PSNI rejects British Army version of 1988 shooting

dlofnep

A PSNI investigation into the fatal shooting of a Co Tyrone man has concluded that the likelihood of a British Army's version of events is so remote that it should be disregarded.

Aidan McAnespie was shot dead by a British soldier while walking to a GAA match on the border at Aughnacloy in 1988.

The soldier who fired the shot said his hand was wet and slipped on the trigger, causing him to kill the 23-year-old accidentally.

The McAnespie family has welcomed a report from the PSNI's Historical Enquiries Team concluding that the British Army's version of events is virtually incredible.

The HET report says it would have taken a minimum pressure of nine pounds to pull the trigger and the soldier's version of events was the least likely scenario.

It says the chances of the shot being un-aimed or random are so remote as to be virtually disregarded.

Source: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidkfojmhey/

His hand "slipped". :rolleyes:

Sand

Move on Dlop, move on.

dlofnep

No thanks. I think I'll stay here and highlight the death of a civilian by British troops. If that's ok with you, of course.

Sand

No thanks. I think I'll stay here and highlight the death of a civilian by British troops. If that's ok with you, of course.

Ah sorry, didnt read the OP clearly. Thought you were complaining about Provo violence. Carry on.

dlofnep

So do you actually have any comments on the issue at hand?

Sand

The PSNI should investigate and put a case together, and if theres enough evidence prosecute the soldier?

I'm guessing Option B "Hail the soldier as a hero of peace, elect him to Westminister and invite him to the White House" wouldnt work in this scenario.

madden1

"some posters who get very animated about IRA killings
would like shootings carried out by the British Army swept under the mat"

This case had cover-up written all over it for the very start, A young man like thousands of others all over Ireland going to GAA training stopped and harassed by the army every time he crossed that checkpoint,
"murdered for what" being Irish

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

The PSNI should investigate and put a case together, and if theres enough evidence prosecute the soldier?

I'm guessing Option B "Hail the soldier as a hero of peace, elect him to Westminister and invite him to the White House" wouldnt work in this scenario.

It will be swept under the carpet, like many other countless killings by British military in Ireland.

Erin Go Brath

The findings only confirm what has the vast majority have suspected. Aidan was one of many innocent civilians to die at the hands of the imperial British army. In Toby Harndens book about South Armagh he also mentions a group of squaddies who deliberately set out to 'kill a civvie' in Crossmaglen before their tour of duty ended. Doubtless these meatheads have some great stories to tell about terrorising locals in occupied ireland during their tour of duty. Will justice ever be brought to bear on these murderers? Not a hope!

Benedict XVI

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The findings only confirm what has the vast majority have suspected. Aidan was one of many innocent civilians to die at the hands of the imperial British army. In Toby Harndens book about South Armagh he also mentions a group of squaddies who deliberately set out to 'kill a civvie' in Crossmaglen before their tour of duty ended. Doubtless these meatheads have some great stories to tell about terrorising locals in occupied ireland during their tour of duty. Will justice ever be brought to bear on these murderers? Not a hope!

I remember when this happened and it always had a air of cover up about it.

BTW, a lot less innocent civilians died at the hands of the imperial British army than at the hands of the IRA

Fratton Fred

So if he shot him deliberately, the soldier will be given a smacked wrist and let off, because it happened before the GFA, if it was an accident and he was shot accidentally, the soldier will be charged with man slaughter and given two years in prison.

As much as I'm sure the family would like closure, what is the point in opening old wounds?

Erin Go Brath

Benedict XVI wrote: »

I remember when this happened and it always had a air of cover up about it.

BTW, a lot less innocent civilians died at the hands of the imperial British army than at the hands of the IRA

The British Army brush their murders under the carpet, plus their collusion with loyalist paramilitries were responsible for many deaths.
The IRA admit to their killings. These factors undoubtedly have an effect on the statistics.

Erin Go Brath

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So if he shot him deliberately, the soldier will be given a smacked wrist and let off, because it happened before the GFA, if it was an accident and he was shot accidentally, the soldier will be charged with man slaughter and given two years in prison.

