The glorious 12th

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 10:59am

downcow wrote: »

Help me understand this.
What did the enquiry achieve that was worth over £100m? I keen for a serious answer to this.

You'll probably never understand...and that is as ineffably sad and tragic as the conflict/war itself.

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 11:09am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You'll probably never understand...and that is as ineffably sad and tragic as the conflict/war itself.

You still have not answered questions Francie, even about the one incident you have "trawled" through and selected (your term) from the troubles, Bloody Sunday. Can you explain all the rocks and stones on the road thrown by the protestors on Bloody Sunday, as in the Irish Times photo, and the soldiers sheltering beside vehicles, taken before the firing started?
As you brought up extrajudicial killings on a number of occasions, do you ever think it was right for members of the security forces to fire back and defend themselves, such as when the lone off duty part time UDR soldier was lured in to a planned IRA trap by a well armed pira gang and he managed to fire back and hit one of his attackers?
Was that one of your "extrajudicial" killings you are complaining about?

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 11:15am

downcow wrote: »

Help me understand this.
What did the enquiry achieve that was worth over £100m? I keen for a serious answer to this.

You have had your serious answer it established that the 1st inquiry was a load of whitewashing and covering up by the British Army and government but you know this.

Same as the Hillsborough inquiry it set the real truth not the police/army “truth”

You don’t like it as it sets your hero’s in a bad light

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 11:16am

janfebmar wrote: »

You still have not answered questions Francie, even about the one incident you have "trawled" through and selected (your term) from the troubles, Bloody Sunday. Can you explain all the rocks and stones on the road thrown by the protestors on Bloody Sunday, as in the Irish Times photo, and the soldiers sheltering beside vehicles, taken before the firing started?
As you brought up extrajudicial killings on a number of occasions, do you ever think it was right for members of the security forces to fire back and defend themselves, such as when the lone off duty part time UDR soldier was lured in to a planned IRA trap by a well armed pira gang and he managed to fire back and hit one of his attackers?
Was that one of your "extrajudicial" killings you are complaining about?

Why do you keep ignoring that findings said the army were never in any threat from the rocks and stones?

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 11:18am

So goal post moving here on a thread about the 12th and we are talking about Bloody Sunday. Wish people would show some respect

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 11:22am

janfebmar wrote: »

You still have not answered questions Francie, even about the one incident you have "trawled" through and selected (your term) from the troubles, Bloody Sunday. Can you explain all the rocks and stones on the road thrown by the protestors on Bloody Sunday, as in the Irish Times photo, and the soldiers sheltering beside vehicles, taken before the firing started?
As you brought up extrajudicial killings on a number of occasions, do you ever think it was right for members of the security forces to fire back and defend themselves, such as when the lone off duty part time UDR soldier was lured in to a planned IRA trap by a well armed pira gang and he managed to fire back and hit one of his attackers?
Was that one of your "extrajudicial" killings you are complaining about?

Jan...I am not on trial here.

The subject has moved to the issue of 'extrajudicial killings'.

Should a government ever be involved in them and should they be held to account for them?

You can answer that question without exploiting victims. I didn't introduce Bloody Sunday for re-examination/re-inquiry to this thread.

downcow · 04-08-2019 11:35am

citytillidie wrote: »

You have had your serious answer it established that the 1st inquiry was a load of whitewashing and covering up by the British Army and government but you know this.

Same as the Hillsborough inquiry it set the real truth not the police/army “truth”

You don’t like it as it sets your hero’s in a bad light

Did you not know that already. It was certainly common knowledge in the unionist community that the initial enquiry was of its time and inevitably very limited.
So I wouldn’t call that an achievement of the enquiry.
Is there anything new of substance or that mattered that we learnt?

downcow · 04-08-2019 11:37am

citytillidie wrote: »

Why do you keep ignoring that findings said the army were never in any threat from the rocks and stones?

The purpose of the army that day was not solely to protect the army.
In army in the world has a responsibility to step on if there is serious rioting happening in front of them. So level of threat to army is a red herring

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 11:42am

downcow wrote: »

The purpose of the army that says was not solely to protect the army.
In army in the world has a responsibility to step on if there is serious rioting happening in front of them. So level of threat to army is a red herring

Why are we still talking about Bloody Sunday? This thread is about the 12th I am not going to comment anymore on Bloody Sunday as it’s too close to home for me. I just wish people would not try and point score off of it.

downcow · 04-08-2019 11:50am

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jan...I am not on trial here.

The subject has moved to the issue of 'extrajudicial killings'.

Should a government ever be involved in them and should they be held to account for them?

You can answer that question without exploiting victims. I didn't introduce Bloody Sunday for re-examination/re-inquiry to this thread.

I don’t think this is a black and white issue. Is it ok to send a missile in to take out Bin Laden. I think it probably is. Is this an extrajudicial killing?
Was the killing of the terrorists attacking Loughgal police station extrajudicial killing?
Did bobby sands take his own life or would you somehow call that extrajudicial killing (nothing would surprise me anymore on this thread)?
Is it only the state can carry out extrajudicial killing?
Was the murder of billy wright an extrajudicial killing if the authorities enabled it?
Is every case of the taking of a life by the state when there is no immediate threat a extrajudicial killing eg rubber bullets?
These things are rarely black and white

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 11:51am

citytillidie wrote: »

Why are we still talking about Bloody Sunday? This thread is about the 12th I am not going to comment anymore on Bloody Sunday as it’s too close to home for me. I just wish people would not try and point score off of it.

