150+ killings by British soldiers in NI never fully investigated

gurramok

And that only covers the period between 1970 and 1973. I wonder did many people especially British people know this that went on in their name?

Some would say that a portion of these deaths were 'combatants' which is probably true but a huge chunk of them were unarmed innocent civilians if one was to look over the list of deaths in this period.

My personal opinion is that these deaths are the reason why a South Africa style Truth & Reconciliation commission(decision pending on its formation) is scary to the British establishment as it exposes the good reputation of the British army among the British people.

Whole article here http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/20/saville-inquiry-killings-soldiers-troubles-northern-ireland

Guardian wrote:

More than 150 killings committed by soldiers during Northern Ireland's Troubles were never fully investigated because of an informal understanding between the police and the army.

The inadequacy of official examinations into fatal military shootings emerged in the wake of last week's Saville inquiry report on the "unjustifiable" deaths of 13 civilians on Bloody Sunday and in findings by the Police Service of Northern Ireland's historical enquiries team (HET).

The effect of the practice – under which soldiers who shot civilians were questioned by the army's Royal Military Police (RMP) rather than police detectives – has been highlighted by a Derry-based human rights organisation, the Pat Finucane Centre, which works closely with HET investigators.

It meant, according to the centre's Paul O'Connor, that between 1970 and 1973 soldiers were unlikely to be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. During that period they shot dead more than 150 people in the province.

The agreement made in 1970 between the chief constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the army in Northern Ireland was revoked in September 1973 because it was "unsatisfactory". "RMP investigations into killings then were known as tea and sandwich inquiries," O'Connor said.

He claimed the RMT often did not obtain statements so soldiers who killed civilians were not cross-examined. "This was therefore a deeply flawed procedure," he added.

"In effect, there was no investigation. The RMP did not take weapons and examine them. Sometimes the paperwork would not even be handed over to the RUC. There were 150 people killed by the army in this period and they were never fully investigated."

This failure encouraged a culture of impunity to develop among troops who felt they were above the law, according to O'Connor.

Flaws in the agreement are acknowledged in an HET report, released this month, into the killing of William McGreanery by Grenadier Guards in Derry in September 1971 – five months before Bloody Sunday.

It said the policy meant that "RUC investigators were to have gathered all relevant civilian witness and forensic evidence, and furnish it to the RMP prior to an interview being conducted with a soldier. It clearly envisaged that soldiers would face a thorough investigation, and was designed to enable the RMP to provide effective support in the difficult times that existed."

But the result, the HET said, was that "this policy was not followed; in any event it negated any possibility of independence and it is questionable whether the chief constable had the legal authority to devolve his responsibilities in this manner, notwithstanding the immensely difficult security situation that existed at the time. These arrangements meant that in practice, soldiers were not interviewed by civilian police officers at all".

The MoD has defended the practice in recent correspondence, claiming that it was "acting as the civil power bearing the lion's share of law enforcement" in Northern Ireland until police primacy was restored in 1976.

The Saville report draws attention to the same problem and the way in which RMP questioning was conducted for "managerial" purposes rather than in pursuit of independent "criminal" investigations.

The report quotes a lecture given in 1973 by an unidentified RMP major to a provost marshal's study session. "Back in 1970 a decision was reached between the GOC [general officer commanding Northern Ireland] and the chief constable whereby RMP would tend to military witnesses and the RUC to civilian witnesses in the investigation of offences and incidents," it noted.

"With both RMP and RUC sympathetic towards the soldier, who after all was doing an incredibly difficult job, he was highly unlikely to make a statement incriminating himself, for the RMP investigator was out for information for managerial, not criminal purposes, and, using their powers of discretion, it was equally unlikely that the RUC would prefer charges against soldiers except in the most extreme of circumstances."

Lord Saville's critical conclusions about soldiers' behaviour on Bloody Sunday will encourage relatives of those shot dead by the army on other occasions to press for the revival of police investigations.

