Sunday Bloody Sunday.

[HTG]

On 15/03/2019 at 18:50, Glenconner said:

Or is it just the SNP being pro the “Jocks” to the slightly ridiculous level?

Calling card of a moron thread for this pish. 

[RedRob72]

The good Friday pardons are not relevant at all. There are reasons for pardons for paramilitaries, there are absolutely no valid reasons to pardon members of the British Army. If they killed innocent civilians without any justification, which they did, then they absolutely should be prosecuted. 

In which case the evidence against this former soldier must be tested fairly and without prejudice if that’s possible after all this time, such exposure and political involvement.
It’s impossibly unfair however to think that a young squaddie isn’t just as prone to error or a lack of judgement, just as human and imperfect as his neighbour based on his choice of ‘career’ alone .
That he wears a uniform, makes him a legitimate target yet he must uphold the highest standard of lawful behaviour in return irrespective of the circumstances and challenges he is surrounded by. He must be above and beyond reproach always! It’s a tough ask, especially given the unique conditions of the troubles in Northern Ireland.
There were certainly enough common criminals who were released early under the guise of their ‘paramilitary’ connections. Why were they afforded such special treatment, if not an attempt to draw a line under all of the convictions secured amidst the troubles.
Perhaps in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, could the Individual involved admit his guilt, be charged, convicted and then immediately pardoned? Would this satisfy and appease those who still seek prosecution. Thousands of other families have been asked to consider and accept exactly the same.

[parsforlife]

.
Perhaps in the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, could the Individual involved admit his guilt, be charged, convicted and then immediately pardoned? Would this satisfy and appease those who still seek prosecution. Thousands of other families have been asked to consider and accept exactly the same.

I haven't followed every detail here, but isn't it suggested that had he come forward earlier and admitted guilt (at the saville enquiry) this would have left him immune from prosecution?

I think any sane person can see that many(certainly not just solider F) are guilty as f**k on the events that happened and in normal circumstances would result in long jail time(as should of happened with marine A)

Given the passage of time, age of the defendant and the good Friday agreement it's difficult to say what punishment should be given, but IMO it should probably involve some degree of prison time.

He certainly deserves a life-sentence, but unfortunately the politics is a far bigger factor here and probably finding him guilty with diminished responsibility is the best course of action here, sentenced to say 8 years jail and released under 'compassionate circumstances in 2 years time would probably keep things 'calm' in NI.

[RedRob72]

Making the reasonable assumption a soldier has received training, I think it is stretching things to characterise shooting a retreating civilian in the back and then shooting another civilian in the head who was waving a white cloth and attempting to reach the first civilian as an error of judgement.

And Soldier F is at the centre of both these accusations? The ballistics of over a hundred rounds discharged from multiple weapons will prove this? This evidence has only just become available? How?

[Newbornbairn]

Paratroops are not ordinary infantrymen, they are what are termed "shock troops".  In times of war they are the spearhead of the army, expected to fight in extremely high intensity battles, sustaining high casualties before being withdrawn, rested and sent in again. To that end they are trained to be exceptionally violent, ruthless and unmindful of casualties. Their training is far more brutal than the average line soldier. They are absolutely the worst kind of troops to use in a peacekeeping role and it is unfair perhaps to train a man to be uber-violent on a hair trigger then tell him to stand still and have rocks thrown at his head and people spit in his face. Paratroops aren't trained to be tolerant, they're trained to kill every c**t not in the same uniform. Responsibility for Bloody Sunday rests with those who put them in that position.

[RedRob72]

As far as I know these specific outcomes are more or less matters of fact after Saville, though please correct me if that is not the case.

In the context of the present Inquiry, there is no question of the Tribunal having any power to remove or diminish the rights, liberties or freedoms of anyone. It is not the function of an Inquiry of the present kind to determine rights and obligations of any nature. Its task, set by Parliament, is to inquire into and report upon the events on Sunday 30th January 1972 which led to loss of life in connection with the procession in Londonderry on that day, taking account of any new information relevant to events on that day. The Inquiry cannot be categorized as a trial of any description. Unlike the courts it cannot decide the guilt (or innocence) of any individual or make any order in its report. Our task is to investigate the events of Bloody Sunday, to do our best to discover what happened on that day and to report the results of our investigations. It accordingly follows that the considerations that led the courts in the cases cited to require proof to a very high standard before making orders that affected the rights, liberties and freedoms of individuals are no guide to the task entrusted to the Tribunal.

His words not mine.

[RedRob72]

 

As previously stated, the courts must then test his assertion without prejudice or influence, is this really plausible? The pressure to appease is so desperately heightened in this case. How can this guy who is nothing but a scapegoat possibly receive a fair trial?

[sureiknow]

14 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

I think there are enough people in Northern Ireland capable of judging the facts dispassionately. I agree he should not be the only one on trial.

Will the Trial be held on Northern Ireland?

I don't think so.

[Aim Here]

5 hours ago, ali_91 said:

The good Friday pardons are not relevant at all. There are reasons for pardons for paramilitaries, there are absolutely no valid reasons to pardon members of the British Army. If they killed innocent civilians without any justification, which they did, then they absolutely should be prosecuted. 

Well the Good Friday Agreement didn't pardon paramilitaries who hadn't been convicted yet; what happened was that their sentences for Troubles-era offences were maxed out at 2 years upon conviction. Treating soldiers the same as the paramilitaries in this respect seems reasonable.

[RedRob72]

I think there are enough people in Northern Ireland capable of judging the facts dispassionately. I agree he should not be the only one on trial.