As much as I'm sure the family would like closure, what is the point in opening old wounds?

You are answering your own question. Because the family would like closure. They deserve that much.

JWAD

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The British Army brush their murders under the carpet, plus their collusion with loyalist paramilitries were responsible for many deaths.
The IRA admit to their killings. These factors undoubtedly have an effect on the statistics.

ROFL!!! (and ironic too)

Benedict XVI

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The British Army brush their murders under the carpet, plus their collusion with loyalist paramilitries were responsible for many deaths.
The IRA admit to their killings. These factors undoubtedly have an effect on the statistics.

Oh take your head out of your hole you sad ****

Go on mods ban me.

Erin Go Brath

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Oh take your head out of your hole you sad ****

Go on mods ban me.

You started arguing the comparison between civilian deaths from the British Army versus the IRA. If you didn't want to debate the subject why bring it up? Did you really expect your 'IRA are way worse the Brit Army' argument to go unchallenged on an Irish forum?

Benedict XVI

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

You started arguing the comparison between civilian deaths from the British Army versus the IRA. If you didn't want to debate the subject why bring it up? Did you really expect your 'IRA are way worse the Brit Army' argument to go unchallenged on an Irish forum?

Oh course not.

But I do think you are a sad, pathetic individual, defending a group that killed hundreds of men women and children of all persuasions.

Erin Go Brath

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Oh course not.

But I do think you are a sad, pathetic individual, defending a group that killed hundreds of men women and children of all persuasions.

The IRA protected Nationalist communities in the north that were under siege from loyalist paramilitries, and had the state forces such as the RUC, MI5 conspiring and colluding against them. This was their raison d'etre. Yes the IRA did Le Mon, Kingsmills etc nobody is denying this and nobody is defending it.

Loyalist paramilitries in cahoots with state forces in the north killed innocent nationalist civilians. The IRA were left with no recourse but to threaten loyalists that if any more innocent civilians were killed then their community would suffer as a result. There were further acts against the community and hence acts of retribution by the IRA, and an all dirty tit for tat war.

All this was born out of a state not defending its citizens the way a state should. The mismanagement and institutionalised sectarianism of the 6 Counties leaders were the catalyst for decades of violence and hatred which ensued.

Benedict XVI

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The IRA protected Nationalist communities in the north that were under siege from loyalist paramilitries, and had the state forces such as the RUC, MI5 conspiring and colluding against them. This was their raison d'etre. Yes the IRA did Le Mon, Kingsmills etc nobody is denying this and nobody is defending it.

Loyalist paramilitries in cahoots with state forces in the north killed innocent nationalist civilians. The IRA were left with no recourse but to threaten loyalists that if any more innocent civilians were killed then their community would suffer as a result. There were further acts against the community and hence acts of retribution by the IRA, and an all dirty tit for tat war.

All this was born out of a state not defending its citizens the way a state should. The mismanagement and institutionalised sectarianism of the 6 Counties leaders were the catalyst for decades of violence and hatred which ensued.

What if I said that Loyalist paramilitries 'protected Loyalist communities in the north that were under siege from nationalist paramilitries, whould youa gree our would that not suit your narrow twisted way of looking at things.

the above analysis just confirms to me that you and people like you who defend a terrorist organization are sad pathetic creatures, god help you.

Benedict XVI

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The IRA protected Nationalist communities in the north that were under siege from loyalist paramilitries, and had the state forces such as the RUC, MI5 conspiring and colluding against them. This was their raison d'etre. Yes the IRA did Le Mon, Kingsmills etc nobody is denying this and nobody is defending it.

Loyalist paramilitries in cahoots with state forces in the north killed innocent nationalist civilians. The IRA were left with no recourse but to threaten loyalists that if any more innocent civilians were killed then their community would suffer as a result. There were further acts against the community and hence acts of retribution by the IRA, and an all dirty tit for tat war.

