Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

................

They do. Lee Clegg was convicted and jailed. ...

..............for life, then was released two years later and back to work in the Army.

DarkyHughes

It's funny when you hear the British & Irish governments lecturing Republicans on armed actions but have given in several times to Loyalist terrorists.

They caused enough mayhem in 69 after the RUC had been practically driven out of nationalists areas to be able to bring the Army in to bolster up the the State. They brought down the SA by sapping the political will out of both the British & Irish governments were the UDA & UVF made people stop going to work & called it a general strike that was enough for Britain to give up on it & then the Dublin & Monaghan bombings sapped the will out of the Irish government.

It's sad that nobody has ever been able to confront loyalist terrorists as far back as 1912 with Carson & his terror gang.

Sand

padma wrote: »

I believe him when he says the tactics they used was to wipe out targets, terrorize catholic communities, drive by street barriers and fire shots, make people afraid and so on so forth. Thats what I believe, I do not believe in his beliefs or ideology, simple really, so, do you believe that or do you believe his ideology etc.

I think if you look back through my posts on the thread its pretty clear I think the guys are liars with books to sell. The Provos are very selective though: they believe what they like to believe, and they ignore what they don't like to believe. And then they talk about truth and reconciliation...

In either case - the PSNI looked at the documentary. No crime was admitted to by anyone in the documentary. No useful leads to a criminal act were provided. The relevant killings will be looked at by the HET as part of the normal workload. The end.

@Nodin

..............for life, then was released two years later and back to work in the Army.

And? The point the British Army doesn't jail their own is disproven.

padma

Sand wrote: »

I think if you look back through my posts on the thread its pretty clear I think the guys are liars with books to sell. The Provos are very selective though: they believe what they like to believe, and they ignore what they don't like to believe. And then they talk about truth and reconciliation...

In either case - the PSNI looked at the documentary. No crime was admitted to by anyone in the documentary. No useful leads to a criminal act were provided. The relevant killings will be looked at by the HET as part of the normal workload. The end.

The PSNI looked at the documentary and because no crime was admitted to by anyone directly, therefore no leads etc, and this makes what they say Liars, come on man, look deeper.

The PSNI are very selective though: they believe what they like to believe, and they ignore what they don't like to believe. Or cover up

The PSNI, are known to have an agenda yet it is improving as a police force for the whole community there, yet as long as the old guard is there and Northern Irelands HET is headed by an ex ruc officer it is doubtful a proper impartial investigation will come to light until an opening of the files surrounding the MRF is achieved.

Sand

padma wrote: »

The PSNI looked at the documentary and because no crime was admitted to by anyone directly, therefore no leads etc, and this makes what they say Liars, come on man, look deeper.

The PSNI are very selective though: they believe what they like to believe, and they ignore what they don't like to believe. Or cover up

The PSNI, are known to have an agenda yet it is improving as a police force for the whole community there, yet as long as the old guard is there and Northern Irelands HET is headed by an ex ruc officer it is doubtful a proper impartial investigation will come to light until an opening of the files surrounding the MRF is achieved.

I think I dealt with this point already...

Sand wrote: »

That is the great thing about conspiracy theories...they are usually built with some get out clause to avoid confronting reality.

padma

Like your story about the Provos (who dont exist anymore) rewriting history and how Wee Gerry was a mastermind terrorist. Let it go

Sand

padma wrote: »

Like your story about the Provos (who dont exist anymore) rewriting history and how Wee Gerry was a mastermind terrorist. Let it go

Ah, the old "Let it go"/"Move on" tactic from the Provo playbook.

It might hold more weight if it wasn't employed on a thread where Provos are obsessing about a conspiracy theory on events that may or may not have happened 40 years ago.

padma

Sand, I just outlined to you how YOU have been talking conspiracy stuff, I am saying to you, its time to let it go, just drop it, its repetitive, we get what you are trying to say, we know how you think about Northern Irish Republicanism. We know you believe as you outlined, conspiracy nonsense about Provos rewriting history, They just have a different narrative than you, let it go.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

......


And? The point the British Army doesn't jail their own is disproven.

Being more than a bit dishonest there, aren't we? Two years, then released, then right back into the BA.......

moxin

Sand wrote: »

Ah, the old "Let it go"/"Move on" tactic from the Provo playbook.