FlutterinBantam

Do you take the same interest in those blown to bits by terrorists during the same period, a lot of whom are walking around scot free?

BluePlanet

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do you take the same interest in those blown to bits by terrorists during the same period, a lot of whom are walking around scot free?

And which of those incidents weren't investigated?

:rolleyes:

gurramok

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do you take the same interest in those blown to bits by terrorists during the same period, a lot of whom are walking around scot free?

Yes, do you have the same interest in the topic?

What is your view, should these killings(as per topic) be investigated?

FTA69

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Do you take the same interest in those blown to bits by terrorists during the same period, a lot of whom are walking around scot free?

Surely you're not equating "Our Boys" with those dastardly terrorists are you? That would indicate there was some sort of war being fought!

wes

Truly shameful way to do things. All of these killings should have been investigated properly, in the first place, and I think now that this has come out, they should be investiaged again properly.

What is the point of investigating these now?

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the point of investigating these now?

Justice for those killed. To show that the North has moved on from the impunity once enjoyed by British forces, and that no one is above the law.

jank

Seems the worms are coming out of the woodwork post Saville report. I wonder if an open and transparent investigation is now warranted by the British Government into the British Army carry on in the north. Thing is your average person in england doesn't have a clue on what went on and how "dirty" a war it was.

PeterIanStaker

I'm sure if there is a report, it'll take another decade or three to come out, thereby safely ensureing there are few left alive to dispute the official version.

johngalway

wes wrote: »

Justice for those killed. To show that the North has moved on from the impunity once enjoyed by British forces, and that no one is above the law.

Well said.

Fratton Fred

jank wrote: »

Seems the worms are coming out of the woodwork post Saville report. I wonder if an open and transparent investigation is now warranted by the British Government into the British Army carry on in the north. Thing is your average person in england doesn't have a clue on what went on and how "dirty" a war it was.

A lot of people in England knew just how dirty the war was, but to an extent turned a blind eye.

There would have been a lot more focus on what was going on in northern Ireland if people were not more interested in the random bombings and murders going on in their own back yard.

I think any sympathies the people of England had for Irish natioalists was shattered by the Balcombe Street gang.

Maybe there should be a truth and reconciliation process, but I have no confidence that certain participants are interested in the truth, only in furthering their own political agenda.

Members of the IRA witheld facts from the Saville enquiry, so why would they tell the truth in another enquiry.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

Justice for those killed. To show that the North has moved on from the impunity once enjoyed by British forces, and that no one is above the law.

In that case the British/Emerican/French really should investigate the 50k plus German soldiers that died in their prison camps after the war ended, since the Allies were the good guys an all and they shouldn't have been above the law either eh.

LordSutch

Oh Lord, not another one of these Brit bashing threads ...... :cool:

God bless the IRA, defender of the people, cleaner than clean, repelling those nasty colluding Brits, & saving Irish lives from all those British murderers Think I'll steer clear of this Anti-British Irish Republican propagandist Rant of a thread.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

In that case the British/Emerican/French really should investigate the 50k plus German soldiers that died in their prison camps after the war ended, since the Allies were the good guys an all and they shouldn't have been above the law either eh.

This is pretty much how you reply in most threads. Ignore the topic at hand and bring something else up. What your saying has nothing to do with this topic.

jank

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Members of the IRA witheld facts from the Saville enquiry, so why would they tell the truth in another enquiry.

Do you have any proof of this?

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

This is pretty much how you reply in most threads. Ignore the topic at hand and bring something else up. What your saying has nothing to do with this topic.

I'm not ignoring the topic at all, what I am doing is highlighting the selectivity of some posters regarding their calls for justice.

Fratton Fred

jank wrote: »

Do you have any proof of this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-inquiry-key-findings

The report said that republican paramilitaries had been responsible for "some firing" but the scale had been exaggerated by British soldiers and "none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of the civilian casualties".

• The report concluded that two Official IRA men had gone to a pre-arranged sniping position and shots had been fired by republican paramilitaries that were not merely in response to the British soldiers opening fire.

