Soldier F

[kiyan]

I like to make a few observations:

1. The members of the Parachute regiment were mostly from England so had no religious bias.  Unless I missed the sectarian hatred in England ( Prods v Catholics) at the time?
2. Relatives of those killed spent years stating they only wanted to know the truth and once that came out they would be happy
3. The British Army has records so know who was on duty on any day and provided that information.
4. A new inquiry was opened , costing £200m in which all the British Army  data/soldiers was made available, but Martin McGuiness  and others refused to discuss/disclose IRA activity on the day
5. the enquiry accepts shots were fired at the soldiers, but as IRA refuse to disclose info it cannot make any comment!
6. The £200m enquiry finds that some British Soldiers may have not acted lawfully, but refusal of IRA to testify means they cannot have a complete picture.
7. Families who were not interested in money ( only wanted truth) launch civil  damages claims within days!
8. Sinn Fein ( who have secured Royal Pardons  for murders) demand that 70 year old soldiers be tried, while insisting that  terrorists are free is a mockery of justice!

( I think all UK service personnel should be held to  legal account  for their actions, but within a reasonable time and certainly not when the opposing force refuse ( in this Case  the IRA under Martin McGuiness ( he has admitted such)) refuse to explain their part !)

Rant Over!

[GeordieSaint]

How to inflame an already inflamed situation. I knew this bloke... clearly he still hasn’t developed any emotional intelligence.

[Damien]

8 hours ago, kiyan said:

I like to make a few observations:

1. The members of the Parachute regiment were mostly from England so had no religious bias.  Unless I missed the sectarian hatred in England ( Prods v Catholics) at the time?
2. Relatives of those killed spent years stating they only wanted to know the truth and once that came out they would be happy
3. The British Army has records so know who was on duty on any day and provided that information.
4. A new inquiry was opened , costing £200m in which all the British Army  data/soldiers was made available, but Martin McGuiness  and others refused to discuss/disclose IRA activity on the day
5. the enquiry accepts shots were fired at the soldiers, but as IRA refuse to disclose info it cannot make any comment!
6. The £200m enquiry finds that some British Soldiers may have not acted lawfully, but refusal of IRA to testify means they cannot have a complete picture.
7. Families who were not interested in money ( only wanted truth) launch civil  damages claims within days!
8. Sinn Fein ( who have secured Royal Pardons  for murders) demand that 70 year old soldiers be tried, while insisting that  terrorists are free is a mockery of justice!

( I think all UK service personnel should be held to  legal account  for their actions, but within a reasonable time and certainly not when the opposing force refuse ( in this Case  the IRA under Martin McGuiness ( he has admitted such)) refuse to explain their part !)

Rant Over!

1. They may have had no religious bias per se but certainly had a bias when it came to nationality. British soldiers tend to side with Britain, the Queen and people who consider themselves British funnily enough. Id say its hard for any soldier to be impartial when one side believes in the same flag and the other despises it. As you know nationality and religion is deeply intertwined in NI.

2. Complete lies. every relative I've heard speak says they want justice. They feel like this isn't justice.

3. As they should and as they would be expected to. 

4. McGuiness did speak, spoke of his activity that day and did admit to being in the IRA. He would not name others by name as he was concerned of the legal implications of doing so, to them, and didn't have the necessary assurances. Only one IRA ex-member refused to speak and he went to jail for not doing so. There is at least one very good reason why the IRA wouldn't have kept official records like the British Army, it would be slightly incriminating for all involved wouldn't it in the event of these getting found.

5. Saville says "Despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers, we have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday."

6. Is the cost relevant when it comes to justice? The IRA aren't a state army and it would be up to individuals to speak. Everybody who was asked to speak did so, bar one ex-member who went to jail for not doing so.

7. Families want justice and have wanted it for 47 years. It is very low to suggest they are doing this for money.

8. State soldiers should be held to higher standards and shouldn't be allowed to operate with impunity just because the state protects them.

The British government have kicked the can down the road for decades when it comes to Northern Ireland. I find the reasonable time argument a very poor excuse, if 47 years have passed it then it is solely their responsibility. There have been numerous whitewashes, cover ups, collusion and point blank refusal to look into a multitude of events. The budget to look at these things is tiny in the grand scheme of things and you can only conclude that this is purposely so. The government are relying on the sands of time and people from the troubles dieing to dodge these issues.