It might hold more weight if it wasn't employed on a thread where Provos are obsessing about a conspiracy theory on events that may or may not have happened 40 years ago.

You know what, your post has lost respect by playing the Provo card in reaction to any criticism of the BA.

Victims of the BA in NI who had nothing to do with PIRA were entirely innocent and have every right to demand justice from the sovereign state who were supposed to be NOT terrorists.. The BA shot dead kids, priests, mothers etc., do you need reminding?

Lets do a what if for a moment. If the first victims of BA violence had seen soldiers jailed for their murders(as well as jail for besmirching the British people for their vile acts), we would probably not have seen 40 years of subsequent Provo violence.

And yet we have not delved into the BA's outsourcing of killing via the Glennane Gang(120 plus murders of innocents). But hey, the only way to move on is to reveal the truth from both sides. Its a pity the British Govt still block the release of their files about the Dublin/Monaghan bombings, innocents died there too.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Being more than a bit dishonest there, aren't we? Two years, then released, then right back into the BA.......

The dishonesty is in the self pitying mythology that the British army doesn't send their own to jail when actually they do.

@Moxin

You know what, your post has lost respect

I'll just have to find a way to live with that.

But hey, the only way to move on is to reveal the truth from both sides.

The Provos will never reveal the truth - as I mentioned above, Adams cant even acknowledge he was a member of the PIRA. Provos are not interested in truth, they are only interested in political advantage.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

The dishonesty is in the self pitying mythology that the British army doesn't send their own to jail when actually they do.

.

Life=2 years = Back in the ranks immediately on release? Again, I think this is dishonesty on your part.

EunanMac

seamus wrote: »

You can't really say that unless you know the operations were official ones. All armies have their rogue units who operate outside the rules.

What rogue units are there in the Irish army then ?

padma

Sand wrote: »

The dishonesty is in the self pitying mythology that the British army doesn't send their own to jail when actually they do.

.

If they sent their own to jail, every murder of an innocent civilian by the BA would have led to a murder conviction, as you know it didn't, it is not worth your while to try and convince others they did when it is clear they didn't. End of.

EunanMac

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The conviction of a Royal Marine for killing a captured a severely wounded Taliban fighter would support this.

You mean murdering

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

Life=2 years = Back in the ranks immediately on release? Again, I think this is dishonesty on your part.

You acknowledge that Lee Clegg was a British soldier, who was sent to jail though, right?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

You acknowledge that Lee Clegg was a British soldier, who was sent to jail though, right?

A yes or no answer will suffice.

And allowed back into his unit as a hero and then was promoted to Sgt. Clegg

Sand

padma wrote: »

If they sent their own to jail, every murder of an innocent civilian by the BA would have led to a murder conviction, as you know it didn't, it is not worth your while to try and convince others they did when it is clear they didn't. End of.

Murder convictions depend on what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a courtroom, so you're setting an wholly unreasonable standard there. Also you seem to think men like Bryson were "innocent civilians", so you probably consider any BA shooting or killing of anyone to be murder. Objective neutrals wont agree.

Also - you're shifting the goal posts. You made a wild, incorrect claim that the British Army didn't send anyone to jail. Now that's disproven, so instead you move on to complaining the British Army doesn't send enough soldiers to jail.

Just to clarify - I'm not trying to convince you of anything: as I noted before believers in conspiracy theories always leave themselves an out and (as above) just plain out ignore where their claims are disproven. You carry on believing whatever suits you.

However, the objective analysis is

- Nobody admitted to committing any crime in the Panorama doc, as I pointed out last year.
- The interviewees make unproven, suspect claims about themselves, their activities and the people killed. At least one of them is compromised by publicising a book on the MRF at the time the documentary was released.
- The interviewees, despite the above, stress that they didn't murder any unarmed civilians.
- The PSNI reviewed the documentary, found no new evidence of any crime.
- The HET will review the killings in the normal fashion - if they find evidence of British Army murders they will investigate, as they have done in many cases before.

The end.

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

And allowed back into his unit as a hero and then was promoted to Sgt. Clegg

Are you aware of Lee Cleggs successful appeal? The one which demonstrated that the key bullet which killed one of the joyriders was shot into the *side* of the car. His earlier conviction was based on the principle that Clegg had shot the girl through the *back* of the car, after the car had rammed through his checkpoint and no longer posed an immediate threat to him or his unit.

