Northern Ireland 2125?

It is only YOU who holds the state to the same standards as a paramilitary organisation.
Stop deflecting and deal with the state's actions.

Here they are only now owning up and compensating one of the families they killed a child of - 56 years ago

Truth drips slowly from the British state.

*Saying it also drips slowly from - enter country or organisation you wish to use to deflect here - does not excuse that.

The boy would have been forgotten had it not been for the persistence of the family just as the Bloody Sunday families persisted.

Fact is the British state resists accountability.

That’s why supporting victims is important.

As sick as it gets.

Always looking to vindicate or excuse or handwave away.

The Irish are made of strong stuff and will persist.

The problem was the licence the BA were given when on Irish soil.
And Unionism is too wilfully arrogant to see that if it suits the British, Unionists will be treated the same and have been treated the same.

Why? Because the British establishment don't give two hoots about you or your nationalist. republican, agnostic or otherwise neighbour.

If you analyse what most of Bryson's activism and complaining is about, or stems from, it is that - the outworking's of British indifference and lack of care for loyal or disloyal Irish people however they identify.

PC shot dead responding to demonstration at the Libyan Embassy in London - next day or week the British Army (not the police) open up wantonly on a crowd of UK demonstrators and kill 14 and maim many others, then they cover it up and whitewash it for 40 or so years.

Think that would happen in Great Britain?

Of course it never would. You only do that where you don't care and where you know there will be no real consequences because your core electorate don't care all that much either.

How many times Unionism needs that demonstrated to them is the question.

There were no fatalities at the vast majority of riots in N.Ireland, despite many petrol bombs etc being thrown at the security forces

I’m sure that comforts the many families affected by state and state sponsored violence.

Didn’t read beyond your opening and familiar apologist nonsense tbh.

…and it's 'look over there rather than confront state and state sponsored violence head on.

* if some of the many who killed people, killed when they knew they 'had an alternative' then that is inordinately a more damming criticism.
I would hope anyone who kills, feels there is no alternative. It's sadist level stuff to be killing when you have a choice.

Did the various state actors who killed have an alternative Francis?

There are many many instances where families claim the BA, UDR, RUC, B-Specials could have arrested people but chose to kill instead.

If the soldiers who did that, had an alternative, but killed instead, what does that tell you?

I long ago accepted that for many, they believed (doesn't matter what you or I believed) they were at war. Some, if not all the British, believed they were too. Not a conventional war, but war all the same.
In any war, people do horrendous things. Fact of life tragically.

Every police force and security force around the world has made mistakes and killed people, our own here in the republic included.

Anyway, stop diverting: back to the point, interesting now that you are calling the people behind the torture and murder of Jean McConville, the Le Mons restaurant bombing, the Guildford pub bombing, Enniskillen, Bloody Friday, Claudy, Kingsmill etc all sadists. Those were all planned, were all pre-meditated. And there was an alternative. All pre-meditated murders are wrong.

Underpants? Never saw Union Jack underpants, but few can have failed to notice the tricolour used as a balaclava. As you say, and I quote, "Nobody would object to it (union flag) though in it's rightful place as the flag of a country", then to be consistent that means you object to the Kneecap man wearing a tricolour balaclava. Or it it a case of you making rules for one side again but the rules do not apply to the other side?

I could not be bothered googling to see if there is such a thing as union jack underpants. I have been to N.I., Scotland, Wales and England many times, including many times in shops there, and I have never seen any, and I have never seen any on the media / tv / newspapers etc either. I could not care less if they exist or not: you may be concerned about the colour of peoples underpants, I am not.

To be consistent surely if you object to someone wearing union jack underpants (I do not know if anyone even done that in public), it means you object to the middle aged Kneecap man wearing a tricolour balaclava in public to taunt?

(people waving flags in N.I. can be perceived as taunting).

Or it it a case of you making rules for one side again but the rules do not apply to the other side?

That is not what you said and implied. You wrote: "Take the Union Jack. Has connotations when used as the flag of Loyalist supremacy, far right bootboys or little Englanders or as underpants and beach towels etc."

You then wrote "Nobody would object to it though in it's rightful place as the flag of a country."

Now, we do know you and many other Republicans (you are a follower of SF after all) do object to the Union Flag wherever you see it on the island of Ireland : some even call it the butchers apron, even though St. Patricks Saltire is incorporated in it to include N. Ireland.

If you think some imaginary person wearing union jack underpants in private has connotations that some people would object to, then surely the man in Kneecap wearing a tricolour Balaclava to taunt has connotations that people would rightfully object to?

Or it it a case of you making rules for one side again but the rules do not apply to the other side?

When you say you do not object to ity, does that mean you would not mind it (a Union flag) being flown from government buildings in N.I. as often as say the tricolour is flown here from certain buildings ( 7 days a week)? In both jurisdictions, the flag would be the flag of the government / jurisdiction that pays social welfare, hospitals etc and collects taxes.

Interesting you do not mind a Republican in a tricolour balaclava. If there was a Loyalist band called the Butchers and one of them wore a union flag type balaclava, would you shrug your shoulders and say "I do not object to it" as well?

Nothing to do with a pathetic victory for either belligerent Unionism or belligerent Republicanism, stop diverting.

Just exposing your hypocracy yet again. As a supporter of S.F., you hate the Union Flag, and make a comment about it being the flag of Loyalist supremacy, far right bootboys or little Englanders or as underpants etc. Thats ok, it is a democracy and you can have whatever opinions you want. But then you see nothing wrong with the man from Kneecap using a tricolour balaclava.

Yet another case of you making rules for one side but the rules do not apply to the other side.

It just further diminishes your credibility.