janfebmar wrote: » Fionn1952 wrote: » I think anyone suspected of murder should face legal proceedings. End of story, no grey area, no, 'oh buts', no exceptions. And do you think the 200 who got the secret amnesty letters should also face legal proceedings if any are suspected of murder?
Fionn1952 wrote: » I think anyone suspected of murder should face legal proceedings. End of story, no grey area, no, 'oh buts', no exceptions.
janfebmar wrote: » Interesting question. The PSNI has 3000 guns captured during the troubles - should they not be tested with modern DNA equipment or would any killers implicated walk free again?
janfebmar wrote: » And do you think the 200 who got the secret amnesty letters should also face legal proceedings if any are suspected of murder?
Following a review of your case by the director of public prosecutions for England and Wales, he has concluded that on the evidence before him there is insufficient to afford a realistic prospect of convicting you for any such offence arising out of..." You would not therefore face prosecution for any such offence should you return to the United Kingdom. That decision is based on the evidence currently available. Should such fresh evidence arise - and any statement made by you implicating yourself in... may amount to such evidence - the matter may have to be reconsidered
Fionn1952 wrote: » janfebmar wrote: » Fionn1952 wrote: » I think anyone suspected of murder should face legal proceedings. End of story, no grey area, no, 'oh buts', no exceptions. And do you think the 200 who got the secret amnesty letters should also face legal proceedings if any are suspected of murder? As expected, you misunderstand what the OTR letters actually were. They were not amnesty letters (despite being portrayed as such by hardline Unionism), they were letters indicating that the people who received them were not going to be convicted on the basis of current evidence at the time. They actually go on to specify that if new evidence should arise that legal proceedings absolutely could be taken up again. As to whether they SHOULD face legal proceedings, see my post above. It's pretty clear, no exceptions.
RobMc59 wrote: » Fionn1952 wrote: » janfebmar wrote: » Fionn1952 wrote: » I think anyone suspected of murder should face legal proceedings. End of story, no grey area, no, 'oh buts', no exceptions. And do you think the 200 who got the secret amnesty letters should also face legal proceedings if any are suspected of murder? As expected, you misunderstand what the OTR letters actually were. They were not amnesty letters (despite being portrayed as such by hardline Unionism), they were letters indicating that the people who received them were not going to be convicted on the basis of current evidence at the time. They actually go on to specify that if new evidence should arise that legal proceedings absolutely could be taken up again. As to whether they SHOULD face legal proceedings, see my post above. It's pretty clear, no exceptions. Fionn,that's the problem.British people see the soldier being brought to justice whilst paramilitary murderers have been allowed to walk away scott free and gloat about it which adds insult to those who believe in law and order. I understand the feelings of people like citytillidie whose relatives died on Bloody Sunday and agree they deserve justice. I hope that the British establishment has the guts to reopen terrorist murders too and bring THEM to justice.
Fionn1952 wrote: » And here's where that falls apart, Rob. Look at the number of people tried and convicted for IRA activities. Now compare that to the number of people tried and convicted for their actions while on duty with the British army. I understand that your post reflects the opinion of many, I just genuinely can't understand how anyone could look at a place where (mostly inaccurate) suspicion of IRA connection was enough to have people imprisoned without trial, where the overwhelming majority of convictions were for IRA membership or activities.....and say that ONE British soldier facing trial for an absolutely disgusting atrocity (which the British state covered up for decades) represents paramilitaries being able to walk away and the army being singled out?!
FrancieBrady wrote: » The British Army killed 297 people, that we know about. The majority - 160, were civilians, 61 of them were children.
RobMc59 wrote: » Fionn,that's the problem.British people see the soldier being brought to justice whilst paramilitary murderers have been allowed to walk away scott free and gloat about it which adds insult to those who believe in law and order. I understand the feelings of people like citytillidie whose relatives died on Bloody Sunday and agree they deserve justice. I hope that the British establishment has the guts to reopen terrorist murders too and bring THEM to justice.
janfebmar wrote: » And were some civilians, for example, like the fellow with the plank of wood sneaking up behind a policeman during a riot and who had it raised over his head trying to kill him, all caught on camera?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Ok, let's play your game and say it does include him. 159 left, 61 of whom were children. 4 soldiers tried and convicted, spent an average of 5 years and contrary to what every other NATO and democratic country does, were allowed to rejoin the British army and continue their careers.
blanch152 wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » Ok, let's play your game and say it does include him. 159 left, 61 of whom were children. 4 soldiers tried and convicted, spent an average of 5 years and contrary to what every other NATO and democratic country does, were allowed to rejoin the British army and continue their careers. Being allowed to rejoin the British Army is wrong. However, security forces of a democratic country can kill in justifiable circumstances while terrorists cannot. In order to really understand the figures, you would have to separate those justifiable killings from those that were not. That would be a whole other extremely long discussion and argument which would be pointless because there wouldn't be an agreement on this, so it is impossible to know how those conviction rates compare with conviction rates for terrorists.
blanch152 wrote: » Being allowed to rejoin the British Army is wrong. However, security forces of a democratic country can kill in justifiable circumstances while terrorists cannot. In order to really understand the figures, you would have to separate those justifiable killings from those that were not. That would be a whole other extremely long discussion and argument which would be pointless because there wouldn't be an agreement on this, so it is impossible to know how those conviction rates compare with conviction rates for terrorists.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The only soldiers ending up in court are doing so after long campaigns seeking justice. What we can compare is the willingness to face scrutiny and it is very clear that justice for victims has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the British.
blanch152 wrote: » If you are comparing "willingness to face scrutiny" you are comparing a nebulous concept with much disagreement, interpretation and opinion. We could, for example, state that the refusal of IRA and Sinn Fein leaders to come clean about who ran the IRA, who ran the kangaroo courts and who committed the atrocities means that they have an absolute unwillingness to face scrutiny. After all, we are aware of who the soldiers in Bloody Sunday are, we don't know for certain who ordered the disappearances (but we are pretty sure).
blanch152 wrote: » If you are comparing "willingness to face scrutiny" you are comparing a nebulous concept with much disagreement, interpretation and opinion.
steddyeddy wrote: » The problem here B is that you're giving preeminence to your own disagreement, interpretation and opinion. You'll find many (including myself) that the British army in Northern Ireland shouldn't have been there and made the situation substantially worse, but because you're saying there will be disagreement we shouldn't prosecute anyone?
