Payments to families of terrorist bombers would be perverse: former PSNI officer

Commissioner Ian Jeffers said that while he acknowledged the proposal “will be contentious,” he sees the value of a “recognition payment to those suggested in this paper in promoting reconciliation”.

On Tuesday, the Police Federation, the SEFF victims’ group and several unionist politicians all said that such a move would create the impression of an “equivalence” between those who committed terrorist atrocities and their innocent victims.

One of those who spoke out against the proposal was DUP MLA Emma Little Pengelly, who said “many victims and survivors will be deeply disappointed that the victims’ commissioner failed to take the opportunity to make clear that there is no equivalence between victim and victim maker”.

On Wednesday morning, Ms Little Pengelly again expressed her opposition to the proposal during a BBC interview.

She said she finds it “completely bizarre” that some people are reluctant to recognise the moral distinction between “the victim and the victim-maker”.

She said: “This is not a new principle – this is a principle that is acknowledged in civil and criminal law… it is universally acknowledged that there is a clear difference”.

Also on Wednesday, former senior PSNI officer Jon Burrows, writing on the afaircop.blog, said: “It would be perverse that if you are orphaned because your father was killed in a farming accident you get no lump sum payment, but if your father died blowing people up you do”.

Mr Burrows also said: “Thomas Begley who died whilst planting the Shankill Road bomb in 1993, was not a victim of the Troubles, he was a perpetrator.”

He added: “Of course the innocent families of dead terrorists are already quite rightly able to access the normal welfare support, in accordance with their individual needs.

“They would also benefit from more funding for counselling and support services to address Troubles related generational trauma. Such a proposal would benefit everyone who is affected here and it would be both positive and uncontentious”.

On Tuesday, the victims commissioner told the News Letter: “I know there will be some who find it difficult to accept the idea that all bereaved families should be included, regardless of who their deceased loved one was and I fully understand this challenge. But rather than using it as a reason to dismiss the idea of a recognition payment as a form of acknowledgement, it is now up to our politicians to consider that advice and engage in a conversation to find a way forward”.