All this was born out of a state not defending its citizens the way a state should. The mismanagement and institutionalised sectarianism of the 6 Counties leaders were the catalyst for decades of violence and hatred which ensued.

Back a few years ago in Boston I saw a Belfast girl (well a walking piece of S**t rather than a girl) with a tee shirt that went something like this

IRA British Tour 1993

Warrington 20/03

IRA 2 Brits 0

What this was referring to was the murder of Jonathan Ball, aged 3; and Timothy Parry, aged 12 in the Warrington bomb

From your posts it’s obvious you support this type of thing.

I hope you burn in hell you poor excuse for a human being

dlofnep

This is typical. highlight the murder of a civilian and instead of actually focusing on the issue at hand, it is deflected to the IRA.

The IRA has alot to answer for, but we are discussing the British army. Yes, the same British army that their supporters on here consistently make the argument of them having a "mandate".

Well tell me exactly what right their mandate gives them to murder a civilian. This man's family were kept out in the dark about the murder of their family member. And the excuse? His finger slipped. Yeah right. And this isn't the first time this has happened. This state assigned army, with a shiney mandate has murdered civilians time and time again over the years, but rarely ever manned up for it and hid behind the lies of their Government.

McArmalite

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Back a few years ago in Boston I saw a Belfast girl (well a walking piece of S**t rather than a girl) with a tee shirt that went something like this

IRA British Tour 1993

Warrington 20/03

IRA 2 Brits 0

What this was referring to was the murder of Jonathan Ball, aged 3; and Timothy Parry, aged 12 in the Warrington bomb

From your posts it’s obvious you support this type of thing.

I hope you burn in hell you poor excuse for a human being

I don't beleive for a second about an alleged Belfast girl with that t shirt, pure porkie.

Benedict XVI

McArmalite wrote: »

I don't beleive for a second about an alleged Belfast girl with that t shirt, pure porkie.

Saw it with my own two eyes at a GAA match in Boston in the summer of 1998.

I'm sure you could still buy one on the web, I'll look around

Erin Go Brath

Benedict XVI wrote: »

What if I said that Loyalist paramilitries 'protected Loyalist communities in the north that were under siege from nationalist paramilitries, whould youa gree our would that not suit your narrow twisted way of looking at things.

the above analysis just confirms to me that you and people like you who defend a terrorist organization are sad pathetic creatures, god help you.

You can say whatever you like but it doesn't make it correct. The state forces; RUC, MI5, British Army, all colluded with loyalist terrorists in the killing of innocent nationalists. The state forces didn't collude to kill innocents on the unionist side. You can't just flip the argument that it was the same for loyalists as it was for nationalists, because it wasn't. It was a corrupt state that discriminated against nationalists.

getz

the IRA have always been trying to cause problems in northern ireland---in 1960 i was 16 at the time. i was in a cafe in dublin and a man walked in off the street with a IRA uniform as soon as he heard my english accent he started shouting at me.the owner of the cafe ;sent for the police told me he was sorry and that it was illegal for the IRA in the republic to have on uniform ==my next contact with the IRA was in 66 in a irish dance hall in london-i was approached by a man collecting money to help the IRA to kick the british b

---

s out of ireland--could any of you see that kind of roll reversal happening in Cork or Dublin/?

dreamer_ire

I've stumbled on this link, am gonna add my tupence and go again.

All sides have blood on their hands, some more than others. Anyone who murdered an innocent civilian is guilty however we need to move on... I understand some of the families want closure and that's what PSNI's HET is for, many others don't, they want to put the past behind them and look to the future. My opinion is that continuing the blame game does nothing for anyone except stir up old hatreds. And furthermore my opinion is that if you don't live in Northern Ireland or were not personnally affected by the 'Troubles' then we need to be quiet to give room to those who were affected to allow them to talk.

