and couldn't speak for the majority because the majority did not support their f*cked up idealism.

I'm glad you said that because I always thought the Native Americans were full of shit too and I'm a fan of neat packages with pretty bows.

.jacksparrow.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Stop basing your arguements on a false premise or even worse a falllacy.

People who were in the British army (despite how wrong some of there actions may have been) were doing a job and following the instructions of a democratically elected British government; the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted and still want to be part of the UK

The IRA on the other hand were not in any way, shape or form democratic - they didn't and couldn't speak for the majority because the majority did not support their f*cked up idealism.

Facepalms don't even get close.

.jacksparrow.

sparkling sea wrote: »

Stop basing your arguements on a false premise or even worse a falllacy.

People who were in the British army (despite how wrong some of there actions may have been) were doing a job and following the instructions of a democratically elected British government; the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted and still want to be part of the UK

The IRA on the other hand were not in any way, shape or form democratic - they didn't and couldn't speak for the majority because the majority did not support their f*cked up idealism.

By the way I would like to point to your statement of'despite how wrong some of there actions may have been'

I don't even have to say anything else.

Nodin

sparkling sea wrote: »

Stop basing your arguements on a false premise or even worse a falllacy.

People who were in the British army (despite how wrong some of there actions may have been) were doing a job and following the instructions of a democratically elected British government; ........

I'm sure families from the Falls road all the way to Baghdad are sighing with relief knowing that.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure families from the Falls road all the way to Baghdad are sighing with relief knowing that.

The pithy observation aside,the reality is that it's a Long Long Way from The Falls Road to Baghdad and you'll have as many different attitudes as there are families themselves.

Even within those families mentioned,one will find polar opposite attitudes to everything,not just the age old Irish preoccupation with fighting with,and over The Brits.

The further you get from The Falls,the less important the issue becomes,whilst the nearer you get to Baghdad,the issue appears the same,but in reality is vastly different.

Suggesting that because we are Irish,we must partake in some pandemic of Brit-Hating,no doubt satisfies some inner cravings,but in the greater scheme of things Humanity walks-on-by and gets on with business.

Choking on ones CornFlakes over a Radio Station mention of a notable 20 year murder anniversary,hardly serves as confirming the existence of a Global Media Led Anti-Irish Conspiracy ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

...........

Choking on ones CornFlakes over a Radio Station mention of a notable 20 year murder anniversary,hardly serves as confirming the existence of a Global Media Led Anti-Irish Conspiracy ?

I wasn't aware that I'd stated it did.

sparkling sea

Nodin wrote: »

I'm sure families from the Falls road all the way to Baghdad are sighing with relief knowing that.

I'm sure you don't actual know how these families feel; You carry onl bunching them altogether and making statements for them though.

sparkling sea

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

By the way I would like to point to your statement of'despite how wrong some of there actions may have been'

I don't even have to say anything else.

Keep it simple - black and white - its the only way sure

sparkling sea

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm glad you said that because I always thought the Native Americans were full of shit too and I'm a fan of neat packages with pretty bows.

The neat packages with pretty bows was obvious to be fair.

Nodin

sparkling sea wrote: »

I'm sure you don't actual know how these families feel; You carry onl bunching them altogether and making statements for them though.

Well if you can imagine in any of the scenarios where a country has been invaded/people killed/tortured/maimed/oppressed and the relations of same being ok with it because those responsible come from a democracy.....

djpbarry

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Again, I'm confident that you're wrong.

I don't really care.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The reaction to Omagh was universal revulsion. The reaction to the violent deaths of children was not universal.

And how exactly are you differentiating between the two?

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Well if you can imagine in any of the scenarios where a country has been invaded/people killed/tortured/maimed/oppressed and the relations of same being ok with it because those responsible come from a democracy.....

Surely the modern day mainland Europe itself is just one such scenario ?

Currently it's fashionable for everybody to hate the Germans,yet folk happily live each side of a land frontier slipping across to socialize and shop or simply exist without spluttering into their Cornflakes (In the manner of the OP !) at the mention of a WW1 or WW2 atrocity anniversary,of which there are a few.

The modern day Italians,Belgians,Dutch etc appear to manage reasonably well in this,with perhaps the Spanish being the most bolshie in relation to clinging on to the past and using it to influence present thinking ?

Given the vast numbers of people effected by the World Wars,it follows that significant numbers of the EU populace today are relations of those who were directly efected by the combatants ?

Happyman42

djpbarry wrote: »

I don't really care.
And how exactly are you differentiating between the two?

It's a savage indictment of us all that we remember the Parry's who where accidently killed in an irresponsible bombing and we hardly reacted when a number of children had a rifle trained on their heads by a trained soldier and where horrifically dispatched.

If you take part in the politics of condemnation (and I don't, it's pointless and ultimately disrespectful) you have to question how susceptible you are to selective PR campaigns to hog the victimhood. Condemm all deaths equally, respect the memory of all who died.