• Saville said Martin McGuiness, now the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, "was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun" but said that there was no evidence he fired the weapon and that this provided no justification for the soldiers opening fire.

• It also found evidence of people with nail and petrol bombs and at least one car used to hold weapons in Glenfada Park North. The inquiry said the Official IRA had tried to conceal the whole truth about its activities but that the Glenfada Park North area was clear of weapons when the soldiers arrived.

wes

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the topic at all, what I am doing is highlighting the selectivity of some posters regarding their calls for justice.

No, your not actually. You are very deliberately trying to not talk about the actual topic, as per usual. The thread is about killings going uninvestigated up North by British soldiers, and not World War 2.

gurramok

Camelot wrote: »

Oh Lord, not another one of these Brit bashing threads ...... :cool:

Totally wrong.

Camelot wrote: »

God bless the IRA, defender of the people, cleaner than clean, repelling those nasty colluding Brits, & saving Irish lives from all those British murderers Think I'll steer clear of this Anti-British Irish Republican propagandist Rant of a thread.

What's this crap got to do with the topic?

I don't expect an answer from you as you do not have a leg to stand on with regards to the topic.

gurramok

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the topic at all, what I am doing is highlighting the selectivity of some posters regarding their calls for justice.

What posters and what selectivity?

sensibleken

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the topic at all, what I am doing is highlighting the selectivity of some posters regarding their calls for justice.

so we should instead talk about all subjects at once? ok then...

The British soldiers should be investigated and so should the authenticity of laudabiliter and if not then why bother with an american version of Ringu when original japanese version was better than the PX line of Vespas.

nah its still better if we talk about one thing at a time

wes

wes wrote: »

Justice for those killed. To show that the North has moved on from the impunity once enjoyed by British forces, and that no one is above the law.

I thought we had moved on when we released all the prisoners post the GFA agreement.

Quid pro quo no?

Livvie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A lot of people in England knew just how dirty the war was, but to an extent turned a blind eye.

There would have been a lot more focus on what was going on in northern Ireland if people were not more interested in the random bombings and murders going on in their own back yard.

I think any sympathies the people of England had for Irish natioalists was shattered by the Balcombe Street gang.

Maybe there should be a truth and reconciliation process, but I have no confidence that certain participants are interested in the truth, only in furthering their own political agenda.

Members of the IRA witheld facts from the Saville enquiry, so why would they tell the truth in another enquiry.

I disagree with your first point, Fred. Most people I know had no idea what was going on - they were fed half truths by the media and believed them. All they knew was that the IRA were blowing people up. A lot of them even thought it was actually a war between the UK and Ireland. They had no idea about the history. All that was reported were the riots, followed by the campaign of terror. It would appear on the surface that we were there to keep the peace on British soil - British because that's what the majority wanted.

Given those facts it's no surprise really that your average politically naive citizen thought that we were the good guys.

I would love to see a high profile documentary on the BBC, detailing the facts, so that the British, and especially the English, could actually see what went on, and more importantly, what preceded it.

I sometimes wonder too, if some of the younger, inexperienced soldiers, had a clue about the history.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought we had moved on when we released all the prisoners post the GFA agreement.

Quid pro quo no?

Well, no its not the same. We are talking about killings that were not investigated properly, and afaik, they would not be covered by the GFA.

Fratton Fred

Livvie wrote: »

I disagree with your first point, Fred. Most people I know had no idea what was going on - they were fed half truths by the media and believed them. All they knew was that the IRA were blowing people up. A lot of them even thought it was actually a war between the UK and Ireland. They had no idea about the history. All that was reported were the riots, followed by the campaign of terror. It would appear on the surface that we were there to keep the peace on British soil - British because that's what the majority wanted.

Given those facts it's no surprise really that your average politically naive citizen thought that we were the good guys.

I would love to see a high profile documentary on the BBC, detailing the facts, so that the British, and especially the English, could actually see what went on, and more importantly, what preceded it.