[GeordieSaint]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

4. McGuiness did speak, spoke of his activity that day and did admit to being in the IRA. He would not name others by name as he was concerned of the legal implications of doing so, to them, and didn't have the necessary assurances. Only one IRA ex-member refused to speak and he went to jail for not doing so. There is at least one very good reason why the IRA wouldn't have kept official records like the British Army, it would be slightly incriminating for all involved wouldn't it in the event of these getting found.

Can you elaborate on this point please? McGuiness not naming others sounds like impeding a police investigation and therefore perverting the cause of justice. Surely that’s not right? If it’s true, that plays to the fears and perceptions of people who think the current investigations are a witch-hunt rather than actually seeking to serve justice to all.

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Can you elaborate on this point please? McGuiness not naming others sounds like impeding a police investigation and therefore perverting the cause of justice. Surely that’s not right? If it’s true, that plays to the fears and perceptions of people who think the current investigations are a witch-hunt rather than actually seeking to serve justice to all.

I'm not sure what needs to be elaborated but I'll do my best. He refused to name names as did others and soldiers only agreed to give evidence to the inquiry under anonymity. Evidence was given on the basis that it could not then be used in criminal trials, as both paramilitaries and soldiers alike would not have taken part if they could be incriminating themselves. The Saville Inquiry was to find out the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday, not for prosecutions.

The PSNI began a murder investigation on the back of the Saville Report and its findings, namely that those who were killed or injured on Bloody Sunday were innocent and that 2 of the soldiers were responsible.

[westlondonfan]

The War Crimes Act 1991 was introduced by Margaret Thatcher in order to allow people to be prosecuted for what they had done during the Second World War. It was very controversial at the time.  Only one person has ever been convicted under the provisions of this act so far.

[Marauder]

8 hours ago, Damien said:

I'm not sure what needs to be elaborated but I'll do my best. He refused to name names as did others and soldiers only agreed to give evidence to the inquiry under anonymity. Evidence was given on the basis that it could not then be used in criminal trials, as both paramilitaries and soldiers alike would not have taken part if they could be incriminating themselves. The Saville Inquiry was to find out the truth about what happened on Bloody Sunday, not for prosecutions.

The PSNI began a murder investigation on the back of the Saville Report and its findings, namely that those who were killed or injured on Bloody Sunday were innocent and that 2 of the soldiers were responsible.

So why have they only brought charges against Soldier `F` ?

[Damien]

2 minutes ago, Marauder said:

So why have they only brought charges against Soldier `F` ?

Because there was no reasonable chance of prosecution against Soldier H due to a lack of evidence other than his own inadmissible accounts from the Saville Inquiry.

[Marauder]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Because there was no reasonable chance of prosecution against Soldier H due to a lack of evidence other than his own inadmissible accounts from the Saville Inquiry.

Right

[GeordieSaint]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Because there was no reasonable chance of prosecution against Soldier H due to a lack of evidence other than his own inadmissible accounts from the Saville Inquiry.

Thanks for the explanation earlier. Still confusing though. You said the Inquiry wasn’t for prosecutions. And that both soldiers and IRA alike only gave evidence as it couldn’t be used in a criminal trials. Yet Soldier F is undergoing a murder trial? Am I missing something? 

[gingerjon]

Just now, GeordieSaint said:

Thanks for the explanation earlier. Still confusing though. You said the Inquiry wasn’t for prosecutions. And that both soldiers and IRA alike only gave evidence as it couldn’t be used in a criminal trials. Yet Soldier F is undergoing a murder trial? Am I missing something? 

Presumably there is evidence from more than just the Savile enquiry?

[Damien]

Just now, GeordieSaint said:

Thanks for the explanation earlier. Still confusing though. You said the Inquiry wasn’t for prosecutions. And that both soldiers and IRA alike only gave evidence as it couldn’t be used in a criminal trials. Yet Soldier F is undergoing a murder trial? Am I missing something? 