Fratton Fred

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's a savage indictment of us all that we remember the Parry's who where accidently killed in an irresponsible bombing and we hardly reacted when a number of children had a rifle trained on their heads by a trained soldier and where horrifically dispatched.

If you take part in the politics of condemnation (and I don't, it's pointless and ultimately disrespectful) you have to question how susceptible you are to selective PR campaigns to hog the victimhood. Condemm all deaths equally, respect the memory of all who died.

The national humiliation should be that people consider the deliberate planting of two separate bombs in a shopping centre "irresponsible" and the resulting deaths "accidental".

djpbarry

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's a savage indictment of us all that we remember the Parry's who where accidently killed in an irresponsible bombing and we hardly reacted when a number of children had a rifle trained on their heads by a trained soldier and where horrifically dispatched.

If you take part in the politics of condemnation (and I don't, it's pointless and ultimately disrespectful) you have to question how susceptible you are to selective PR campaigns to hog the victimhood. Condemm all deaths equally...

Oh, like you just did?

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The national humiliation should be that people consider the deliberate planting of two separate bombs in a shopping centre "irresponsible" and the resulting deaths "accidental".

It makes no difference Fred if they where intentional, evil and crimminal. The children are just as dead.
Terror is terror, whether you send a trained army to enforce your will or you set off random and indiscriminate bombs, you either want to see an end to ALL of that or you don't.
Everybody has to take responsibility and make sure it doesn't happen again, save your condemnation for those who aren't making the effort to secure the peace maybe, make sure you respect all those who died needlessly by calling out those who are actively enflaming and encouraging the militant elements.

AlekSmart

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's a savage indictment of us all that we remember the Parry's who where accidently killed in an irresponsible bombing and we hardly reacted when a number of children had a rifle trained on their heads by a trained soldier and where horrifically dispatched.

If you take part in the politics of condemnation (and I don't, it's pointless and ultimately disrespectful) you have to question how susceptible you are to selective PR campaigns to hog the victimhood. Condemm all deaths equally, respect the memory of all who died.

Wow !...

How in Gods name could the fatal outcome of placing a bomb in a City Centre litter-bin be regarded as "Accidental"...or for that matter the act itself be described as merely "irresponsible" ?


One first has to accept the existance of this "Selective PR Campaign" in order to be susceptible to it.

The OP clearly regarded a Spirit FM RadioNews Piece on the 20th anniversary as being just that...I don't,and I'm heartened to see so many others of the same mind.

Reading Happyman42's post above,I'd be far more concerned at the success of "Selective PR Campaigns" to justify City Centre Bombing Campaigns.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Surely the modern day mainland Europe itself is just one such scenario ?

Currently it's fashionable for everybody to hate the Germans,yet folk happily live each side of a land frontier slipping across to socialize and shop or simply exist without spluttering into their Cornflakes (In the manner of the OP !) at the mention of a WW1 or WW2 atrocity anniversary,of which there are a few.

The modern day Italians,Belgians,Dutch etc appear to manage reasonably well in this,with perhaps the Spanish being the most bolshie in relation to clinging on to the past and using it to influence present thinking ?

Given the vast numbers of people effected by the World Wars,it follows that significant numbers of the EU populace today are relations of those who were directly efected by the combatants ?

There is still serious animosity between Germany and Poland some of it due to the annexation of parts of Germany into Poland after WW2. A conflict existed in NI up until the mid 1990s. Whatever side you support or none, it cant be argued that a major cause of conflict was state and societal sectarianism in NI akin to religious apartheid. This type of "troubles" has been a pattern of NE Irish history for 300 years. The British Army which does contain an underlying ugly ethos of racism, (as all ex colonial armies do) did not behave itself.

With this in mind the debate among ordinary citizens in the ROI is quite varied and balanced. There is animosity towards the British state, because the political situation means that
Britain still holds political control over part of its neighbouring Island. Nothing unusual there, same for Germany and Poland.


The debate in the Unionist community and in particular the loyalist community in particular is not as balanced: The spectre of Lundy hangs over anyone at odds with the inherited worldview which is extremely unfavourable not just to the ROI but also crucially to its citizens (an extension to the animosity held towards Roman Catholics in NI).
The fact that Religious anti-Catholicism has lended itself to actual sectarianism at social, political and state levels has never and is not seriously being addressed. Thus the animosity will continue, not really due to some ancient conflict but due to current sectarian attitudes in NI which would be more at home in the 18th century.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Surely the modern day mainland Europe itself is just one such scenario ?

Currently it's fashionable for everybody to hate the Germans,yet folk happily live each side of a land frontier slipping across to socialize and shop or simply exist without spluttering into their Cornflakes (In the manner of the OP !) at the mention of a WW1 or WW2 atrocity anniversary,of which there are a few.

The modern day Italians,Belgians,Dutch etc appear to manage reasonably well in this,with perhaps the Spanish being the most bolshie in relation to clinging on to the past and using it to influence present thinking ?