I sometimes wonder too, if some of the younger, inexperienced soldiers, had a clue about the history.

are you talking about the history, or what was happening?

either way though, I would say that amongst my peers, there was a certain amount of not wanting to know what was going on, the bastards were bombing our train stations and they were therefore the enemy.

I have said before that the IRA allowed the British Media to ignore the civil rights movement and lump civil rights marches and nationalist terrorists in the same category.

Either way, i would agree that Panorama could do with a decent documentary about the troubles and tell the full story.

ART6

The facts in this case have been identified as that the British Army did indeed use lethal force on unarmed civilians. What the IRA was doing before and during the incident is irrelevant to the enquiry. Even if the IRA had fired on the troops, that would still not alter the facts.

Therefore, the question in my mind goes much further than were the troops reckless, out of control, or homicidal. Using armies as peacekeepers must always be a risky business as soldiers are trained for one purpose only - to kill the enemies of the state. Any government who assigns them to peacekeeping should think very carefully before doing so. It should then consider equally carefully who to send. Soldiers are not policemen.

The British paratroop regiments are an elite force trained for aggression and fitted with short fuses, and their activities in the Falklands suggests what their training is intended to achieve. So I feel strongly that the enquiry has not gone where it should have gone. It shouldn't simply stop at blaming the soldiers. It should go on to ask who decided that the Paras of all men should be assigned to peacekeeping when their whole business is war. Once again Britain has succeeded in blaming Joe Soap and letting the politicians and the top brass off the hook. That is what is sour about Britain.

Some people, I note, are now calling for the individual soldiers to be prosecuted. Maybe they should be. But unless the politicians and brass who sent them in are also prosecuted then I personally would oppose the whole idea. An apology from David Cameron? If I send in a trained killer to assassinate someone, can I get of the hook by apologising?

At the long ago Nurenburg trials they executed men for being in charge of homicidal troops. They didn't execute the soldiers.

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I have said before that the IRA allowed the British Media to ignore the civil rights movement and lump civil rights marches and nationalist terrorists in the same category.

.

As the civil rights movement was founded in 1964, and discrimination had been ongoing since 1921/22, I'd say they were doing a fine job of ignoring it all on their own.

Poccington

Camelot wrote: »

Oh Lord, not another one of these Brit bashing threads ...... :cool:

God bless the IRA, defender of the people, cleaner than clean, repelling those nasty colluding Brits, & saving Irish lives from all those British murderers Think I'll steer clear of this Anti-British Irish Republican propagandist Rant of a thread.

Can you please point out where in this thread that anybody has stated the the IRA were cleaner than clean?

I fully agree that you should steer clear of this thread, rather than posting absolute ****e and not contributing to the topic in the slightest bit.


Hopefully a proper investigation will be carried out, people deserve answers to any kind of dodgy dealings regardless of if they involved British troops, Republicans or Loyalists. Numerous people were affected by the events during the Troubles, it's about time people start getting the answers they deserve.

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

As the civil rights movement was founded in 1964, and discrimination had been ongoing since 1921/22, I'd say they were doing a fine job of ignoring it all on their own.

What are you implying, that for 42 years there was no problem?

we are heading miles off topic here. All I can do is speak for myself and people I know. I will agree that people were not aware of what was going on and I have already given my reason as to why this may have been.

Fratton Fred

Poccington wrote: »

Hopefully a proper investigation will be carried out, people deserve answers to any kind of dodgy dealings regardless of if they involved British troops, Republicans or Loyalists. Numerous people were affected by the events during the Troubles, it's about time people start getting the answers they deserve.

I agree with that 100%, but it would require complete impartial cooperation from all involved and I'm not sure if that is possible.

Livvie

Fratton Fred wrote: »

are you talking about the history, or what was happening?

Both really.

wes

wes wrote: »

Well, no its not the same. We are talking about killings that were not investigated properly, and afaik, they would not be covered by the GFA.