FrancieBrady wrote: » The IRA and SF are willing to face scrutiny in a Truth process where everyone comes clean. If soldiers are still being dragged into court with the British government kicking and screaming all the way, that is never going to happen. We are only aware of what happened on Bloody Sunday and who was responsible because it was literally dragged out of them for 40 years.
FrancieBrady wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » If you are comparing "willingness to face scrutiny" you are comparing a nebulous concept with much disagreement, interpretation and opinion. We could, for example, state that the refusal of IRA and Sinn Fein leaders to come clean about who ran the IRA, who ran the kangaroo courts and who committed the atrocities means that they have an absolute unwillingness to face scrutiny. After all, we are aware of who the soldiers in Bloody Sunday are, we don't know for certain who ordered the disappearances (but we are pretty sure). The IRA and SF are willing to face scrutiny in a Truth process where everyone comes clean. If soldiers are still being dragged into court with the British government kicking and screaming all the way, that is never going to happen. We are only aware of what happened on Bloody Sunday and who was responsible because it was literally dragged out of them for 40 years.
blanch152 wrote: » We are still not aware of who ordered the disapperance of Jean McConville, who were the real Birmingham bombers, who arranged the kangaroo courts for Maria Cahill etc. etc. I could give thousands of other examples. Neither SF nor the IRA are beacons of transparency and accountability.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff when nobody else is willing to reveal what they were involved in? You really need to stop seeing one side as the principal 'culprits' blanch. Because that will never get us anywhere. Let all come to a transparent table as players in the conflict/war and let the truth be told, the whole truth. And let the chips fall where they may, because all sides did wrong.
blanch152 wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff when nobody else is willing to reveal what they were involved in? You really need to stop seeing one side as the principal 'culprits' blanch. Because that will never get us anywhere. Let all come to a transparent table as players in the conflict/war and let the truth be told, the whole truth. And let the chips fall where they may, because all sides did wrong. No, I am not seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff. However, when a poster blatantly tries to make out that the IRA are paragons of "willingness to face scrutiny", I am demonstrating how out of touch with reality his posts are. Of all the actors in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the least transparent, the least willing to face scrutiny and the least accountable for what they did. FrancieBrady wrote: » The only soldiers ending up in court are doing so after long campaigns seeking justice. What we can compare is the willingness to face scrutiny and it is very clear that justice for victims has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the British.
blanch152 wrote: » No, I am not seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff. However, when a poster blatantly tries to make out that the IRA are paragons of "willingness to face scrutiny", I am demonstrating how out of touch with reality his posts are.
The Sinn Féin leadership helped to facilitate this engagement because we sincerely believe there is a responsibility to assist families bereaved in the conflict if and when we can, though this may not be possible in all cases. Republicans are very conscious of the hurt and suffering which has been caused through conflict in our country. Sinn Féin believes that there needs to be an effective process for dealing with all legacy issues. Weston Park only dealt with six cases. But there are many more families who seek truth and closure. Therefore, the British and Irish governments should invite a reputable and independent international body to establish an Independent International Truth Commission. Sinn Féin has been consistent on this issue. Our proposition would be independent of any state, combatant groups, political parties, civil society and economic interests. It should have a remit to inquire into the extent and pattern of past violations as well as their causes and consequences and would be dependent on the full co-operation of all the relevant parties.
Of all the actors in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the least transparent, the least willing to face scrutiny and the least accountable for what they did.
downcow wrote: » ...and your great leaders have still not owned up to La Mon, Patsy gillespie, etc, etc, etc, in fact one of those responsible for La Mon says he was not even in the IRA. Come clean my ar*e! you're having a laugh!
The day after the explosion, the IRA admitted responsibility and apologised for the inadequate warning
RobMc59 wrote: » blanch152 wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » Are you seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff when nobody else is willing to reveal what they were involved in? You really need to stop seeing one side as the principal 'culprits' blanch. Because that will never get us anywhere. Let all come to a transparent table as players in the conflict/war and let the truth be told, the whole truth. And let the chips fall where they may, because all sides did wrong. No, I am not seriously expecting the IRA to reveal this stuff. However, when a poster blatantly tries to make out that the IRA are paragons of "willingness to face scrutiny", I am demonstrating how out of touch with reality his posts are. Of all the actors in Northern Ireland over the last 40 years, the IRA and Sinn Fein are the least transparent, the least willing to face scrutiny and the least accountable for what they did. FrancieBrady wrote: » The only soldiers ending up in court are doing so after long campaigns seeking justice. What we can compare is the willingness to face scrutiny and it is very clear that justice for victims has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the British. It's to be expected,after all,republicans in their warped way of seeing things blame everyone except themselves for the rising tensions in NI(especially in Derry)as long as they appease the terrorists nothing will change. Btw,I was in Derry earlier this week and the amount of para flags displayed was surprising which suggests there is considerable support for soldier f there.