Given the vast numbers of people effected by the World Wars,it follows that significant numbers of the EU populace today are relations of those who were directly efected by the combatants ?

Theres a considerably larger gap between 1945 and now than there is between 1972, 2003 etc.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Theres a considerably larger gap between 1945 and now than there is between 1972, 2003 etc.

A counter I'd consider if twere centuries you referred to,however the events of WW2 did'nt neatly finish on VE Day.

The rebuilding of Europe post WW2 took decades and involved much hardship and deprivation on the European Population at large.

I dont see the "considerably larger gap" as the issue,but rather the mindsets which allowed the populations to return to normailty in short order.

T runner

AlekSmart wrote: »

Wow !...

How in Gods name could the fatal outcome of placing a bomb in a City Centre litter-bin be regarded as "Accidental"...or for that matter the act itself be described as merely "irresponsible" ?


One first has to accept the existance of this "Selective PR Campaign" in order to be susceptible to it.

The OP clearly regarded a Spirit FM RadioNews Piece on the 20th anniversary as being just that...I don't,and I'm heartened to see so many others of the same mind.

Reading Happyman42's post above,I'd be far more concerned at the success of "Selective PR Campaigns" to justify City Centre Bombing Campaigns.

Another long piece on the Warrington bombing today on The John Murray show....

It was heartbreaking stuff.....but if people are selective in which atrocities are remembered...then these victims are simply being used for political ends.

That is wrong. I cant remember any airtime at all being given to the Ballymurphy massacres on their 40th anniversity. This was part of an operation where 7000 Roman Catholics had to flee their homes..and no loyalists were targetted.

In 1973 250+ people were killed in the troubles. Taking rough proportions 80-90 of these were Catholic civilians murdered by BA or Loyalists.
(50% of BA killings were civilians, 85% of Loylaist killings were civilians)

I havent heard a single one of these 40th anniversity murders covered on Irish or British media this year. Not once.

Anyone else..anyone at all?

Remembering atrocities so they aren't tolerated again is not wrong. Remembering only the atrocities of one side to influence the prsesent by distorting the past
is very wrong.

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

A counter I'd consider if twere centuries you referred to,however the events of WW2 did'nt neatly finish on VE Day.

The rebuilding of Europe post WW2 took decades and involved much hardship and deprivation on the European Population at large.

I dont see the "considerably larger gap" as the issue,but rather the mindsets which allowed the populations to return to normailty in short order.

You're presuming all went back to normal. That wasn't the case in various parts of Europe. If, for instance, you think Russia is well regarded across all of central and Eastern Europe, you'd be mistaken. Why you need to find some justification for a notion of Irish exceptionalism escapes me.

Happyman42

AlekSmart wrote: »

Wow !...

How in Gods name could the fatal outcome of placing a bomb in a City Centre litter-bin be regarded as "Accidental"...or for that matter the act itself be described as merely "irresponsible" ?


One first has to accept the existance of this "Selective PR Campaign" in order to be susceptible to it.

The OP clearly regarded a Spirit FM RadioNews Piece on the 20th anniversary as being just that...I don't,and I'm heartened to see so many others of the same mind.

Reading Happyman42's post above,I'd be far more concerned at the success of "Selective PR Campaigns" to justify City Centre Bombing Campaigns.

What is it governments call the unintended victims of carpet bombing again???
I don't believe they were killed or targeted purposefully, therefore it was an accident as the result of an irresponsible placing of a bomb. Every killing in the North and beyond could have been avoided, everyone of them was needless.

It doesn't mean I condone it, support it or ever encouraged it, less of the amateur physco-analyitics please.

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What is it governments call the unintended victims of carpet bombing again???
I don't believe they were killed or targeted purposefully, therefore it was an accident as the result of an irresponsible placing of a bomb. Every killing in the North and beyond could have been avoided, everyone of them was needless.

It doesn't mean I condone it, support it or ever encouraged it, less of the amateur physco-analyitics please.

You use the words "accidental" and "irresponsible" to describe what happened. These words are political in themselves as they try to contextualise and trivialise the nature of what happened.

Let us take an example from a different situation. Say you are a medical professionsal and had morphine tablets which you obtained illegally from your workplace and you left them on a shelf in your house in reach of children beside a packet of smarties. Let us say the kids ate the morphine and died. Is that just "accidental" or "irresponsible"? Not a bloody chance, it is.

The morphine was obtained and intended for an illegal act not involving the children but it killed the children. Laughable to say such a scenario is "accidental" and "irresponsible". Now substitute the word "bomb" into that first sentence. The morphine may have been meant to relieve someone's pain but a bomb isn't meant to relieve anyone's pain.

djpbarry

T runner wrote: »

Another long piece on the Warrington bombing today on The John Murray show....

It was heartbreaking stuff.....but if people are selective in which atrocities are remembered...then these victims are simply being used for political ends.

That is wrong. I cant remember any airtime at all being given to the Ballymurphy massacres on their 40th anniversity.

The Ballymurphy Massacre was all over the news last year:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-19234527