Another craven action from GB

In 1962 I visited the town of Wurzburg in Germany as a hitchhiker and youth hosteller. It was a pretty town with an interesting mix of architecture. I liked it. 40 years later I revisited the town and this time took the time to look around the museum. What I missed the first time because I was too impecunious to afford the admission was the quite shocking history of the last few months of WWII. Wurzburg was carpet-bombed by us and almost obliterated. Two models of the city, before and after, illustrated the tale. About 90% of the town was destryoyed, including the hospital.

Well, after the war the Germans rolled up their sleeves and rebuilt their towns, much as they were before this wanton destruction. I saw other examples on this trip through parts of Germany. If there have been cries for compensation for the victims then I have not heard them, and certainly they have not been reported in this country. Terrible things happen during war, but once the damage has been done, the only sensible thing to do is to rebuild your life.

However we now live in a compensation culture. No victim is allowed to get on with life unless they have been adequately compensated - even if it takes many years.

The victims of IRA bombings are innocent victims and I feel sorry for them. At the same time I have to ask what really can be done? The atrocity has happened. That fact won't be changed. Compensation can never make true amends.

In any case the compensation chasers end up with a distorted view. The men who detonated the bombs are to blame, but they have no money, the Americans who donated money to fill IRA coffers may have some blame but we don't know who they are, the Czechs who manufactured the semtex may also be blamed but they probably don't have deep pockets, but the people who sold the semtex to the IRA, the Libyan Government, apparently have lots of money, so maybe they should compensate the victims.

Into this moral morass steps one G. Brown. His first view, that nothing could or should be done about compensation was probably the correct one. It is not popular, it is not nice, but it is a realistic and defensible political position. Any leader worth his mettle would take this position in the best interests of the state.

But we unfortunately have a Prime Minister who will stoop to any craven political ploy to earn short term gain - in this case to get the Libyan situation off his back. Promises are made which cannot be kept and the victims will have their hopes temporarily raised only to see them slowly wither over time.