21/11/2013 The View

Coming up: The time has come to think about putting a line set at

Good Friday in 1998 with respect to prosecutors, inquests and other

enquiries. He has provoked a storm of controversy with victims and

politicians, but is there merit in the Attorney General's proposals in

dealing with the past. The people who say they want truth do not want

to tell the truth. Tonight I will be talking to the victim 's' group and

a former senior RUC officer. We have talking to the victim 's' group and

added two new signings to Commentators' Corner, the journalist

Liam Clarke and the author Susan McKay. You can also follow us on

Twitter. It has been a week in which Northern Ireland's past has

dominated the present. The Attorney General's call for an end to the

Troubles prosecutions and public enquiries caused uproar. But is

there any merit in his proposals for dealing with the past. Martina Purdy

has been investigating the challenge of letting go and what happens if we

do not. This report contains flash photography.

The Good Friday Agreement was our road map out of conflict, but what

about the past? How do we escape that particular maze? Bring truth

and justice and acknowledgement to victims and we as a society can move

on. Looe we have to have a process in place that is all encompassing

and is victim and survivor centre. If we say and we find that one thing

to deal with the past? I do not think we will find it. We have to

find a genuine way of telling you about the past, not a way of seeking

vengeance, but to be honest about what happened. But what is the truth

and who is a victim? These issues continue to imprison as in the past

and threaten the health of our continue to imprison as in the past

society and our politics. It is cancerous because one group won the

truth, they want to know the British Government were as bad as the IRA,

that they did bad things. Other people want to make sure that the

IRA were the real baddies in this and the UDF were not good either. We

fight around those issues and we have thought about those issues

constantly. If we can get past that, both at an individual level

and at a commune level, then we could get on with things. Can we do

that? I do not know. Our politicians want to solve it in their way that

suits their constituency. You cannot do that. You can only solve this if

you solve it for everyone. Denis Bradley along with robbing a must

try to solve it, to end the piecemeal approach to the past, but

their report was overshadowed by rows. We are the victims. You cannot

intimidate me! So we never got the legacy commission they suggested as

an alternative to public enquiries, a body that would probe unresolved

cases, get information and still allow for the possibility of

justice. What is the solution? Myself and a few other people did a

major report five years ago, which would have been finished by now and

we would have moved towards this famous amnesty. The other thing

people tell lies around all the time either people who want an amnesty

keeps saying they do not want an keeps saying they do not want an

amnesty. The people who say they want truth do not want to tell the

truth. Even a hint of some kind of amnesty

for those who have killed as one means of getting to the truth is

controversial as the Attorney General found when he suggested not

an amnesty, but a new law that would end all prosecutions linked to the

Troubles. Despite what you might think from my organisation's game we

are opposed to blanket amnesty is. The fundamental tenet of

international human rights law is that victims should have access to

justice and that must be possible to allow us to proceed in Northern

Ireland. In many cases that is not going to be possible. But it must be

a possibility. Anything else would let down the victims. While most

victims oppose the Attorney General's suggestion, some former

RUC officers lorded it. One does have to consider the challenge that

for some victims they will die before they get justice and for us

to be dishonest about that and not deal with that, whatever that is in

whatever form, needs to be talked about. Indeed, truth has trumped

justice before in our peace process. In the search for the disappeared

were those who gave information are immune from prosecution. But even

then there are problems facing up to the past. People do not want to

engage for a variety of reasons. How far do you take somebody down. They

cannot give very practical answers. Some people say, we do not want to

go back there. Most agree the status quo cannot continue. There comes a

time when the denials, truth and lies will not cut the mustard.

