Pls comment on the "Times" O' Loan RUC/Collusion r

[subaculture]

This thread is about some dimwits doing cheap Brit bashing. '

The topic of this thread isnt Brit bashing.. its to comment here and respond via the times blog to an article highlighted on their front page which excuses collusion and state sponsored murder.

What makes the journo and you think that all those murdered with RUC/PNSI collusion were guilty of any crime? Many were just innocent Catholics in the wrong place at the wrong time or Protestants whom they had a grudge against?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comme...at_about_t.htm

[cyberianpan]

This thread is about some dimwits doing cheap Brit bashing. '

The topic of this thread isnt Brit bashing.. its to comment here and respond via the times blog to an article highlighted on their front page which excuses collusion and state sponsored murder.

What makes the journo and you think that all those murdered with RUC/PNSI collusion were guilty of any crime? Many were just innocent Catholics in the wrong place at the wrong time or Protestants whom they had a grudge against?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comme...at_about_t.htm

I don't think that all those murdered were "guilty", nor if any of them were that they deserved murder. However as Fink has pointed out SF/IRA got off scot free so by symetry RUC get off scot free. This is a horrible, horrible precedent. Murder is a deeply evil crime but seems like the game is that murders get rewarded... (and at that SF/IRA got a gretaer reward).

Any amateur debated could have made this point, linking it to the London Times is pointless.

cYp

[subaculture]

Any amateur debated could have made this point, linking it to the London Times is pointless.

Like the police, the press and media should also be accountable to the public and their actions and words through comment and response. The link on the first post is made to facilitate that.

[subaculture]

The Times Comment Editor, Daniel Finkelstein responds to blog entry critics.



Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. I am in favour of the rule of law. Without it you are lost. I do not believe people (the RUC, anybody) can overturn the rule of law. So I understand those who are outraged by my remarks.

Except for this:

I lost the argument. The rule of law WAS overturned. We decided to treat murders as if they weren't murders and murderers as if they were statesmen. I didn't decide this, we did. We paid this price for peace. And we can't unpay it - wishing we hadn't done it or apply to one group of corrupt murderers involved in the conflict a law we haven't applied to others. So those people who are standing on their high horse and accusing me of letting off crooks - I ask you to consider whether you haven't approved of just that in the case of the IRA and loyalist paramilitaries. And having let, for instance, the loyalist paramilitaries off the hook we can't really do different for the peole who let them do it.

I wish we were in the world where the pure rule of law applied and your moralising meant something. Because for years that was was my tune, my moralising. And I was defeated. People decided peace was more important.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/comme....html#comments