Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum

Recommended Posts

I'm glad there will be a prosecution for this.  26 unarmed civilians shot, 14 fatally.  There has to be accountability.  We cannot possibly criticise wrongdoing in other countries and allow atrocities in this country to go unpunished. 

  • Like 4

"At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We went wrong by not learning from South Africa and having a truth & reconciliation process. Everyone just wanted those skeletons buried so that the fighting and deaths would stop, yesterday’s problems were left for tomorrow.

As an ex-squaddie, I’m very happy for the soldiers to be held to a far higher standard of law than the terrorists of the other side.  That doesn’t mean that I don’t get aggrieved at the thought of the terrorists on both republican and unionist sides getting away with it.  If you’re going to drag up decades old crimes then you must do it for everyone otherwise it just looks like vindictiveness.

  • Like 8

“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ckn said:

We went wrong by not learning from South Africa and having a truth & reconciliation process. Everyone just wanted those skeletons buried so that the fighting and deaths would stop, yesterday’s problems were left for tomorrow.

As an ex-squaddie, I’m very happy for the soldiers to be held to a far higher standard of law than the terrorists of the other side.  That doesn’t mean that I don’t get aggrieved at the thought of the terrorists on both republican and unionist sides getting away with it.  If you’re going to drag up decades old crimes then you must do it for everyone otherwise it just looks like vindictiveness.

I agree with your comments here, but I think there should be a time limit on prosecutions of soldiers who break the law in this way. To bring a man to trial after 47 years seems ridiculous. The evidence is surely unreliable after all that time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slowdive said:

I'm glad there will be a prosecution for this.  26 unarmed civilians shot, 14 fatally.  There has to be accountability.  We cannot possibly criticise wrongdoing in other countries and allow atrocities in this country to go unpunished. 

How do you know they all where unarmed ?

  • Like 4

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I agree with your comments here, but I think there should be a time limit on prosecutions of soldiers who break the law in this way. To bring a man to trial after 47 years seems ridiculous. The evidence is surely unreliable after all that time.

If, and it's not necessarily an "if" I agree with, you have a time limit on prosecutions for soldiers then (1) you go and explain your reasoning to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (2) the same limits should apply to any murders.

On reflection I don't agree. There should be no time limit to prosecutions for murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Marauder said:

How do you know they all where unarmed ?

He has the benefit of hindsight.

At the time, when the pressure was, on a judgement call had to be made. It was and the soldiers should not now be facing criminal charges, especially, as ckn stated, others have been allowed to get away with their crimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Marauder said:

How do you know they all where unarmed ?

Lets have a trial and see what evidence comes to light then. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

I agree with your comments here, but I think there should be a time limit on prosecutions of soldiers who break the law in this way. To bring a man to trial after 47 years seems ridiculous. The evidence is surely unreliable after all that time.

I'm not sure about the quality of the forensic evidence but if it's true what I've read it's a case of it could have been soldier A, B, C. or D who fired the fatal shots, In other words it could have been anyone of a 4 man brick.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

He has the benefit of hindsight.

At the time, when the pressure was, on a judgement call had to be made. It was and the soldiers should not now be facing criminal charges, especially, as ckn stated, others have been allowed to get away with their crimes.

I'm well aware of the Good Friday agreement which should have brought such cases in line with the freeing of convicted terrorists

  • Like 1

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

He has the benefit of hindsight.

At the time, when the pressure was, on a judgement call had to be made. It was and the soldiers should not now be facing criminal charges, especially, as ckn stated, others have been allowed to get away with their crimes.

It depends on the call, if it was within the Rules of Engagement as in force at the time then no crime has been committed. If Private F emptied a couple of magazines into an unarmed passerby and then colluded with others to conceal the facts then he should rightly face trial.

There is no doubt that 14 people died as a result of the Bloody Sunday shootings and it is well documented that the 28 people shot were in the main running away and unarmed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Lets have a trial and see what evidence comes to light then. 

I can't see any more evidence coming to light really, the Paratrooper involved have been travelling backwards and forwards to N Ireland for years and the actual who fired the first shot is still in dispute.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shadow said:

If, and it's not necessarily an "if" I agree with, you have a time limit on prosecutions for soldiers then (1) you go and explain your reasoning to the Simon Wiesenthal Center (2) the same limits should apply to any murders.

On reflection I don't agree. There should be no time limit to prosecutions for murder.

Yes, the logic would seem to be as you suggest.

The question is whether there should be a special time limit for British soldiers in British courts in situations where they were presumably carrying out orders from their commanding officers.

And whether, in circumstances where amnesties have been granted to terrorists, similar amnesties should apply to squaddies.

I haven't read the Savile Report so I'm not familiar with its detailed findings.

I wonder how much "justice" a soldier can really expect to receive after 47 years in a trial that is sure to be highly politicised.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Yes, the logic would seem to be as you suggest.

The question is whether there should be a special time limit for British soldiers in British courts in situations where they were presumably carrying out orders from their commanding officers.