People do not want vengeance, but they want an acceptance of what

happened and that it was wrong. What are the consequences of us not

facing up to our past? Unless we face up to our past in a

constructive and healthy way, we are destined to have a society which is

divided where there is violence around the edges and potential for

bad things to happen. As a human being it is impossible to draw a

line when you have suffered terrible hurt. Somebody who has been killed

will not come back and you cannot just forget about it. The issue is

whether the Haas Talks recommend the soft option or the harder option,

there is no pain-free option. Martina Purdy reporting. Let's hear

the thoughts of two men who have been deeply involved with dealing

with the legacy of the past stop Paul O'Connor, is there any merit in

what John Larkin has proposed? I Paul O'Connor, is there any merit in

not think there is. I think it is unfortunate in the way he released

his statement. We have dealt with a lot of families in the last 24 hours

who are deeply upset. They have not separated John Larkin the citizen

and his views from John liking the Attorney General and they believe

certain issues are not going to go ahead. I think the one thing about

what John Larkin has said is they are not proposals for dealing with

the past. He said it was a proposal to draw a line under it. We saw that

happen in Spain after the Civil War. It bubbled to the surface 60 years

later. You do not deal with it by drawing a line underneath it. Do you

see any merit in what he had to say? First of all I spent a 30 year

career chasing people and the rule of law is pre-eminent and without

that we do not have anything. We have spent all this time trying to

get the society back to that, a society based on laws. I think to

say to draw a line and walk away is contrary to that. The other issue is

practical. I do not think the Attorney General's proposals would

even stop what he is talking about. He is talking, for example, that

there would be a protection against libel for people who came out with

things from the past. What we end up his trial by television. We end up

with television programmes analysing various issues and making

allegations about people and it various issues and making

would be a festering boil that would continue to run and run. Unless we

solve the injury and the saw, we are not going to fix it. John Larkin

says he is making a logical, practical, pragmatic argument

because the chances of securing prosecutions are diminishing. Anyone

convicted of a terrorist offence would only serve a minimum amount of

time in prison. He says he is dealing with the realities of where

we are. There is some merit in discussing about how the criminal

justice system deals with our conflict. How do we deal with it in

terms of prosecutions and inquests and investigatory processes. ? We

are at that and investigatory processes. ? We

longer functioning. There is merit in having that discussion, but he is

saying, we are not going to have a discussion, we should shut it down

and close it down. Not only would we have trial by television, we would

have countless challenges in the courts, judicial reviews and appeals

to the Hugh Ash European Court of Human rights. Some half of the

families that have been bereaved have received reports, good or bad.

We are turning to the others and saying, you are not going to get

one. You may not be happy with how it is conducting itself, but it is

still an entity in existence. Is it not part of the difficulty that

people want the truth? You say John Larkin will prevent any discussion.

He is going to draw a line under prosecutions and enquiries, but he

is not going to stop a conversation about truth recovery. He is drawing

a line under investigation processes. Storytelling has a role,

but families need to know what story they are going to tell. What stories

can the family of Pat Finucane tell? Those families still do not

really know what happened. Is truth and injustice indistinguishable in

this process? Can you have one without the other? It is difficult

to have one without the other. Taking up the issue of story telling

is that different victims have radically different approaches.

Different victims have different stories. Some of them are true and

based on fact and some of them are not and have grown and have been

embellished over the years because of the process and the emotional

impact as they have gone through it. Storytelling is an element in this,

but the problem is finding the truth. As Denis Bradley said, some

of our people, including people in the security forces, in politics,

perhaps in organisations that were doing things, do not want the truth.

They will not commit to the truth. Why do you think John Larkin has

said what he has said now? I have no idea, it was unhelpful and at the

wrong time. It may well be linked to the discussions that he has had with

the talks. The Panorama programme has shown we have only found out

things because of an investigatory process. John Larkin has succeeded

in one thing, uniting the main political parties against him. The

Deputy First Minister said he should have kept his proposals private

within the Haas Talks. I do not believe he has stepped outside the

terms of reference he has. There was nothing to stop him from making a

political comment, albeit on legal matters, but I think there is a

review under way that has been undertaken by an expert and the

report will be made available to us as to what the role of the Attorney

General will be and this will feed into some of the thinking. I am not

sure anything other than an apolitical role is suitable for the

Attorney General. A lot of people will agree with that. I do not want

to take away the rights of any individual who has strong views on

matters to express them, but there are certain positions in society

where people have a self-denying ordinance in terms of making

political comment. The position of attorney general is an independent

position. Someone chat with the responsibility of advising, it might

be more appropriate if he had come to the executive. The thoughts of

Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson. We can hear more from our