You miss my point.
The GFA is the only game in town.
It provided for the mass release on licence of mass murderers when they would otherwise not be entitled to such a release.

Their victims families had to move on and put up with that.

Do you seriously think dredging up police or army murders from the other side from 30 years ago is moving on?
It's not. It's lancing a healed boil.



It's the kind of codology that some unionists were up to prior to SF going into NI government... ie there was always something new brought up when something else is settled.

Theres a lot of hurt on all sides in NI still,living hurt that people are prepared and have decided to move on as best they can from.

Delving into this shoite will only serve to open sores from the unionist side involving all the IRA's wrongs.

The people of Ireland have moved on.
I suspect all you'll get in response to this is,ah yes that was terrible..If it happens again,we'll deal with it but we've moved on from the past of 30 years ago.

gurramok

Deleted User wrote: »

It provided for the mass release on licence of mass murderers when they would otherwise not be entitled to such a release.

Their victims families had to move on and put up with that.

Do you seriously think dredging up police or army murders from the other side from 30 years ago is moving on?
It's not. It's lancing a healed boil.

Delving into this shoite will only serve to open sores from the unionist side involving all the IRA's wrongs.

The people of Ireland have moved on.
I suspect all you'll get in response to this is,ah yes that was terrible..If it happens again,we'll deal with it but we've moved on from the past of 30 years ago.

You see, you are equating the IRA with the British military. I think Unionists and the British people would be insulted by that.

We know how bad Republican and Loyalist murders were which were thoroughly investigated and the guilty were jailed, served time etc.

The other victims of state killings never had that opportunity. Their killers had a handsome career in the security forces without a stain on their character, they never served a day in jail nor were convicted of anything.

The victims of soldiers are not inferior to victims of paramilitaries, they suffered alot too and need to be listened to and that helps in the healing process.

Memnoch

All of the people killed were either planning to launch rockets into great britain or were being used as human shields by the terrorists. The British soldiers obviously did their best to protect civilian lives and the internal enquires into the incidents cleared them of any wrong doing.

This should obviously put an end to the discussion, imo.

Poccington

Memnoch wrote: »

All of the people killed were either planning to launch rockets into great britain or were being used as human shields by the terrorists. The British soldiers obviously did their best to protect civilian lives and the internal enquires into the incidents cleared them of any wrong doing.

This should obviously put an end to the discussion, imo.

Well I never... You're supposed to be dead Lord Widgery!

Memnoch

Poccington wrote: »

Well I never... You're supposed to be dead Lord Widgery!

The problem with internet posting is the lack of facial expression. Especially when employing sarcasm.

OhNoYouDidn't

Fratton Fred wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-inquiry-key-findings

Where does that say Republicans lied to the tribunal?

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

You see, you are equating the IRA with the British military. I think Unionists and the British people would be insulted by that.

We know how bad Republican and Loyalist murders were which were thoroughly investigated and the guilty were jailed, served time etc.

Oh really? All murders by loyalists and republicans were thoroughly investigated?not a single one ever missed or inconclusively investigated?
Thats news to me.

The other victims of state killings never had that opportunity. Their killers had a handsome career in the security forces without a stain on their character, they never served a day in jail nor were convicted of anything.

You could say that but then you could also say that Enough is enough for I'm sure unionists could cite many uninvestigated on inconclusively investigated murders suspected by terrorists.

The victims of soldiers are not inferior to victims of paramilitaries, they suffered alot too and need to be listened to and that helps in the healing process.

No one said they were inferior.
What was said was move on.No need for the endless dredging of the grief stories.
Forwards not backwards.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

You miss my point.
The GFA is the only game in town.
It provided for the mass release on licence of mass murderers when they would otherwise not be entitled to such a release.

Their victims families had to move on and put up with that.

Do you seriously think dredging up police or army murders from the other side from 30 years ago is moving on?
It's not. It's lancing a healed boil.



