blood money

[JohnD]

You said

"government paying dead terrorists families 12k for killing innocent people." "

which is a lie.

You obviously aren't going to admit that (1) the government isn't paying it (2) it is not a government policy but a suggestion by two eminent churchmen (3) There is no suggestion of making a payment for killing

so it is a waste of time continuing with you.

Your abuse and insults are also unhelpful

 

[namsag]

So if this proposal goes through and the government is not paying who is paying.?
So when the begley family get 12k that will be a direct result of there terrorist son killing himself while killing 9 people.
So that would mean even in your eyes that the government is paying 12k to a family of a killer of innocent people.
The buck not only stops here but it also starts there so if the government instigate the discussion then impliment the findings . Then its a sh#te goverment policy

 

[Steve69the69Gas]

I listened to Radio 2's debate on this last week.
It quite categorically stated that the proposal (made by whoever- I could't give a **** who) said that victims families would receive the monies.
Most are obviously dead or maimed.
These 'victims' INCLUDE the families of the terrorist. WTF- why should they get a bean?

I heard it with my own ears, & I'm not completely stupid

 

[vinty]

If someone posts a lie on here, I have no compunction in pointing it out.

I have no interest in your attempts to move away from that point.


BTW I don't know what you think your beloved Labour goverment has done. I don't have one. And it isn't relevant to this thread.

This is a lie as well

Yet another example of our shi#e government paying dead terrorists families 12k for killing innocent people. You could not make it up

Two lies, in fact

The Eames Bradley report was commissioned by the Government, one of their recommendations is that ALL the victims of the Ulster conflict should receive a £12,000 payment, this would include I.R.A. and Loyalist Terrorists, the government is going to consider this proposal, is what i have just written a lie also.

You have taken my comments out of context , and quoted me selectively which is a bit dishonest of you, i have pointed out in my posts that these are proposals, i assumed that anyone reading the original post would have aquainted them selves with all the facts so that they could make an informed comment. You on the other hand appeared to be under the illusion that these proposals were in fact law, it wasn't until someone pointed out that they were proposals that the penny finally dropped.

When i used the word 'Bonus' i was being sarcastic but i stand by my point that giving taxpayers money is wrong.

 

[vinty]

You said

"government paying dead terrorists families 12k for killing innocent people." "

which is a lie.

You obviously aren't going to admit that (1) the government isn't paying it (2) it is not a government policy but a suggestion by two eminent churchmen (3) There is no suggestion of making a payment for killing

so it is a waste of time continuing with you.

Your abuse and insults are also unhelpful

(1) If these proposals are accepted then the Government will be paying(2)These 2 eminent churchmen have incorporated this 'suggestion' in there report so there is every chance it could be-come law(3) In your earlier posts you said that these proposed payments were 'compensation' for loss, now you are saying there are no proposed payments for loss, can't you make your mind up.

 

[JohnD]

now you are saying there are no proposed payments for loss

show me

When i used the word 'Bonus' i was being sarcastic

so when you say something untrue, you say it's out of sacrasm?

 

[vinty]

now you are saying there are no proposed payments for loss

show me

When i used the word 'Bonus' i was being sarcastic

so when you say something untrue, you say it's out of sacrasm?

If you look at your earlier posts you say that the proposed payments are 'compensation' you now say there are no proposed payments for killing, but if you give money to the families of terrorists who have died while murdering other people that is in effect a payment from the government for murder.

As for my use of the word bonus, sarcasm doesn't mean untrue it is as valid a description of this proposal as 'compensation' to be eligible for compensation doesn't someone have to be liable for your injury or injustice?so that would mean that the terrorist is no longer a perpertrator but a victim. So by paying compensation the government is admitting liability for I.R.A. atrocities, so if you think what i am saying is crazy as i have said before these proposals were not my idea.

A Bonus is a reward for services rendered, so if a terrorist hadn't killed himself while engaged in a terrorist act his family would not be eligible for a payment . So if you want to call these proposed payments 'compensation' you will have to concede that this Labour government is guilty of rewarding terrorism.