And whether, in circumstances where amnesties have been granted to terrorists, similar amnesties should apply to squaddies.

I haven't read the Savile Report so I'm not familiar with its detailed findings.

I wonder how much "justice" a soldier can really expect to receive after 47 years in a trial that is sure to be highly politicised.

I'm going to pinch CKN's suggestion that there should have been an equivalent to the truth & reconciliation commission in South Africa.As there wasn't we can't have two tier justice, we either continue trying to bring former terrorists to justice and put this sldier on trial or we draw a line and leave it all in the past.  In the absence of any moral guidance my own moral compass says we treat them all as equal in the eyes of the law and prosecute where we can. 

Our soldiers were after all supposedly over there in an exercise in maintaining the rule of law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I'm going to pinch CKN's suggestion that there should have been an equivalent to the truth & reconciliation commission in South Africa.As there wasn't we can't have two tier justice, we either continue trying to bring former terrorists to justice and put this sldier on trial or we draw a line and leave it all in the past.  In the absence of any moral guidance my own moral compass says we treat them all as equal in the eyes of the law and prosecute where we can. 

Our soldiers were after all supposedly over there in an exercise in maintaining the rule of law. 

So it would be right to rearrest all the terrorists set free under the good Friday agreement.

  • Like 1

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Marauder said:

So it would be right to rearrest all the terrorists set free under the good Friday agreement.

No.

It would be right to convict any not yet convicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Yes, the logic would seem to be as you suggest.

The question is whether there should be a special time limit for British soldiers in British courts in situations where they were presumably carrying out orders from their commanding officers.

And whether, in circumstances where amnesties have been granted to terrorists, similar amnesties should apply to squaddies.

I haven't read the Savile Report so I'm not familiar with its detailed findings.

I wonder how much "justice" a soldier can really expect to receive after 47 years in a trial that is sure to be highly politicised.

Maybe it will prove impossible to ascertain guilt without reasonable doubt and that will be fair enough. It shouldn't have taken 47 years to get to this point though.  Terrorist crimes were investigated presumably at the time I'm not sure this was. Have any soldiers been prosecuted for any deaths in northern Ireland?  Bloody Sunday victims deserve closure and we have an obligation as a society to uncover the truth and hold people accountable where it can be proven.


"At times to be silent is to lie. You will win because you have enough brute force. But you will not convince. For to convince you need to persuade. And in order to persuade you would need what you lack: Reason and Right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ckn said:

We went wrong by not learning from South Africa and having a truth & reconciliation process. Everyone just wanted those skeletons buried so that the fighting and deaths would stop, yesterday’s problems were left for tomorrow.

As an ex-squaddie, I’m very happy for the soldiers to be held to a far higher standard of law than the terrorists of the other side.  That doesn’t mean that I don’t get aggrieved at the thought of the terrorists on both republican and unionist sides getting away with it.  If you’re going to drag up decades old crimes then you must do it for everyone otherwise it just looks like vindictiveness.

I met someone at a university alumni event  years ago that was involved in setting up the TRC process in South Africa.  She said it was not easy, was imperfect and was fraught with emotion.   She also mentioned that most people who went before the TRC did not receive the amnesty they requested.  As it turns out, most people do not feel that it is enough for crimes committed against them to be acknowledged - they want punishment as well, particularly if the perpetrators of those crimes show no remorse or sorrow. 

One of the most interesting people I ever spoke to.

As things stand, I do feel for the soldiers in Derry that day - I can imagine that they must have been faced with a terrifying, unpredictable and fast moving situation.   That said, they were highly trained members of a volunteer army and they opened fire on civilians.   Professional soldiers must stand or fall by their actions and be held accountable for them.

 


English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steve May said:

I met someone at a university alumni event  years ago that was involved in setting up the TRC process in South Africa.  She said it was not easy, was imperfect and was fraught with emotion.   She also mentioned that most people who went before the TRC did not receive the amnesty they requested.  As it turns out, most people do not feel that it is enough for crimes committed against them to be acknowledged - they want punishment as well, particularly if the perpetrators of those crimes show no remorse or sorrow. 

One of the most interesting people I ever spoke to.

As things stand, I do feel for the soldiers in Derry that day - I can imagine that they must have been faced with a terrifying, unpredictable and fast moving situation.   That said, they were highly trained members of a volunteer army and they opened fire on civilians.   Professional soldiers must stand or fall by their actions and be held accountable for them.

 

Not coming from a military background, and to maybe use an excuse from Nuremburg, but how far does the 'I was only following orders' stretch as a defence? (assuming there was an order to fire)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steve May said:

I met someone at a university alumni event  years ago that was involved in setting up the TRC process in South Africa.  She said it was not easy, was imperfect and was fraught with emotion.   She also mentioned that most people who went before the TRC did not receive the amnesty they requested.  As it turns out, most people do not feel that it is enough for crimes committed against them to be acknowledged - they want punishment as well, particularly if the perpetrators of those crimes show no remorse or sorrow. 

