UK Taxpayer Compensation for Terrorists: A Dangerous Precedent

[Social Media]

 

The notion that former terrorists and their sympathizers might qualify for taxpayer-funded compensation is both alarming and unjust. This controversy reignited in 2023 when parliament blocked attempts that would have enabled figures like Gerry Adams and other IRA sympathizers to claim compensation for wrongful arrest. Adams, the former Sinn Fein leader, was interned in the early 1970s under special powers at the outset of the Troubles. However, the technicality that the warrant was signed by a junior minister rather than the Secretary of State led the Supreme Court in 2020 to quash his conviction for attempting to escape prison.

 

This legal technicality, despite being a minor oversight in procedure, has now become a point of contention. For decades, governments upheld that custody orders issued by junior ministers were valid. The High Court in Belfast, however, ruled that Adams was wrongly denied compensation, prompting a parliamentary amendment to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill to prevent compensation claims based on these technicalities.

 

While this amendment seemed to resolve the issue, the Government's recent decision to accept the High Court's judgment and use the Human Rights Act 1998 to make a “Remedial Order” has reopened the door for compensation claims. This move has been criticized as “inexplicable” by a Policy Exchange paper signed by 16 eminent peers. The criticism arises from viewing the situation through a purely legalistic human rights lens rather than considering the broader implications of justice and sensibility.

 

This decision could potentially allow hundreds of former terrorists and sympathizers to seek compensation, a prospect that many find outrageous. The idea of compensating someone labeled in the House of Lords as the “godfather of terrorism” due to a legal technicality is incomprehensible to many.

 

Sir Keir Starmer, a trained human rights lawyer, faces intense scrutiny over this issue. His inclination to prioritize legal technicalities over public sentiment and justice has led to accusations of being out of touch with public opinion. However, bowing to pressure Starmer says government will 'look at every conceivable way' to stop Gerry Adams and any other terrorists payout.

 

In this context, the call to drop this unconstitutional measure is not just about legal interpretation but about maintaining the integrity of justice and the sentiment that those involved in terrorism should not be rewarded with taxpayer money. This situation underscores the importance of balancing legal frameworks with moral and societal expectations, ensuring that justice is not only served in letter but also in spirit.

 

Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-01-17

 

 

[newbee2022]

4 hours ago, Social Media said:

accept the High Court's judgment and use the Human Rights Act 1998

So, what is wrong? 

Reject the law and High Court decision just because some don't like it? 

[JonnyF]

Labour have long been friends with terrorists like Adams.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer pushed hard to get his chum some cash. 

 

[Thingamabob]

2 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

Freeze the pensioners reward the terrorists all part of Sir idiot Keir's plan to end the NHS crisis once and for all ,

 

Adams only deserves a bullet  🤔

To describe Starmer as an idiot is fair enough, but I would say calling him a dangerous idiot would be even more accurate.

[goldenbrwn1]

He’s reversed the decision but fcs surely it doesn’t take a genius to figure this will not go down well with the UK populace! He’s either really thick, dangerous or both. I think whoever is advising him (inner circle) know he’s brown bread and realise for Labour to ever have a chance of staying in power, he and a few others has to go.

[roquefort]

27 minutes ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

He’s reversed the decision but fcs surely it doesn’t take a genius to figure this will not go down well with the UK populace! He’s either really thick, dangerous or both. I think whoever is advising him (inner circle) know he’s brown bread and realise for Labour to ever have a chance of staying in power, he and a few others has to go.

Agreed....but to replace them with what? I don't see any shining lights on the Labour front bench.

[James105]

27 minutes ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

He’s reversed the decision but fcs surely it doesn’t take a genius to figure this will not go down well with the UK populace! He’s either really thick, dangerous or both. I think whoever is advising him (inner circle) know he’s brown bread and realise for Labour to ever have a chance of staying in power, he and a few others has to go.

 

He simply hates the UK and it's citizens.  I've no idea what his end goal is but if civil war and destruction of the UK is the goal then he is certainly on the right track to doing so.  He wakes up every single day with a goal of finding some new way to anger UK citizens and every day he is achieving that goal.   

[Captain Flack]

Some troll posts promoting violence have been removed.

[Patong2]

A fair and reasonable government would ensure the compensation claims from the Post Office scandal should be paid

out long before any consideration of a claim by this terrorist.

 

British Justice was the paragon standard that the rest of the world aspired to.

The lawyers, the consultant lawyers and the executives and investigative staff of the Post Office and Royal Mail has besmirched the reputation of the entire legal system.

 

This is the issue that needs to be finalised now, not some technical issue with a signature.

[Neeranam]

Gerry Adams was not a terrorist.