As I said in that 2nd paragraph, the PSNI began a murder investigation on the back of the Saville Report and the PPS obviously thought there was enough evidence to prosecute one of the soldiers but not the two that were deemed responsible at Saville. The PSNI would have had to gather the evidence and they couldn't use what was said at Saville, hence not enough evidence for prosecution against Soldier H.

[Marauder]

11 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Thanks for the explanation earlier. Still confusing though. You said the Inquiry wasn’t for prosecutions. And that both soldiers and IRA alike only gave evidence as it couldn’t be used in a criminal trials. Yet Soldier F is undergoing a murder trial? Am I missing something? 

From 2004

The Bloody Sunday Inquiry is to reconvene to hear the evidence from a man known only as Witness X. He denies telling the police in 1972 that he fired two magazines from a rifle on Bloody Sunday. Witness X is alleged to have told the police in 1972 that he was a member of the Provisional IRA and that he fired a gun from Glenfada Park.

[mickhornet]

The Telegraph reckon this trial could last for 5 years.

[Marauder]

54 minutes ago, mickhornet said:

The Telegraph reckon this trial could last for 5 years.

That will take the para's to be into their early to mid 70's 

[kiyan]

On ‎3‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 11:14 AM, Damien said:

1. They may have had no religious bias per se but certainly had a bias when it came to nationality. British soldiers tend to side with Britain, the Queen and people who consider themselves British funnily enough. Id say its hard for any soldier to be impartial when one side believes in the same flag and the other despises it. As you know nationality and religion is deeply intertwined in NI.

2. Complete lies. every relative I've heard speak says they want justice. They feel like this isn't justice.

3. As they should and as they would be expected to. 

4. McGuiness did speak, spoke of his activity that day and did admit to being in the IRA. He would not name others by name as he was concerned of the legal implications of doing so, to them, and didn't have the necessary assurances. Only one IRA ex-member refused to speak and he went to jail for not doing so. There is at least one very good reason why the IRA wouldn't have kept official records like the British Army, it would be slightly incriminating for all involved wouldn't it in the event of these getting found.

5. Saville says "Despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers, we have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday."

6. Is the cost relevant when it comes to justice? The IRA aren't a state army and it would be up to individuals to speak. Everybody who was asked to speak did so, bar one ex-member who went to jail for not doing so.

7. Families want justice and have wanted it for 47 years. It is very low to suggest they are doing this for money.

8. State soldiers should be held to higher standards and shouldn't be allowed to operate with impunity just because the state protects them.

The British government have kicked the can down the road for decades when it comes to Northern Ireland. I find the reasonable time argument a very poor excuse, if 47 years have passed it then it is solely their responsibility. There have been numerous whitewashes, cover ups, collusion and point blank refusal to look into a multitude of events. The budget to look at these things is tiny in the grand scheme of things and you can only conclude that this is purposely so. The government are relying on the sands of time and people from the troubles dieing to dodge these issues.

One day when I have the time, I will pick that piece of propaganda apart; line by line!

 Tonight  -  Lets start with your point 1!

YES, British soldiers side with Britain! ( Well done Sherlock), but at that time paras where there to protect Catholics (from sectarian violence)

Some people like to paint the paras as some sort of Protestant  militia!  

The Paras where a mainly English regiment ( as I said earlier, being a RC/Prod was meaningless) and over 98% being from GB

Religion is definitely twisted by many in NI, but I have never understood how paras have religion twisted so much they hate Catholics so much they shoot them ( considering about 22% of the Parachute regiment where Catholic!)

As you say, religion is very intertwined in NI, but it isn't in GB! and that is where the parachute regiment was/and is made up from.

[Damien]

6 hours ago, kiyan said:

One day when I have the time, I will pick that piece of propaganda apart; line by line!

 Tonight  -  Lets start with your point 1!

YES, British soldiers side with Britain! ( Well done Sherlock), but at that time paras where there to protect Catholics (from sectarian violence)

Some people like to paint the paras as some sort of Protestant  militia!  

The Paras where a mainly English regiment ( as I said earlier, being a RC/Prod was meaningless) and over 98% being from GB

Religion is definitely twisted by many in NI, but I have never understood how paras have religion twisted so much they hate Catholics so much they shoot them ( considering about 22% of the Parachute regiment where Catholic!)