guest. The John Larkin get it wrong, Naomi Long? First of all, I didn't

think it was his role, and I don't believe he did it in a particularly

sensitive way. His intervention was done without any intervention with

victims, without discussing done without any intervention with

perspectives. I think that was a mistake. I also think the substance

was wrong. I do not believe the general amnesty is acceptable. He

says it is not an amnesty. He says that, but if you are saying people

are immune from prosecution before a certain date, I think it is an

amnesty. It turned out a very questionable message. People still

engaged in violent acts may not be challenged. We have used limited

immunity from prosecution. It is a different prospect. Given the

torrent of criticism directed against him in the past 36 hours,

should he be considering his position as Attorney General? I

think that is a matter for John Larkin. I do think he has undermined

his credibility in his mishandling of the situation. It would've been a

curtsied to advise the executive that he was to intervene. I think

that misjudgement does call into question his judgement. I think to

suggest that can amnesty process has undermined his credibility. Alex

Attwood, do you think his credibility has been undermined? Do

you think you should consider his position? I think about support fit

terms and survivors. - - I think about survivors and fit terms. What

does John Larkin have to do? I think he has two act knowledge - - I think

he has to acknowledge that what he did, when he did and how we did it

has caused great hurt and offence to many, many people. In human terms,

he has to consider that situation. I think John Larkin and the Minister

responsible have to ensure that never again does Attorney general do

this kind of thing. His job is partly to give advice to the

Executive and partly to comment on other issues. He made it very clear

he did not mean to offend anybody. He is merely started a political

debate. He is a lawyer, a chief legal adviser. Highwood ferociously

defend his independence. - - I would ferociously defend his independence.

I think it was ill judged and ill timed. Isn't it the case that what

the attorney general has done is highlight, to the embarrassment of

many politicians, where they have failed to agree on a way forward on

an important part of policy? I think anybody who's been talking about an

amnesty will have Avenue closed down now. The wider victim sector has

ruled as out. With respect, John Larkin is absolutely clear, this is

not an amnesty. He said time and again. If you are not been to

prosecute people who have committed murder and serious crime, to me,

that is amnesty. It isn't. He said the crimes would remain on the

statute books. It is not about wiping them away. It is simply not

prosecuting people. So if you don't prosecute people, it may be

different to John Larkin, but for the wider public, it is an amnesty.

The victims have rejected it. Anybody who wants to bring up the

issue now is on difficult one. Some thick tomes have disagreed with it,

but others have said, actually, he has articulated their view. Somebody

on the radio said yesterday he does not want the people responsible for

the murder of his mother to be brought before the courts to be

prosecuted and sent to prison. He was very clear about that. You will

find there is a significant difference in victims, even within

farmers. By and large, the vast majority don't want to see people

that can't be prosecuted. Another thing John Larkin did get right, he

said it was almost focused entirely on their state. Dennis Bradley said

politicians need to be prepared to embrace a solution that serves the

wider community, not just that owns partisan constituencies. Do you

agree with that? There has to be aware of politicians representing

the broadest possible view. That is a very big challenge. I think there

is a need for us to see the whole process. The principles we establish

for dealing with the past, for example, I think need to be

underpinned. My problem with the proposal is it undermines the rule

of law and after that is unhelpful. I've met truth, justice and

reconciliation need to form part of that process. In the proper context,

it should be possible, like the families of the disappeared, where

they make choices. People might be able to explore different options.

It is important we look at the past in terms of how we try to heal those

differences. A lot of the time when we talk about victims issues, we use

those issues like weapons. Since this report has a lot of

well-received recommendations. Some have been overlooked. This is the

most important thing. The last two months have been characterised by

this very powerful messages and stories from victims across our

community. Every, every week, there that narrative. The last two days

has seen the issues of the past been front and centre in our discussions.