Regardless why all this started it's now over, people in Northern Ireland are moving on from their dark and troubled past. None of us have the right to use others as pawns.... irrespective of our viewpoint/background. Let the families of those involved do what they need to do and what they see is right for them.

dlofnep

getz wrote: »

the IRA have always been trying to cause problems in northern ireland---in 1960 i was 16 at the time. i was in a cafe in dublin and a man walked in off the street with a IRA uniform as soon as he heard my english accent he started shouting at me.the owner of the cafe ;sent for the police told me he was sorry and that it was illegal for the IRA in the republic to have on uniform ==my next contact with the IRA was in 66 in a irish dance hall in london-i was approached by a man collecting money to help the IRA to kick the british b

---

s out of ireland--could any of you see that kind of roll reversal happening in Cork or Dublin/?

LOL @ this nonsense. What "IRA Uniform" was it he was wearing? This post screams of fabrication. The topic at hand is the murder of a civilian by British soliders, who then lied and tried to get away with it. Why don't you comment on it?

dreamer_ire wrote: »

I've stumbled on this link, am gonna add my tupence and go again.

All sides have blood on their hands, some more than others. Anyone who murdered an innocent civilian is guilty however we need to move on... I understand some of the families want closure and that's what PSNI's HET is for, many others don't, they want to put the past behind them and look to the future. My opinion is that continuing the blame game does nothing for anyone except stir up old hatreds. And furthermore my opinion is that if you don't live in Northern Ireland or were not personnally affected by the 'Troubles' then we need to be quiet to give room to those who were affected to allow them to talk.

Regardless why all this started it's now over, people in Northern Ireland are moving on from their dark and troubled past. None of us have the right to use others as pawns.... irrespective of our viewpoint/background. Let the families of those involved do what they need to do and what they see is right for them.

The British Government today still refuses to bring to justice those British soldiers responsible for the killing of innocent civilians. Why should we let it go? They were quick to imprison members of nationalist paramilitaries - But how about imprisoning the soldier who murdered Aidan McAnespie.. Or how about bringing to justice those who slayed 17 year old children on the streets of Derry?

It's all fine and well for you to say "move on", but some of us are not so forgiven and refuse to allow the British Government get away with a slap on the wrist for murder and then sweeping it under the carpet. When they man up and accept their responsibility and stop protecting murdering soldiers - Maybe then we will have a little more faith in them.

Fratton Fred

Sorry, i missed that bit. Where does it say Aiden McAnespie was murdered?

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, i missed that bit. Where does it say Aiden McAnespie was murdered?

I said it and I make no apologies for doing so. The PSNI agrees with me that the chances of it being accidental are next to impossible.

So what exactly would you call it? It's time to call a spade a spade and stop pussyfooting around semantics. A man on his way to a game was shot dead by British military, who claimed that it was accidental, despite all logical reasoning stating otherwise. Nearly 30 posts in this thread and not one person with the balls to condemn this pointless killing of a civilian and the cover-up behind it. Instead, like always - you argue around the point at hand, instead of addressing it directly. Too afraid to criticise the never-can-do-wrong British military.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

I said it and I make no apologies for doing so. The PSNI agrees with me that the chances of it being accidental are next to impossible.

So what exactly would you call it? It's time to call a spade a spade and stop pussyfooting around semantics. A man on his way to a game was shot dead by British military, who claimed that it was accidental, despite all logical reasoning stating otherwise. Nearly 30 posts in this thread and not one person with the balls to condemn this pointless killing of a civilian and the cover-up behind it. Instead, like always - you argue around the point at hand, instead of addressing it directly. Too afraid to criticise the never-can-do-wrong British military.

OK, so we are assuming guilt. That's fine. What's the sentence?

More than happy to condemn his killing, it would be good to find out what happened.

on a side note, one of my "In Laws" often jokes about how they would take pot shots at the British Army border checkpoints, just for a laugh. they were only kids firing pellet guns at them, but they would sneak up there at night and see if they could shoot one in the face before scurrying back home.

he then goes on to complain about how the British Army treated everyone like scum....:rolleyes:

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wow this thread went off topic quickly.