As you say, religion is very intertwined in NI, but it isn't in GB! and that is where the parachute regiment was/and is made up from.

None of that even makes the slightest sense. It really is better just not to bother posting when you are drunk and when you have nothing useful to say.

[kiyan]

Ok.

Maybe  the MoD do exactly what the IRA do!

In their supposed wish for truth they refuse to name any terrorist/murderers until they have died! 

The Birmingham Massacre, inquiry today showed that.  The IRA are happy to name people when they are dead!

So let the MoD do the same - refuse to say who was where until those involved are dead!

£200m  Bloody Sunday  enquiry in which the MoD provided all the information it had, but Martin McGuiness refused to say what he was doing.  

Pretty annoyed about a "war" that has 2 different sets of rules  

• IRA can shoot someone (dropping their kids at school) in the back  and that is fair
• British Army shoots people attacking a police station with automatic weapons and that is murder?

It stinks!

I am all for honesty and truth to help people move on, but that seems to be expected from 1 side while the other get secret pardons ( which was not mentioned) in the GFA!

[kiyan]

On ‎3‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 7:26 AM, Damien said:

None of that even makes the slightest sense. It really is better just not to bother posting when you are drunk and when you have nothing useful to say.

What are you struggling with?

Someone challenging you trying to rewrite history?

 

[kiyan]

The IRA/SF rewriting of history has made it to a RL board and some accept the lies and fantasy as truth!

Blatant lies and distortion of facts to suit an agenda is were  democracy in  the UK died!

[Damien]

Kiyan and his one eyed posts again. Very revealing, so much anger and so much hate, no matter what the topic. He never actually reads what is wrote and just rambles on with off topic nonsense. When his lies get found out he and he can't dispute facts he simply moves the goalposts and resorts to random meaningless one line sentences/rants.

[GeordieSaint]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

Kiyan and his one eyed posts again. Very revealing, so much anger and so much hate, no matter what the topic. He never actually reads what is wrote and just rambles on with off topic nonsense. When his lies get found out he and he can't dispute facts he simply moves the goalposts and resorts to random meaningless one line sentences/rants.

There is a feeling out there that the Armed Forces are being unfairly targeted; rightly or wrongly. There’s no faith in the government or PSNI that IRA personnel who have committed atrocities will be prosecuted whilst there is anger that others were released prematurely as part of the GFA. That exists just the same as anger at the actions of the Army in NI exists. Now that an IRA man has been ‘outed’ as a member of the Birmingham bombing cell, it’ll be interesting to see what happens - if no investigation takes place, it reinforces that feeling/perception, which Kiyan clearly harbours.

[Damien]

7 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

There is a feeling out there that the Armed Forces are being unfairly targeted; rightly or wrongly. There’s no faith in the government or PSNI that IRA personnel who have committed atrocities will be prosecuted whilst there is anger that others were released prematurely as part of the GFA. That exists just the same as anger at the actions of the Army in NI exists. Now that an IRA man has been ‘outed’ as a member of the Birmingham bombing cell, it’ll be interesting to see what happens - if no investigation takes place, it reinforces that feeling/perception, which Kiyan clearly harbours.

No he did what he always does. Came out with 8 random points. The flaws are pointed out then he moves the goalposts with more random off topic rants.

[GeordieSaint]

6 minutes ago, Damien said:

No he did what he always does. Came out with 8 random points. The flaws are pointed out then he moves the goalposts with more random off topic rants.

I was talking generally rather than specifically about Kiyan; he’s just an example of that anger within the veteran community. 

[Damien]

15 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

I was talking generally rather than specifically about Kiyan; he’s just an example of that anger within the veteran community. 

Ok I understand that. However this is far from one way and a lot of people only have opinions formed by propaganda and being given a one sided version. For some reason some see the British Government and state authorities as being a paragon of virtue and everyone else is at fault. The British Army was welcomed into NI by Catholics when they were sent in to save Catholic people from murder and the acts committed by the NI state. Once this position changed from defender to aggressor and enemy this entirely changed. I believe the change to a Conservative and Unionist government in 1970 was probably a contributor to this. Acts like Bloody Sunday certainly accelerated this change and I have seen interviews where Army Officers admit they could not fight 2 enemies. The Unionist community were their natural allies.