Once that was disproven the courts satisfaction, then Clegg was basically innocent of murder. Innocent men tend not to have a criminal record held against them.

As for welcoming back killers...I dont think the Provos should throw stones given the makeup of their leadership.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

Are you aware of Lee Cleggs successful appeal? The one which demonstrated that the key bullet which killed one of the joyriders was shot into the *side* of the car. His earlier conviction was based on the principle that Clegg had shot the girl through the *back* of the car, after the car had rammed through his checkpoint and no longer posed an immediate threat to him or his unit.

Once that was disproven the courts satisfaction, then Clegg was basically innocent of murder. Innocent men tend not to have a criminal record held against them.

As for welcoming back killers...I dont think the Provos should throw stones given the makeup of their leadership.

Why exactly was he promoted ?

I don't see how British squadies that kill unarmed teenage joyriders, are any better than provos

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

Why exactly was he promoted ?

I don't see how British squadies that kill unarmed teenage joyriders, are any better than provos

He had proven himself innocent in the courts. He was qualified. He was treated the same as his colleagues.

Was he to be treated differently because of charges he had been found innocent of he could (and probably would) have sued the MoD, and he would have won. The courts had found him innocent of any crime.

On the other hand, the Provo leadership (and activists, and organisers etc) are packed with people who are *convicted* criminals and killers. Who were released on licence rather than proving their innocence.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

He had proven himself innocent in the courts. He was qualified. He was treated the same as his colleagues.

Was he to be treated differently because of charges he had been found innocent of he could (and probably would) have sued the MoD, and he would have won. The courts had found him innocent of any crime.

On the other hand, the Provo leadership (and activists, and organisers etc) are packed with people who are *convicted* criminals and killers. Who were released on licence rather than proving their innocence.

What do you mean 'treated the same as his colleagues', did they all get promoted to Sgt. ?
I thought the British were supposed to be above the provos behaviour ?

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

What do you mean 'treated the same as his colleagues', did they all get promoted to Sgt. ?

Isn't it obvious? He was proven innocent in the courts (I get the impression you are struggling to accept this fact). He was a soldier with the qualifications to be considered for promotion. He was assigned to a new role in his unit which implied additional duties and responsibilities - i.e. Sergeant.

It would actually have been odder *not* to promote an innocent, qualified soldier assigned to a role with additional duties/responsibilities. Failing to do so just because it's Clegg would be victimisation.

Lee Clegg might be a total dickhead, but he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. No employer, not even the British Army, can lawfully victimise an employee innocent of any wrong doing.

I thought the British were supposed to be above the provos behaviour ?

They are. Though that is faint praise. There are highly dangerous drug dealers who are above the provos behaviour.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? He was proven innocent in the courts (I get the impression you are struggling to accept this fact). He was a soldier with the qualifications to be considered for promotion. He was assigned to a new role in his unit which implied additional duties and responsibilities - i.e. Sergeant.

It would actually have been odder *not* to promote an innocent, qualified soldier assigned to a role with additional duties/responsibilities. Failing to do so just because it's Clegg would be victimisation.
.

Victimisation ? Now you're really taking the piss.
Very few soldiers ever reach the rank of Sgt., so what exactly did Clegg do in service to earn his promotion ?

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

Victimisation ? Now you're really taking the piss.
Very few soldiers ever reach the rank of Sgt., so what exactly did Clegg do in service to earn his promotion ?

Yeah, like I thought you really are struggling to accept that the courts found Lee Clegg to be innocent on appeal.

Relatively few soldiers serve 12 years ( the earliest they can join is 16, less than 2% serve in the BA to the age of 55 - the average is less than 9 years) which is the "average" for reaching Sergeant in the British army. I don't know when Clegg joined the British army but he was apparently in his early thirties when he was made a Sergeant...so, probably on or near about "average". If Clegg is a trained, experienced and qualified soldier with appropriate motivation...he would want to be making Sergeant by his early 30s. To give you an idea of how top heavy the British army is, in an era when the British struggle to deploy a few thousand men to Iraq or Afghanistan "an entire division, with all its ancillary support, could be manned by army officers over the rank of major. Their naval equivalents could crew an aircraft carrier, escort it with a couple of fully manned frigates - if such could be found - and RAF senior officers could cover it all with a couple of fighter squadrons, complete with all necessary support, maintenance and guard force"

That's just officers...over the rank of major. Let alone Sergeants.

