General British politics discussion thread

Maybe I read too much into your post, but the statement below seemed to suggest that the only people who wanted to bring an end to endless picking at sores were those that support criminals

“there is no desire to move on except from those who support people likely to go to prison for the crimes they committed.”

It is a sop to military top-brass, one of the few solid rumps of Conservative support left.

I am simply of the opinion (and I have good friends disagree) that it is impossible to carry out endless investigations on 3,000+ murders. my issue is with the partisan position of the republic government. They should have themselves investigated or start with low hanging fruit by demanding the British government rescind the amnesty letters they gave to IRA members who are sitting MLAs

I would put them all behind bars if I could.

It’s not perfect but there won’t be a perfect. I guess we won’t agree on who was most guilty ie terrorists who planned for days to kill innocent people or soldiers who in a riot situation killed innocent people.

the simple solution is to treat everyone the same.

how do you feel about a government who launches a legal case on this but never raised a peep over republican terrorists getting letters guaranteeing they would never be prosecuted?

It’s already backfired a tad. The news media up north this morning is talking about the hypocrisy of Roi and what they need to investigate. i suppose every cloud, and all that

In only pushing for investigations north of the border

Terrorist organisations by their nature are rogue entities. A country's army is there to defend its people, not kill them. The standards applied to both groups should not be the same. There is a clear difference between the murder of innocent people by terrorist organisations and the murder of innocent people by the army of their very own country.

There is normally outcry when the army opens fire against protesters in any country; that it should happen in a country that is one of the world leaders is alarming and this subsequent attempt to sweep it under the carpet even more so.

This law has the potential to set a legal precedent where British army soldiers can shoot and kill British citizens who are protesting and then never be held accountable. Is that something you agree with?

I don't think the actions of terrorist organisations and the British army are comparable. I think it is a cynical move by the UK government to lump in the British army and let them off the hook. It is a very dangerous precedent.

You keep conflating the British army with terrorist organisations. Is this how you believe the British army should be seen legally, i.e. another terrorist organisation? If so, what kind of confidence or respect would that inspire in it as institution both inside and outside the UK?

Please address.the issue of my post before bringing in whataboutery and attempts at point scoring and gotchas. I am not arguing that the Irish government is holier than thou in this case; I do approve that is bringing attention to one issue which seems to be overlooked.

As for consequences for the Irish government if found to have interfered in NI, whatever the courts decide.

Which is perhaps the scariest thing about it. I've met plenty of English people who, unfortunately, have no idea of what goes on/went on in NI despite it being a part of their bloody country.

That's why it is actually more important than people realise and why I find it astounding that more of an issue isn't being made about it.

There is a massive difference between an agreement, signed by both sides and sponsored by outside actors, which sought to bring an end to the cycle of violence and tit-for-tat killings by drawing a line in the side and moving on.

There is a difference between that and the UK government unilaterally deciding that the UK army is now given a complete amnesty for anything it carried out. The army were supposed to be the peacekeepers, remember that they never declared it a war and did not treat IRA criminals as war criminals. The least the UK could have done is agreed to this in advance with the Irish government, and those in NI. They haven't done that and seemingly decided, that they (the army was acting on behalf of the state) are above the very laws that they expected others to obey.

That doesn't answer the question I asked at all.

You made an accusation, have you any evidence whatsoever to back that up?

And the "Network North" branding in the corner.

Is this just you trying to claim Leo threatened violence from dissident republicans again?

The prospect of having the DUP in the Dail is the best argument for voting No in a border poll ever.