Time to push back when Government repeats a “half-true” legacy slogan
Government touting Legacy as unlawful is a half-truth being repeated so often that it risks hardening into “common knowledge”. Help stop that now.
The Government line is simple, sticky, and designed for repetition:
“The Legacy Act was ruled unlawful by the courts and delivered no real protections to veterans.”
If you keep arguing inside that sentence, you lose.
Not because you’re wrong, but because repetition is doing the persuading.
There’s a well-documented effect here: repeated claims start to feel true simply because they’re familiar (the “illusory truth effect”).
So the job is not to “win the debate”. It’s to reset the public’s memory with a cleaner, better-sourced refrain.
Step 1: Stop amplifying their slogan
Don’t quote their line in full and then “debunk” it. That merely republishes it.
Do this instead:
Lead with your facts
Mention their claim briefly
End by repeating your facts again
This is the “truth sandwich”.
It works because it denies the false frame the oxygen of repetition.
Step 2: Use three facts that don’t wobble
Build your pushback around verifiable facts from Hansard and official documentation, not opinion.
Fact 1: The courts did not wipe out the whole Act.
Some provisions were found incompatible — especially around conditional immunity. (Judiciary NI)
Fact 2: The Government abandoned its appeal on the immunity incompatibility point in July 2024.
That’s not an interpretation. It is recorded in official statements and repeated later in the Commons debate. (Hansard)
Fact 3: Conditional immunity is not operating.
The ICRIR itself says conditional immunity was disapplied after Dillon, and that it will not consider requests for it (because the Government dropped its appeal on that area). (icrir.independent-inquiry.uk)
Those three facts are enough to puncture the rhetorical move.
Step 3: Repeat your refrain, not theirs
Here is the counter-line you want veterans, families, MPs, and journalists to hear every time:
“Some provisions were found incompatible — especially immunity. The Government abandoned the immunity appeal in July 2024. And the ICRIR says conditional immunity is not operating. The public deserves clarity about what protections will replace it.” (The Guardian)
That is short, factual, and hard to fact-check away.
Step 4: Frame the issue as national security + justice, not “impunity”
Your opponents will try to trap you in a crude binary: either you support endless litigation, or you want a free pass for war crimes.
Reject that framing every time:
Not impunity: war crimes must be investigated and prosecuted where warranted.
Not lawfare theatre: leaking and selective disclosure damage due process, morale, and operational security.
Yes to fair process: clear thresholds, proportionality, protected tradecraft, and political responsibility up the chain of command.
You can say this without conceding an inch on accountability.
Step 5: Argue like a coroner (should) — build an evidence ladder
A strong counter-narrative is not a hotter slogan. It’s a record.
When you publish, speak, or brief, make it routine to cite:
Hansard (what Ministers said, and when) (Hansard)
The NI judiciary judgment summaries (what the court actually held) (Judiciary NI)
The ICRIR’s own FAQ (what is actually happening in practice) (icrir.independent-inquiry.uk)
The UK Supreme Court case page (what the current appeal is actually about) (Supreme Court)
This does two things:
It makes you credible to the “middle” who hate culture-war shouting.
It forces journalists to handle your claims carefully, because you’ve done their homework.
Step 6: Use prepared “drop-ins” for different formats
30-second broadcast answer
“The courts did not strike down the whole Legacy Act — they found some provisions incompatible, especially around immunity. The Government then abandoned the immunity appeal in July 2024, and the ICRIR says conditional immunity is not operating. So repeating ‘ruled unlawful, no protections’ is not an explanation — it’s a slogan. Tell the public what safeguards you’re actually offering instead.” (The Guardian)
150-word website paragraph
“Ministers keep repeating that the Legacy Act was ‘ruled unlawful’ and delivered ‘no protections’. That is a simplification designed to end the discussion, not inform the public. Northern Ireland courts found some provisions incompatible — particularly the conditional immunity scheme — but they did not erase the Act wholesale. The Government then abandoned its appeal against the immunity incompatibility in July 2024, and the ICRIR confirms conditional immunity is disapplied and will not be considered. In other words, the centrepiece that was meant to provide certainty has not operated. Veterans are not asking for impunity. They are asking for a fair system that distinguishes war’s reality from peacetime moral theatre, protects operational security, and stops the corrosive cycle of leaks, innuendo, and selective disclosure.” (Judiciary NI)
Social post (tight)
“Stop the slogan. Courts hit parts (esp. immunity). Govt dropped the immunity appeal July 2024. ICRIR says conditional immunity isn’t operating. So what real safeguards are in the new bill? None.” (Hansard)
Step 7: Make “properly informed public” your moral high ground
The Government will always prefer a neat line to messy truth. Your advantage is that you can say:
This is about informed consent in a democracy.
If the state can’t speak precisely about what courts ruled, what it appealed, and what is actually operating, then it can’t demand public trust while it rewrites the legacy framework.
That’s not party politics. That’s constitutional integrity.
Repetition works — so make it work for you, anchored in record.