Soldier F admitted his involvement in the shootings at the beginning of the enquiry? I’m just unsure how anyone at this stage can prove his motivations or what threat he believed he was under (or otherwise) amidst all the other contributing factors that afternoon in the Bogside, let alone uncover the forensic evidence to support a conviction.

It hasn’t been forthcoming to date, the albeit genuine desire for some sort of justice alone cannot be allowed to dismiss this even after 47 years.

 

(ETA, apologies, meant to be in reply to Ali91’s post above, Cheers.)

 

 

[Aim Here]

1 minute ago, ali_91 said:

Except it doesn’t, the early releases were done in order to appease the IRA and ensure that there would be a strong possibility of a peaceful solution to the Northern Ireland situation. There are no such issues surrounding the prosecution of soldiers involved in the slaughter of innocent people in Derry, prosecuting to the full extent of the law is absolutely the correct thing to do. 

You don't think there'll be a corresponding outcry from Irish unionists and folks in the British military and security forces if they see paramilitaries getting more favourable treatment than serving British soldiers for comparable historical offences? The entire history of modern Irish unionism is pretty much a series of threats of one or other form of mutiny against the British state, with varying levels of support from inside the British security establishment - and a stiff sentence of the sort you propose will certainly catch the ears of army bigwigs.

Plus, of course, in reality, there's no chance this prosecution will get anything more than a token sentence, GFA or not - the British state will do what it can to avoid competently prosecuting any of it's thugs who are actually on the clock. A police officer can commit an unprovoked battery on a completely innocent man - who later dies - in broad daylight, in front of hundreds of witness, and filmed from multiple angles - and the CPS will still arrange a prosecution so incompetent that the officer gets acquitted.

[sureiknow]

Just now, Aim Here said:

 

Plus, of course, in reality, there's no chance this prosecution will get anything more than a token sentence, GFA or not 

Ss far as i know the G.F.A. does not cover this prosecsetion.

So potentially this Solider can be given a Life sentance if found guilty.

[Aim Here]

3 minutes ago, sureiknow said:

Ss far as i know the G.F.A. does not cover this prosecsetion.

So potentially this Solider can be given a Life sentance if found guilty.

Yeah - that's the letter of the law. The political reality is that this Lance Corporal F won't get a stiffer sentence than the maximum available to an IRA bomber. There'd be too much pent up outrage from Unionists, folks in the army, the Daily Mail and it's readers, and all those morons who retweet Britain First memes.

[The OP]

54 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

I’m just unsure how anyone at this stage can prove his motivations or what threat he believed he was under (or otherwise) amidst all the other contributing factors that afternoon in the Bogside

 

 

I’m pretty sure one of the murders he is charged with involved a guy who had already been shot lying on the ground shouting about being unable to feel his legs being then shot in the back.

Although trying to prove it was him rather than anyone else will likely be difficult.

[RedRob72]

No, I completely agree with what you are saying, but there will be no threat to the peace process by prosecuting this man. There was a political need to be extremely lenient to paramilitaries, there is not much more than a superficial need to be lenient to the soldiers. The worst that will happen by prosecuting properly will be minor protests during marching seasons and possibly a new judge effigy during bonfire season. 

‘Not much more than superficial need for Soldier leniency’!? Hmmm, I’m not so sure!! Reckon there is still a sense of deep frustration that the work of the now disbanded HET centred on the pursuit of security personnel and concerns over expediency and parity are justified. Rightly or wrongly this case will only add to that anger.

[Glenconner]

7 hours ago, sureiknow said:

Will the Trial be held on Northern Ireland?

 

Bogside Community Centre

[AL-FFC]

 

8 hours ago, ali_91 said:

Absolutely no surprise to see notorious right wing moron NewBornBairn sticking up for wur troops at every opportunity. 

Although times gone past Paras training was more rigourous than any other troops and in my own view their role in the forces is obsolete, having worked with Paras during my time they dont help themselves in a lot of situations and i can name them from my time in the forces to which things ended up escalating them pulling out and leaving other units to deal with the shit and the aftermath.

regardless on your view on the forces most joined to escape for to do something while change lives around you ask any ex soldier where he would be if he hadnt joined and i can pretty much guarantee you a lot of them would have went down a different path.  The training courses and qualifications wise you get is second to none.

Back on subject though when your in a situation with a crowd around and increasing at an alarming rate not to mention outnumbered your arse starts twitching and you dont have long to decide your course of action

[pandarilla]

No, I completely agree with what you are saying, but there will be no threat to the peace process by prosecuting this man. There was a political need to be extremely lenient to paramilitaries, there is not much more than a superficial need to be lenient to the soldiers. The worst that will happen by prosecuting properly will be minor protests during marching seasons and possibly a new judge effigy during bonfire season. 

Do you think this one guy should be tried? Or that it should be his superiors? Or both?

[pandarilla]

Anyone that has given an order to shoot innocent civilians or shown a wilful disregard to civilians in their commands should be tried. 
Anyone who has shot unarmed civilians with little or no threat to themselves should be tried. 
Imo. 

So that suggests you're supporting the findings of the enquiry, and that soldier f is the only person who should be tried?

[pandarilla]

What a bizarre conclusion to jump to. 

Why?

I thought your definitions were the ones looked at by the enquiry?

Your posting style is very argumentative, but I'm genuinely not trying to have a pop.

You seem to know a fair amount about this topic. I do not. My instinct tells me that an individual soldier is being hung out to dry - but like I say, I've not looked at this topic in depth. I'm trying to work out what you make of it all.