Martin Galvin last week in a letter to the Irish News responded to the views of Denis Bradley on the British state's legacy plans. 

A chara,

Denis Bradley admits Britain's latest legacy gambit is "a sellout of the Stormont House Agreement", incompatible with European Law, and designed to cut-off investigations into crown force killings that could foreshadow prosecutions. He says Britain's motivation "probably stinks." Why imagine nationalists could "work on and improve" these proposals, instead of being further worked over by Westminster?

Denis thinks "there is enough sense within the British system" to know a "hierarchy" between British troopers and others responsible for deaths, "will not stand up judicially or politically". What facts justify such wishful thinking?

During the conflict, British officials repeated platitudes about "the rule of law" or "murder is murder etc." Meanwhile rules, laws, or rights to life could be ignored by British crown forces killing nationalists.

Nationalists witnessed mass murders like the Ballymurphy Massacre or Bloody Sunday. They saw Britain's hidden hand and expertise behind the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. Children were killed with plastic bullets. Collusion explained how loyalists moved freely through heavily patrolled nationalist areas to murder, while "no stone unturned" became a metaphor for burying evidence.

Only a literal handful of British troopers and Royal Ulster Constabulary were charged with these murders. Neither Britain's judicial nor political system seemed troubled by any "hierarchy of victims," even gifting an undeclared, de facto immunity to British forces.

Campaigners overcame denials, delays and the passing of many victims' relatives to get a Saville Inquiry, then a Ballymurphy Inquest.

They won landmark rulings in the European Court on Human Rights, requiring public and independent investigations into state killings. They campaigned for agreements, like Stormont House, to make Britain comply with European law.

This plan seems like a gimmick to close almost 2,000 unsolved cases and stop them from ever being re-opened. Cases would be reviewed by what the British deem an "independent body". Only where it saw "new compelling evidence and a realistic prospect of a prosecution", would they investigate. All other cases get permanently blocked from investigations.

How do you uncover "new compelling evidence" without any investigation? How do you "reinvestigate" cases never before investigated ? After Boris Johnson's Tories devise a legacy plan that " probably stinks", should we not expect their panel appointments to add to the stench of British injustice?

Slan,

Martin Galvin


Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.

New Decade Same Legacy Injustice

Martin Galvin last week in a letter to the Irish News responded to the views of Denis Bradley on the British state's legacy plans. 

A chara,

Denis Bradley admits Britain's latest legacy gambit is "a sellout of the Stormont House Agreement", incompatible with European Law, and designed to cut-off investigations into crown force killings that could foreshadow prosecutions. He says Britain's motivation "probably stinks." Why imagine nationalists could "work on and improve" these proposals, instead of being further worked over by Westminster?

Denis thinks "there is enough sense within the British system" to know a "hierarchy" between British troopers and others responsible for deaths, "will not stand up judicially or politically". What facts justify such wishful thinking?

During the conflict, British officials repeated platitudes about "the rule of law" or "murder is murder etc." Meanwhile rules, laws, or rights to life could be ignored by British crown forces killing nationalists.

Nationalists witnessed mass murders like the Ballymurphy Massacre or Bloody Sunday. They saw Britain's hidden hand and expertise behind the Dublin-Monaghan bombings. Children were killed with plastic bullets. Collusion explained how loyalists moved freely through heavily patrolled nationalist areas to murder, while "no stone unturned" became a metaphor for burying evidence.

Only a literal handful of British troopers and Royal Ulster Constabulary were charged with these murders. Neither Britain's judicial nor political system seemed troubled by any "hierarchy of victims," even gifting an undeclared, de facto immunity to British forces.

Campaigners overcame denials, delays and the passing of many victims' relatives to get a Saville Inquiry, then a Ballymurphy Inquest.

They won landmark rulings in the European Court on Human Rights, requiring public and independent investigations into state killings. They campaigned for agreements, like Stormont House, to make Britain comply with European law.

This plan seems like a gimmick to close almost 2,000 unsolved cases and stop them from ever being re-opened. Cases would be reviewed by what the British deem an "independent body". Only where it saw "new compelling evidence and a realistic prospect of a prosecution", would they investigate. All other cases get permanently blocked from investigations.

How do you uncover "new compelling evidence" without any investigation? How do you "reinvestigate" cases never before investigated ? After Boris Johnson's Tories devise a legacy plan that " probably stinks", should we not expect their panel appointments to add to the stench of British injustice?

Slan,

Martin Galvin


Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.

No comments