What we now have to do is gather ourselves as politicians, he'd what

the victims and survivors are saying, truth, justice and

accountability. If we do not take this moment, we were let down all

those people who have spoke so powerfully in the last 24 hours and

the last two weeks. Is that possible? The vast majority of

people are not going to get truth even if they have the opportunity to

tell the truth, Martin McGuinness would not tell all that he knew. We

had information held back. It is quite clear we will not get the

truth. Thank you all very much for joining us. Let's get the thoughts

of two new faces in Commentators' Corner tonight. Thank you for being

here. Susan, you have taken a keen interest in John liking in recent

months and years. You have written about it in a newspaper article

today. What did you make about his intervention? It was inappropriate,

tactless and very typical of the man. The way in which he intervened

has obscured the fact there is some truth in what he has said. There has

been hypocrisy amongst the politicians and their reaction to

what he said. Under the Good Friday Agreement we agreed to things which

made prosecutions extremely unlikely. We did destroy the

weapons, we did release prisoners who had only recently been put in

jail and we said people were only going to serve two years. We have

seen them trying to review cases in which prosecutions could be brought,

but they have only had two successful prosecutions, so there is

some truth in what he said. It is interesting in that there was a

furore over the word amnesty, very similar to the full Rory over the

Bradley report and repayment. There is going to have to be some degree

of immunity from prosecution. Were you surprised it was such a

political furore? No, but I do not think we are getting the final

reactions, we are getting knee jerk reactions. I do not think this idea

of a stay on prosecutions will disappear off the agenda. I think

there were other proposals which have got swept aside which he did

not suggest drawing a line under. He suggested a much enhanced release of

Government documents to victims and historians. That was tied to the

idea of immunity from prosecution because you could not release

documents implicating people in crimes if they were going to be

prosecuted. It would prejudice the trial. He suggested the suspension

of civil actions and protection from libel. That has been missed on this

first day and that is wrong. Do you think he will keep his job? No big

political hitters are calling for his resignation. Nobody in the

studio was doing that night. He weathered a similar storm last year

when he weighed in in a ridiculous way into the abortion debate, so he

will probably weather it. But a lot of viewers will have watched the

excellent Panorama programme and they will be wondering can we afford

to draw a line under the past when we do not know the true history of

the conflict at all? You saw a part of that programme and it is part of

the wider debate we are discussing tonight. It is the uncovering of the

past. And the soldiers would not admit to specific incidents because

they would be prosecuted, so that shows the trade-off between justice

and truth. They said a lot. Yes, they did, but not individually. On

the question of John liking I think his contract comes up next May and I

do not think he will be back. Do you think it was part of a wider

choreography was it just an individual? He is not lacking in

self-confidence in his capacity to put his views out there to the

public. It is impossible to know, but he is representing a point of

view which is shared by former members of the special Branch who

have a vested interest in keeping things secret. Who knows? He

certainly has a constituency. There are spirited theorists who see the

hand of Richard Haass in this and then there are others who say, do

not be ridiculous, this is him on his own. I think he put the cat

amongst the pigeons and it was his idea of a

amongst the pigeons and it was his debate, but I do not think he was

acting under anyone else. Let's take a look at some of the comments that

have come in over the past week. This comes from John Collins. Nobody

speaks English more beautifully than Michael D Higgins. I am sure he will

leave the rest of them speechless. Coming from Northern Ireland I do

not think I can criticise any of this. It is remarkable those three

people should have died on the same day. I suppose JFK did get shot live

on television and the others did not. It is good to have you on the

programme. Time for our inside view from the man on the Hill. I am

bored, I need a job that is fun, like a Methodist minister. Paul Paul

Flowers. The only job he can do now is move pronto. Of course, he could

become our Attorney General. John Larkin said he needed opposition,

then he eventually got one. And we have got a brand-new tourist

attraction. A caravan. What celebrity is going to be next? They

need a sign up there, no Pope here. Hang on, I think they have got that

covered. Hey, Nelson, can you recommend a builder? That is it from

us this week. Join us for a live coverage of the DUP conference on

Saturday at 12. I will be back on Sunday at 11:35am. From all of us,

thank you for watching and have a good night.