The soldier should admit his guilt. Even if it was an accident(which it definitely wasn't) why was he pointing the weapon at an unarmed civillian?

It's this type of crap that will continue to play on the minds of communites and breed further hatred & mistrust.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, so we are assuming guilt. That's fine. What's the sentence?

Whatever they consider life - 20-25 years?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More than happy to condemn his killing, it would be good to find out what happened.

He shot a civilian with a gun, killed him and then lied about it thereafter. I think that about sums it up.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

on a side note, one of my "In Laws" often jokes about how they would take pot shots at the British Army border checkpoints, just for a laugh. they were only kids firing pellet guns at them, but they would sneak up there at night and see if they could shoot one in the face before scurrying back home.

he then goes on to complain about how the British Army treated everyone like scum....:rolleyes:

On a further side note - The actions of your in laws as kids does not justify the death of Aidan McAnespie.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Whatever they consider life - 20-25 years?

He shot a civilian with a gun, killed him and then lied about it thereafter. I think that about sums it up.

On a further side note - The actions of your in laws as kids does not justify the death of Aidan McAnespie.

whether he meant to kill him or not, he is likely to have lied about it, a negligent discharge is a very serious offence. Lets face it though, he isn't going to prison, the GFA has made that null and void surely, or does that not apply to British Soldiers.

I wasn't trying to use that as justification, as I said, it was an aside. My wife has often said how intimidating ir was crossing the border, but if you are 18 and not sure if the next car that pulls up is going to have three guys with guns in it, I can imagine your nerves must be pretty much on edge all the time.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fratton Fred wrote: »

whether he meant to kill him or not, he is likely to have lied about it, a negligent discharge is a very serious offence. Lets face it though, he isn't going to prison, the GFA has made that null and void surely, or does that not apply to British Soldiers.

You're right there. I think the closure would be important to the communities though.

Maybe there could be civil action, does the GFA stop that as well?

stovelid

I would be of the opinion that the lad was murdered and it's desperate that it went unpunished. As did the murder of people by the British Army. As did the murder of people by the IRA.

There will never be any significant progress made in NI unless the whole cottage industry of tribunals and inquiries is brought to a halt.

Obviously you feel for the parents and relatives, but all an - often politically motivated - inquiry usually does is establish an often rhetorical fact at great expense and division.

Diogenes

dlofnep wrote: »

Whatever they consider life - 20-25 years?

What about all those terrorist murderers walking free and easy around Belfast? Why should this murder be punished and not the thousand of others.

He shot a civilian with a gun, killed him and then lied about it thereafter. I think that about sums it up.

So have hundreds of unionist and IRA terrorists, why does this soldier deserve the punishment that they escaped thanks to the GFA?

dlofnep

How about stick to the issue at hand and stop attempting to turn this into an IRA discussion. The topic at hand is a British soldier who shot a civilian dead, and then lied about it - claiming it was an accident. He deserves to be punished for his crime. I think you'll find IRA members spent years in prison, but they were released (keyword here being "released") as part of the GFA agreement - What did this soldier spend? Absolutely nothing - Because he lied, and the British Government as always turned a blind eye. They were very quick to imprison nationalists - But never their own soldiers.

The problem here is their inability to even address the issue. Letting a civilian death by a "mandated" soldier go unscathed. So less of the red herrings.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

How about stick to the issue at hand and stop attempting to turn this into an IRA discussion.

The problem here is their inability to even address the issue. Letting a civilian death by a "mandated" soldier go unscathed. So less of the red herrings.

It's not a red herring really. It's impossible to exonerate one instance of murder and to demand justice for another.

The reference to soldiers not doing time is only valid if every terrorist that ever committed an atrocity was jailed for it.

It sticks in the craw that a solider has got away with murder. But if NI citizens from both communities are expected to accept the release of prisoners under the GFA without serving time for equally heinous atrocities, then sadly, we have to draw the same line under the atrocities committed by the security forces.