One of the most interesting people I ever spoke to.

As things stand, I do feel for the soldiers in Derry that day - I can imagine that they must have been faced with a terrifying, unpredictable and fast moving situation.   That said, they were highly trained members of a volunteer army and they opened fire on civilians.   Professional soldiers must stand or fall by their actions and be held accountable for them.

 

The Para's had been shipped in from Belfast a week or so earlier and as for highly trained, this type of peace keeping was very new to the army and the only experience it could draw on was the way it had policed in Aden,  it could be because of this incident that regiments going to N Ireland started to do months of training before being deployed there and you can see a big difference between then and a year or so later.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

Not coming from a military background, and to maybe use an excuse from Nuremburg, but how far does the 'I was only following orders' stretch as a defence? (assuming there was an order to fire)

This is in part why we have clearly defined Rules of Engagement, they are written down and fully understood by the soldiers on the ground. It is partly to protect the soldier from undertaking an illegal order along the lines of "Private Baldrick, machine-gun those nuns and schoolchildren" and partly so they know exactly under what circumstances they can use force on their own initiative and the extent of the force they can apply, up to and including lethal force. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

Not coming from a military background, and to maybe use an excuse from Nuremburg, but how far does the 'I was only following orders' stretch as a defence? (assuming there was an order to fire)

I don't think an order to fire was ever given, but who fired the first shot has always be disputed by both sides. 

  • Like 1

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

Not coming from a military background, and to maybe use an excuse from Nuremburg, but how far does the 'I was only following orders' stretch as a defence? (assuming there was an order to fire)

There are people here who will know much more than me but I don't believe it will stretch very far at all legally.   And morally, not at all.

  • Like 1

English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

The Para's had been shipped in from Belfast a week or so earlier and as for highly trained, this type of peace keeping was very new to the army and the only experience it could draw on was the way it had policed in Aden,  it could be because of this incident that regiments going to N Ireland started to do months of training before being deployed there and you can see a big difference between then and a year or so later.

Interesting.   Young lads thrown into a terrifying situation.    That still doesn't absolve them though, for all that they have my sympathy.


English, Irish, Brit, Yorkshire, European.  Citizen of the People's Republic of Yorkshire, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the European Union.  Critical of all it.  Proud of all it.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rom Robert Fisk
Belfast, March 5th

“The Army in Northern Ireland has revised the Yellow Card which is issued to all soldiers in the province and constrains their instructions for opening fire. The new version, dated November 1972, carries an extra paragraph, Number 15, telling the soldier that he may open fire without warning “if there is no other way to protect yourself or those whom it is your duty to protect from the danger of being killed or seriously injured”. The new regulation appears to give a soldier discretion to make up his mind whether he has time or opportunity to shout a warning before shooting.

The card, printed on a small sheet of paper and folded so that it can be carried by a soldier on duty, clarifies a similar set of instructions, published in November 1971. In the original version, paragraph 13 said that a soldier could open fire without warning “either when hostile firing is taking place in your area and a warning is impractical, or when any delay could lead to death or serious injury to people whom it is your duty to protect or to yourself, and then only (a) against a person using a firearm against members of the security forces or people whom it is your duty to protect, or (b) against a person carrying a firearm if you have reason to think he is about to use it for offensive purposes.”

On the new card the words “or when any delay could lead to death or serious injury to people whom it is your duty to protect, or to yourself” have been deleted and paragraph 15 has been inserted instead. However the new card also includes the conditions of paragraph 15 in a section listing the circumstances in which a soldier should fire after a warning. The Yellow Card carries no statutory authority and even if a soldier obeys the rules he is still subject to the civil law.

The Provisional IRA today claimed responsibility for shooting a young soldier in the head and neck in Belfast last night. Private Gary Barlow, aged 19, of The Queen’s Lancashire Regiment, was separated from his patrol in the Catholic Falls Road district by a group of about 40 women, who beat him. His companions had decided to leave the street in which they were searching two houses and did not realise that he was missing until they had returned to their military post near Albert Street.”


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure what to think of this. As a serving soldier, it’s right soldiers are held to account for actions that breach rules of engagement and the law (openly expressed my views on Marine A here). And soldiers do make bad decisions. 

However, I am uncomfortable here. This is a long time. Surely hard evidence other than witness accounts doesn’t exist to show Soldier F fired the shots that killed those 2 x civilians? Forensic evidence etc? Can they match the rounds fired to individual weapons etc? Any video evidence? It baffles me to be honest... 

I have no doubt 1 PARA acted badly - people where shot in the back running away. I also have no doubt bad decisions were made by soldiers. I however, have no doubt they were scared, inadequately trained, and thought their was a risk to their lives; riot situations are vicious, dangerous and confusing (view the footage!). 

It was a sad day in British and Northern Irish history. A sad day for the Army; an horrific day for the families of those killed. But I am really not sure 47 years later you can prove this 1 x soldier murdered people and I have doubts how this individual can be given a fair trial. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...