I know you are really having difficulties with it - but Clegg was found innocent. He was a qualified soldier, assigned to a duty with additional responsibilities. If he was victimised by not being promoted in line with standard expectations and performance...then he would have sued the MoD and he would have won.

Many victims of the Provos have had to get over Uncle Gerry and Martin grinning out of the TV at them as they get whizzed around the country at taxpayer expense. All in the interests of the peace process. I suggest the Provos meditate on that when they consider their own difficulty with stomaching Clegg's continued service as an innocent man in the British Army. Justice was long ago sacrificed in the interests of the peace process - build a bridge. And get over it.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, like I thought you really are struggling to accept that the courts found Lee Clegg to be innocent on appeal.

Relatively few soldiers serve 12 years ( the earliest they can join is 16, less than 2% serve in the BA to the age of 55 - the average is less than 9 years) which is the "average" for reaching Sergeant in the British army. I don't know when Clegg joined the British army but he was apparently in his early thirties when he was made a Sergeant...so, probably on or near about "average". If Clegg is a trained, experienced and qualified soldier with appropriate motivation...he would want to be making Sergeant by his early 30s.

I know you are really having difficulties with it - but Clegg was found innocent. He was a qualified soldiers, assigned to a duty with additional responsibilities. If he was victimised by not being promoted in line with standard expectations and performance...then he would have sued the MoD and he would have won.

Many victims of the Provos have had to get over Uncle Gerry and Martin grinning out of the TV at them as they get whizzed around the country at taxpayer expense. All in the interests of the peace process. I suggest the Provos meditate on that when they consider their own difficulty with stomaching Clegg's continued service as an innocent man in the British Army. Justice was long ago sacrificed in the interests of the peace process - build a bridge. And get over it.

You keep straw manning the provo's as if it's somehow makes provo like behaviour in the BA acceptable ?

Since when did getting off in court merit a promotion in the British Army ?

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

You keep straw manning the provo's as if it's somehow makes provo like behaviour in the BA acceptable ?

Since when did getting off in court merit a promotion in the British Army ?

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

I don't have to disprove that "getting off in court" was the basis for which Clegg received his promotion. You're making that claim ... you have to prove it.

I'm not strawmanning the Provos...you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between a murderous terrorist group and an imperfect but lawful army. I'm reminding you there isn't one.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

I don't have to disprove that "getting off in court" was the basis for which Clegg received his promotion. You're making that claim ... you have to prove it.

I'm not strawmanning the Provos...you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between a murderous terrorist group and an imperfect but lawful army. I'm reminding you there isn't one.

No, you've just been trying to derail a thread about the BA for some period of time.

junder

EunanMac wrote: »

You keep straw manning the provo's as if it's somehow makes provo like behaviour in the BA acceptable ?

Since when did getting off in court merit a promotion in the British Army ?

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

Clegg would have had to have passed the relevant courses and there would have had to have been a sgt's position available. Sgt is not just a rank, its a job position. Normally the first position is platoon Sgt and would put the Sgt in control of normally 3 - 4 sections each consisting of about 8 men. In combat situation being platoon Sgt means a hell of a lot of running about as the platoon Sgt will be in charge of the reorg, replening ammunition etc, passing casualtys and pow's up the line which would mean having to literally run between the attacking sections, the fire support sections and the reserve sections so he can keep the platoon lieutenant informed of the situation. So no Clegg would not have been promoted for the hell of it. Mind telling me how rank is achieved within the ira, number of people killed, number of bombs let of?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Clegg would have had to have passed the relevant courses and there would have had to have been a sgt's position available. Sgt is not just a rank, its a job position. Normally the first position is platoon Sgt and would put the Sgt in control of normally 3 - 4 sections each consisting of about 8 men. In combat situation being platoon Sgt means a hell of a lot of running about as the platoon Sgt will be in charge of the reorg, replening ammunition etc, passing casualtys and pow's up the line which would mean having to literally run between the attacking sections, the fire support sections and the reserve sections so he can keep the platoon lieutenant informed of the situation. So no Clegg would not have been promoted for the hell of it. Mind telling me how rank is achieved within the ira, number of people killed, number of bombs let of?

And the 'platoon sergeant' is doing all those things in combat so that soldiers can make faces at the enemy?
Rank in any army is achieved on the basis of your effectiveness and efficiency at achieving the goals of that army.