We can't tell people in the protestant community to suck it up when Sean Kelly gets out, yet expect an expensive, publicly funded inquiry into the wrongdoings of loyalists and Brits.

dlofnep

It is a red herring. It's trying to deflect the debate outside the scope of the topic. I don't feel the need to discuss or explain why a soldier who murdered a civilian and lied about it needs to be brought to justice.

The fact that you are using Nationalist/Loyalist paramilitary releases doesn't change one thing. They were convicted - This soldier was not and the truth was covered up. There is the problem.

So instead of debating the issue at hand, you have attempted to use the good old "But the IRA did this.." nonsense. It has nothing to do with this said topic. You might be content with the fact that a mandated army murdered a civilian and then covered it up, but I am not.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

It is a red herring. It's trying to deflect the debate outside the scope of the topic. I don't feel the need to discuss or explain why a soldier who murdered a civilian and lied about it needs to be brought to justice.

The fact that you are using Nationalist/Loyalist paramilitary releases doesn't change one thing. They were convicted - This soldier was not and the truth was covered up. There is the problem.

So instead of debating the issue at hand, you have attempted to use the good old "But the IRA did this.." nonsense. It has nothing to do with this said topic. You might be content with the fact that a mandated army murdered a civilian and then covered it up, but I am not.

so if he is convicted, sentenced and then sent him back to wherever it was he has spent the last 20 years, you will be happy with that?

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if he is convicted, sentenced and then sent him back to wherever it was he has spent the last 20 years, you will be happy with that?

No, I would not. He should serve time for his multiple crimes. He is a mandated soldier and should pay the consequences for his actions. What do you think Fred - Do you think he should serve time for the murder of a civilian and the blatant lieing in regards to the incident?

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

You might be content with the fact that a mandated army murdered a civilian and then covered it up, but I am not.

I'm not content at all. The GFA and the post-trouble settlement unfortunately demands that we suspend incredulity and try to put the past to rest.

If one side of the community can't accept this, it rubbishes their right to enjoy the freedom afforded to people on 'their side' that did intolerable and completely illegal things during the troubles.

No single group from the families of IRA bomb, loyalist and British Army victims has parity over the other. Every group have had to endure the fact that the killers of their loved ones are strolling around unpunished (or at least partially punished).

What makes Republicans any different?

dlofnep

stovelid wrote: »

I'm not content at all. The GFA and the post-trouble settlement unfortunately demands that we suspend incredulity and try to put the past to rest.

If one side of the community can't accept this, it rubbishes their right to enjoy the freedom afforded to people on 'their side' that did intolerable and completely illegal things during the troubles.

No single group from the families of IRA bomb, loyalist and British Army victims has parity over the other. Every group have had to endure the fact that the killers of their loved ones are strolling around unpunished (or at least partially punished).

What makes Republicans any different?

I never stated the Republicans were any different. This is another attempt to turn this into a debate about the IRA. Members of the IRA and members of loyalist paramilitaries served time, whatever amount of time it was. They were convicted and admitted to their actions.

Stick to the topic at hand, or don't post at all. Do you think that the soldier should be punished for murdering a civilian? Yes or no. Stop trying to veer this off-topic. You're trying to cover the fact that this is yet another documented account of a British soldier murdering a civilian and getting away with it.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I would not. He should serve time for his multiple crimes. He is a mandated soldier and should pay the consequences for his actions. What do you think Fred - Do you think he should serve time for the murder of a civilian and the blatant lieing in regards to the incident?

Personally i would like to see everyone who has killed serve their time, but the GFA has put a stop to that. There are some absolute psychos walking around NI, in some cases living close to the relatives of people they have tortured and killed, it amazes me.

i remember Mo Mowlem talking of a road show her and General (forgottten his name:eek:) were doing to sell the peace process. they were in a village hall talking about peace, reconciliation etc and a women stood up and said she is all for peace, but it not easy when the man who killed your son is sitting three rows in front of you.