It's the kind of codology that some unionists were up to prior to SF going into NI government... ie there was always something new brought up when something else is settled.

Theres a lot of hurt on all sides in NI still,living hurt that people are prepared and have decided to move on as best they can from.

Delving into this shoite will only serve to open sores from the unionist side involving all the IRA's wrongs.

The people of Ireland have moved on.
I suspect all you'll get in response to this is,ah yes that was terrible..If it happens again,we'll deal with it but we've moved on from the past of 30 years ago.

World of difference between terrorists, and the army of a democracy. Also, one groups crimes were investigated and who did what was found out, in the case of British forces it did not happen, as as I said before, they are not covered by the GFA, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, investigating these crimes, and finding out what happened will help the healing process, as opposed to the current white wash of one sides crimes. People need to know what happened to there loved ones, and they deserve closure.

BluePlanet

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh really? All murders by loyalists and republicans were thoroughly investigated?not a single one ever missed or inconclusively investigated?

You make the allegation, you provide the proof.
Since you're claiming some Loyalist and Republican murders went un-investigated, care to cite an example?

Those crimes that were as you say "inconclusively investigated" are NOT the same thing as being un-investigated.
Just because the trail of evidence didn't lead to a prosecution does not mean it wasn't investigated.

Wes

Go ask Willy McCrea.
He was crying recently in Westminister about it,the day of the Bloody sunday apology.

Wes wrote:

World of difference between terrorists, and the army of a democracy. Also, one groups crimes were investigated and who did what was found out, in the case of British forces it did not happen, as as I said before, they are not covered by the GFA, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, investigating these crimes, and finding out what happened will help the healing process, as opposed to the current white wash of one sides crimes. People need to know what happened to there loved ones, and they deserve closure.

It will in it's árse help the healing process.
It will drag up old resentments in what is a thinly veiled peace.
We'd be back to the tribal society up there again with everything revisited.

Mind you I have the cop on to know that politicians will be moving on and not lighting old fires like ye are in this thread.
Pointless me arguing with ye in that case.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

It will in it's árse help the healing process.
It will drag up old resentments in what is a thinly veiled peace.
We'd be back to the tribal society up there again with everything revisited.

Mind you I have the cop on to know that politicians will be moving on and not lighting old fires like ye are in this thread.
Pointless me arguing with ye in that case.

Oh please, if this it is done properly, then it won't cause problems, and will help people heal. I think the truth of what was done by British forces needs to come out, and yes if need be, there should be prosecutions as well. Letting this stuff go, just creates a culture where British armed forces know they can get away with killing civilians which should not be allowed.

Personally, I believe the victims and there families need justice, and there really should be no excuses to avoid it.

wes

wes wrote: »

Oh please, if this it is done properly, then it won't cause problems, and will help people heal. I think the truth of what was done by British forces needs to come out, and yes if need be, there should be prosecutions as well. Letting this stuff go, just creates a culture where British armed forces know they can get away with killing civilians which should not be allowed.

Now come off it,something that happened 30 years ago in awfull circumstances fosters a culture today that they can get away with it?

Thats seriously pushing it.

For a start,at the height of the IRA bombing of Britain,there were marches shouting "paddies out" in Britain and understandably so.
Those were the people and that was their mood voting for the politicians that controlled the British army then.
That democracy having had their blood shed by the IRA in the home counties were baying for our own blood even though most of us wanted nothing to do with it.
Theres a lot of blame attached to paramilitaries for stoking up that attention.
But I in common with most don't want to know about that anymore and certainly don't want money spent on it.

Personally, I believe the victims and there families need justice, and there really should be no excuses to avoid it.

Personally I have a feeling I'm on solid ground when I say I believe theres no political will for that North or south because the vast majority of people have moved on Thankfully.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Now come off it,something that happened 30 years ago in awfull circumstances fosters a culture today that they can get away with it?

Thats seriously pushing it.

No actually it isn't. Look at the various cases of British complicity with torture in 3rd party countries for example.

