Denis Bradley still backs cash for Troubles victims’ relatives
Tuesday, 4 August 2009
One of the proposers of the controversial Eames-Bradley Report payment of £12,000 for every death in the Northern Ireland Troubles has said he would fight on for the payment to be made.
Denis Bradley, co-chair with Lord Eames of the Consultative Group on the Past which made the proposals, is still behind the idea despite the former Church of Ireland primate having since admitted it may have been a mistake to propose the payment.
Secretary of State Shaun Woodward has ruled out such a payment for every life lost — whether innocent civilian, soldier, policeman or terrorist — saying the time was not right for such a recognition payment.
But Mr Bradley, former vice-chairman of the Policing Board, said: “I would still fight very strongly for the recognition payment. We recommended the payment not because it came into our heads but because it came from some of the relatives' heads.
“It is the voice of the voiceless and I will continue to speak on their behalf.”
He admitted a payment was a “crude instrument” but said 30 or 40 years of violence had also been crude.
“This is some kind of acknowledgement and those who don't want to take it, don't have to take it, no-one is going to force it down their throats.”
And Mr Bradley told a public meeting on the Eames-Bradley report, held in St Mary's University College on the Falls Road as part of the West Belfast Festival yesterday, that there had been many reasons why the payment recommendation had been made.
“We recommended it because we thought it was the right thing to do. We recommended it because the Irish government had already done it for 333 people who were killed.
“If the conflict was inherently a dispute about Britishness and Irishness and the Irish had already done this, it would seem to us to be an injustice for it not to happen to people who happened to live in the six counties,” he said.
They had also recommended it because compensation payment had been “terribly badly mismanaged”.
Political parties are currently engaged in a consultation process on the report set up by Mr Woodward and Mr Bradley urged people to let the parties know their opinions before the closing date of October.
Politicians who spoke out saying they knew what victims wanted needed to be careful, he said, because victims were not a homogeneous group.
Some were looking for one thing, others for something else.
“Some are looking for justice and want to see someone in the dock. Others are not looking for justice, all they are looking for is the truth — what happened and why it happened,” he said. “There are some people who are looking for neither justice or truth and just want it to be left alone.”
Victims were also not just single people, whole communities had been victimised and the whole of society had a legacy it had to deal with, he said.
- Text Size

Photosales
niJobfinder
niCarfinder
Home Delivery
Propertynews














As the elder brother of an innocent victim of the troubles who was shot directly or indirectly, by the army in 1971, I find Denis Bradley's insistence on the concept of blood money insufferable. I fail to comprehend on what grounds he has come to appoint himself as the spokesman for all of the three and a half thousand individuals and more, who have died as a result of the troubles. While his views might echo those of certain family members of victims, it is beyond my comprehension why someone like he continues to pontificate on what should or should not be done in terms of financial remuneration using trite billboard jargon when he comes out with statements like "It is the voice of the voiceless and I will continue to speak on their behalf. What on earth does this mean?
No matter the degree of euphemism the arguments for such payments may be dressed up in, they would be nothing more than what they actually are - blood money, and would merely add insult to injury!
Posted by P.J.McGavigan | 04.08.09, 21:00 GMT
To equate the death of a terrorist with the murder of a policeman or soldier attempting to protect citizens, or of innocent members of the public, Protestant or Catholic is obscene.
Take for example, Thomas Begley, killed by his own bomb as he murdered innocents. A payment to his family for that? And there are many more on both sides.
Bradley has lost touch with common decency.
Posted by spud | 04.08.09, 11:27 GMT
As Bradley admits 'Some were looking for one thing, others for something else'. How about he makes recommendations based on the majority's feelings, so representing the 'voice of the voiceless'? But ensure that he informs each of the type of 'victim' that he 'recognises' for instance, recognizing the 'victim' who leaves his home one morning with the intention to massacre the innocent. Perhaps then he will reflect the true horror of what he proposes?
Posted by Bemused | 04.08.09, 10:59 GMT
This money would be better spent investigating and finding the murderers of innocent victims over the last 40 years who are still living in our communities. It makes me sick ! ! ! I know a family who know who killed their son and they are still about in the community and what is happening is that they are being bribed with is this petty amount of money to let sleeping dogs lie. It is not right, no other country in the world would pay the innocent victims for silence and closure !!!!
Posted by gilly | 04.08.09, 09:32 GMT
the eames bradley consultive group was mistimed a failure and a total nonsense denis bradley was quoted in the newspaper recently as saying that the past was costing the country a fortune (his words not mine ),,,the bottom line is the people who are involved in the various quangos we have are part of what i call )the post troubles gravy train ,,a absolute farce ,,but very well paid work
Posted by hg | 04.08.09, 08:04 GMT