It must be ****ing torture for those people who went throught this, but if the release of prisoners is what people see as the best way forward, then so be it.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Personally i would like to see everyone who has killed serve their time

So you agree that this soldier should serve time for the murder of a civilian? Good. That wasn't hard, was it?

It's hard for a community to have faith in a system that allows it's own soldiers to commit murder and come away unscathed.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you think that the soldier should be punished for murdering a civilian? Yes or no.

Ideally: Yes. For life. With no parole.

In reality: No. Not if it means lasting peace. No more than other vermin from both sides of the community who have never been brought to book or who have walked away without serving full sentences for murder.

As for the off-topic cracks: give me a break. If somebody started a thread here bellyaching about IRA prisoners being released under the GFA, you'd be in like a light. And rightly so, it being a Irish political discussion forum.

dlofnep

It is off-topic. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you've been discussing anything but. You're apologists for the British soldier's actions. Time and time again they have proven that they are incapable of respecting human life. In Derry, in Belfast, in Tyrone, in Iraq and then some.

I refuse to allow them to get away with murder. If a member of any paramiltary organisation killed a civilian, I feel that they should serve time for it. IRA, or anyone else. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a mandated soldier who killed a civilian, and then covered it up with backing of his collegues - and this is not the first time and you damn well know it. You are attempting to veer away from it by continously referring to the IRA. This is a common tactic for British army apologists in an attempt to do anything BUT discuss the issue. I refuse to be conned by your ruse.

madden1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Personally i would like to see everyone who has killed serve their time, but the GFA has put a stop to that. There are some absolute psychos walking around NI, in some cases living close to the relatives of people they have tortured and killed, it amazes me.

Must be over 30 years from Captian Robert Niriac was killed,
I read a few weeks ago that a guy Kevin Crilly from Co Armagh has been charged with his killing.

looks like the GFA has not put a stop to all court action.

Sand

It is off-topic. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you've been discussing anything but. You're apologists for the British soldier's actions. Time and time again they have proven that they are incapable of respecting human life. In Derry, in Belfast, in Tyrone, in Iraq and then some.

I refuse to allow them to get away with murder. If a member of any paramiltary organisation killed a civilian, I feel that they should serve time for it. IRA, or anyone else. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a mandated soldier who killed a civilian, and then covered it up with backing of his collegues - and this is not the first time and you damn well know it. You are attempting to veer away from it by continously referring to the IRA. This is a common tactic for British army apologists in an attempt to do anything BUT discuss the issue. I refuse to be conned by your ruse.

The soldier involved, if guilty [ no conviction afterall so hes as innocent as Gerry Adams at this point], wont serve a day in jail. Hell be sentenced and then immediately released under the GFA, just like the Provos and the Loyalists.

Move on Dlop, move on. Do you get the reference now?

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

The soldier involved, if guilty

He is guilty.

Sand wrote: »

wont serve a day in jail.

Hence my thread. Soldier murders civilian. Dlofnep moves in and addresses the issue. Understand? It's very simple really.

Sand wrote: »

Hell be sentenced and then immediately released under the GFA, just like the Provos and the Loyalists.

Or, the coverup will continue and he will never be brought to justice, like the countless other British soldiers who took the lives of civilians - not only in Ireland, but in Iraq and then some.

Sand wrote: »

Move on Dlop, move on. Do you get the reference now?

No sorry, I'd rather highlight this blatant murder of a civilian than allow you to try and dictate to me what I'm allowed to address and what I'm not. :rolleyes:

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

H
No sorry, I'd rather highlight this blatant murder of a civilian than allow you to try and dictate to me what I'm allowed to address and what I'm not. :rolleyes:

It was blatant murder. It's rotten that he will go unpunished. But many other civilians were murdered, none of whom have more parity than others. Asking people on a public forum to ignore the wider issue is as pointless as expecting you to contribute to a thread about Republican atrocities without pushing for your own version of parity.

It does have relevance to NI society as one person's killer is another person's hero. And every time we try and force the public to pay for another tribunal simply to establish a widely known truth, the divisions are copper-fastened.