Deleted User wrote: »

For a start,at the height of the IRA bombing of Britain,there were marches shouting "paddies out" in Britain and understandably so.
Those were the people and that was their mood voting for the politicians that controlled the British army then.
That democracy having had their blood shed by the IRA in the home counties were baying for our own blood even though most of us wanted nothing to do with it.
Theres a lot of blame attached to paramilitaries for stoking up that attention.
But I in common with most don't want to know about that anymore and certainly don't want money spent on it.

Personally I have a feeling I'm on solid ground when I say I believe theres no political will for that North or south because the vast majority of people have moved on Thankfully.

Quite a lot of what you said is rather irrelevant, and I can't really say how people on either side of the border feel concerning this, as I simply haven't a clue. Still, I fail to see how getting away with something for 30 years doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted now. If people were murdered there needs to be prosecution imho. There is no real excuse for there not to be any, and I agree people have moved on, and as such I don't believe the prosecutions will cause any problems. If a crime was committed then justice needs to be served.

FlutterinBantam

wes wrote: »

World of difference between terrorists, and the army of a democracy. Also, one groups crimes were investigated and who did what was found out, in the case of British forces it did not happen, as as I said before, they are not covered by the GFA, to the best of my knowledge. Personally, investigating these crimes, and finding out what happened will help the healing process, as opposed to the current white wash of one sides crimes. People need to know what happened to there loved ones, and they deserve closure.

No there isn't, 360 degree war is no longer fought with the Army of a democracy going around with their hands tied behind their backs.

That may have been the case before 1946, but not now, buddy.

Things have changed, haven't you noticed?

gurramok

Deleted User wrote: »

It will in it's árse help the healing process.
It will drag up old resentments in what is a thinly veiled peace.

There is no healing when a sovereign govt does not own up to its dirty past. It took 38yrs for them to admit Bloody Sunday. It shouldn't take another 38yrs to own to to their wrongs.

In fact, it would restore confidence and respect in the British establishment if they own up to what their soldiers did in these multiple killings of civilians.

Deleted User wrote:

I'm sure unionists could cite many uninvestigated on inconclusively investigated murders suspected by terrorists.

Well, what are these uninvestigated ones?

Deleted User wrote:

Now come off it,something that happened 30 years ago in awfull circumstances fosters a culture today that they can get away with it?

Not just 1970-1973. It went on up to the 90s. No accountability at all from the 'forces of law and order'.

Livvie

wes wrote: »

No actually it isn't. Look at the various cases of British complicity with torture in 3rd party countries for example.



Quite a lot of what you said is rather irrelevant, and I can't really say how people on either side of the border feel concerning this, as I simply haven't a clue. Still, I fail to see how getting away with something for 30 years doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted now. If people were murdered there needs to be prosecution imho. There is no real excuse for there not to be any, and I agree people have moved on, and as such I don't believe the prosecutions will cause any problems. If a crime was committed then justice needs to be served.

Totally agree with that.

Even if a trial were to declare extenuating circumstances, heat of the moment or whatever, or even some minor punishment like having their army pensions taken away, at least that would be better than stating on one hand that murders were committed, and on the other allowing those murders to go unpunished.

What's that about justice not only being done, but being seen to be done?

wes

wes wrote: »

No actually it isn't. Look at the various cases of British complicity with torture in 3rd party countries for example.



Quite a lot of what you said is rather irrelevant, and I can't really say how people on either side of the border feel concerning this, as I simply haven't a clue. Still, I fail to see how getting away with something for 30 years doesn't mean they shouldn't be prosecuted now. If people were murdered there needs to be prosecution imho. There is no real excuse for there not to be any, and I agree people have moved on, and as such I don't believe the prosecutions will cause any problems. If a crime was committed then justice needs to be served.

With Respect,I can say that in my opinion what you are pointing out displays a basic lack of understanding of the realpolitik of NI and how we got to where we are today.

