Originally Posted by
melmothtw
Yes, my personal opinion is that there should not be a statute of limitations on murder, and the UK justice system agrees.
To answer your second question, no it is plainly not fair that one side gets an amnesty while the other does not, but that's the deal that the British government made to secure peace.
Well that should perhaps be changed. What about the perpetrators of Warrenpoint ? Or those c@@@s that kept blowing up the Europa Hotel, maiming hundreds. Or those that drove the car in to Oxford Street bus station ? And then blew it up, instantly killing 6 and maiming hundreds. I then had the pleasure of watching a squaddie shovel body parts and glass in to the back of a truck…aged 11, with my grandad. This is the sort of **** that these kids ( for that is what the majority of them were) had to put up with. Years later when I was dropping different young men off from the back of the Wessex they were sh@t scared. Given that a sizeable part of the population in those areas could quite happily have put a bullet in the back of their heads. So, we could go on and on about the various atrocities on both sides. And the endless cycles of revenge and mistrust.
However, in the interests of truth and reconciliation to convict an individual 30 + years after the event is frankly a nonsense. In much the same way as awarding compensation to those murderous bastards of the PIRA for wrongful arrest is a travesty of justice.
Amnesty for all. Or not at all.
And concur with all the previous about NI. Much prefer the present version with the sun roof open than the dark old days. Pretty sure that could have been achieved with an amnesty for all however. As opposed to the recent outbreak of one sided justice.