Gurramok wrote:

There is no healing when a sovereign govt does not own up to its dirty past. It took 38yrs for them to admit Bloody Sunday. It shouldn't take another 38yrs to own to to their wrongs.

It's not a question of that.It's a question of proportionality.
The point of knowing a situation has been settled and revisiting issues is unhelpful in the wider sense.

In fact, it would restore confidence and respect in the British establishment if they own up to what their soldiers did in these multiple killings of civilians.

I've been living in this country long enough and so have many of our older politicians to know when to call time on dredging through what we know to have happened.
We call time on it in the name of leaving things be.
Some people of course never leave things be..theres always something else..
Thank fully for the rest of us,those are a tinier and tinier minority.

Not just 1970-1973. It went on up to the 90s. No accountability at all from the 'forces of law and order'.

So did the disdain of the UK electorate towards the IRA because they were blowing up children in warrington at the end of it and dragging their heels at condemning Omagh and the like.
Like it or not ,human nature being as it is,the masters of the fight against that were the GB voting public and the home counties voted in droves for people that may have turned a blind eye to fighting fire with fire and dirtily.
I and I'm sure I'm in plenty company here,think enough responsibility for that mindset being born lies with the IRA stoking up what is after all in human nature and that is anger.
Angry people can do the most irrational things.
We all know who and what made the Brits angry for nigh on 30 years don't we.

So that in a nutshell is why it ain't happening.

gurramok

Deleted User wrote: »

.It's not a question of that.It's a question of proportionality.

Explain?

Deleted User wrote: »

The point of knowing a situation has been settled and revisiting issues is unhelpful in the wider sense. I've been living in this country long enough and so have many of our older politicians to know when to call time on dredging through what we know to have happened.
We call time on it in the name of leaving things be.
Some people of course never leave things be..theres always something else..
Thank fully for the rest of us,those are a tinier and tinier minority.

Eh no. Who is this tiny minority? The relatives seeking justice? :eek:

Deleted User wrote: »

So did the disdain of the UK electorate towards the IRA because they were blowing up children in warrington at the end of it and dragging their heels at condemning Omagh and the like.
Like it or not ,human nature being as it is,the masters of the fight against that were the GB voting public and the home counties voted in droves for people that may have turned a blind eye to fighting fire with fire and dirtily.
I and I'm sure I'm in plenty company here,think enough responsibility for that mindset being born lies with the IRA stoking up what is after all in human nature and that is anger.
Angry people can do the most irrational things.
We all know who and what made the Brits angry for nigh on 30 years don't we.

So that in a nutshell is why it ain't happening.

Killing 150+ people between 1970-1973 without any justice lead to a good few joining paramilitary organisations at that time. Of course some of these went on those bombing campaigns you mentioned which was utterly disgraceful which in turn enraged the English public who were(and are) totally unaware what their army did in NI which played their part in stoking up the violent feelings against them and their army in the first place.

If there was accountability at the time to say 'yes, your child was shot by one of our soldiers and we are sorry for it', you can bet the likes of the IRA would never have been as strong as they became.

gurramok

gurramok wrote: »

Explain?

what I meant about a sense of proportion? I meant a tiny amount of people relative to the thousands of hurt who could have and could still cause an awfull fuss if they wanted to,who have decided things are settled versus the tiny few who just want more and more and more.

Eh no. Who is this tiny minority? The relatives seeking justice? :eek:

Yes I'm afraid.
We're sorry for them but we're not going there.

Killing 150+ people between 1970-1973 without any justice lead to a good few joining paramilitary organisations at that time. Of course some of these went on those bombing campaigns you mentioned which was utterly disgraceful which in turn enraged the English public who were(and are) totally unaware what their army did in NI which played their part in stoking up the violent feelings against them and their army in the first place.

If there was accountability at the time to say 'yes, your child was shot by one of our soldiers and we are sorry for it', you can bet the likes of the IRA would never have been as strong as they became.

The same period saw 500 soldiers killed.
So really my anger point and other points from the last post apply.