You are correct. The attempt here by janfebmar and downcow is disgusting. I will leave this for them to ponder, because as well as not having taken the time to read the findings they clearly never took the time to consider the monumental shift this was and what it meant to the people of Derry and beyond. We will no doubt hear more of it over the years and that is what is annoying janfebmar,downcow and blanch152 (who is still trying to insinuate the victims were not innocent)

The PM Of The UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND wrote:

"The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry - the tribunal set up by the previous government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as Bloody Sunday.

We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal's findings as soon as possible after the general election.

Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our army, who I believe to be the finest in the world.

And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve.

But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear. There is no doubt, there is nothing equivocal, there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong.

Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of the support company who went into the Bogside did so as a result of an order which should not have been given by their commander.

He finds that, on balance, the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army.

He finds that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of support company was armed with a firearm.

He finds that there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries but none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties.

And he finds that, in no case, was any warning given by soldiers before opening fire.

He also finds that the support company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and with a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline.

He finds that despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers, none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers.

And he finds that many of the soldiers - and I quote knowingly - put forward false accounts to seek to justify their firing.

Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying.

The report refers to one person who was shot while crawling away from the soldiers. Another was shot in all probability when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground.

The report refers to the father who was hit and injured by army gunfire after going to attend to his son.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says that the immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of support company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries.

Crucially, that, and I quote, none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury or indeed was doing anything else that could, on any view, justified in shooting.

For those people who are looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal or politicians to determine.

Mr Speaker, these are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say. But Mr Speaker, you do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible.

We do not honour all those who have served with such distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth.

There is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal's authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 12:01pm

downcow wrote: »

I don’t think this is a black and white issue. Is it ok to send a missile in to take out Bin Laden. I think it probably is. Is this an extrajudicial killing?
Was the killing of the terrorists attacking Loughgal police station extrajudicial killing?
Did bobby sands take his own life or would you somehow call that extrajudicial killing (nothing would surprise me anymore on this thread)?
Is it only the state can carry out extrajudicial killing?
Was the murder of billy wright an extrajudicial killing if the authorities enabled it?
Is every case of the taking of a life by the state when there is no immediate threat a extrajudicial killing eg rubber bullets?
These things are rarely black and white

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

I suggest you begin to do some reading without the Unionist/Loyalist/British blinkers on.

https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/198

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 12:16pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

So you think killing of the driver of a wanted Republican, shot by the Irish army at a checkpoint in Co Kilkenny during the eighties, is wrong?

Do yo think the off duty part time ambushed UDR soldier, lured in to an IRA trap, who shot back and killed a pira man, was wrong?
Oh I forgot, you bring up Bloody Sunday again and again but will not answer questions on it, and you will not answer questions on other incidents.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 12:20pm

janfebmar wrote: »

So you think killing of the driver of a wanted Republican, shot by the Irish army at a checkpoint in Co Kilkenny during the eighties, is wrong?

Do yo think the off duty part time ambushed UDR soldier, lured in to an IRA trap, who shot back and killed a pira man, was wrong?
Oh I forgot, you bring up Bloody Sunday again and again but will not answer questions on it, and you will not answer questions on other incidents.

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

Discuss. Or get lost trying to discuss this through your selective incidents.

downcow · 04-08-2019 1:38pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

I suggest you begin to do some reading without the Unionist/Loyalist/British blinkers on.

https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/71/198

Does this include when terrorists kill people assisted by governments ?

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 1:50pm

downcow wrote: »

Does this include when terriers kill people assisted by governments ?

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 1:53pm

In refusing to discuss, Francie obviously thinks the lone off duty part time UDR man who was lured in to a planned trap by the pIRA near the border, and ambushed by the pIRA gang but who managed to shoot back and hit one of the pIRA ambushers, should have tried to capture the IRA gang.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 1:58pm

janfebmar wrote: »

In refusing to discuss, Francie obviously thinks the lone off duty part time UDR man who was lured in to a planned trap by the pIRA near the border, and ambushed by the pIRA gang but who managed to shoot back and hit one of the pIRA ambushers, should have tried to capture the IRA gang.

He doesn't actually, but don't let that get in the way of an indignant lie to avoid dealing with this:

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

downcow · 04-08-2019 2:07pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

My question is that extrajudicial" killing. It’s a serious question. I am not playing games. Just wondering at what point that extrajudicial" killing begins and ends. Eg if ruc or guadia pass info to terrorists on someone they want dead is it extrajudicial" killing. And what if they are rogue individuals and it’s not government policy ?

You asked a fair question. Do I agree with extrajudicial" killing and I am just trying to be clear what you mean so as I can answer your question.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 2:09pm

downcow wrote: »

My question is that extrajudicial" killing. It’s a serious question. I am not playing games. Just wondering at what point that extrajudicial" killing begins and ends. Eg if ruc or guadia pass info to terrorists on someone they want dead is it extrajudicial" killing. And what if they are rogue individuals and it’s not government policy ?

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

And for future reference, it is 'Gardai'.

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 2:19pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong,'.

But at what point does the opportunity to arrest and try those who saw themselves engaged in a "war"...a war in which they saw and still see long retired public servants for example as being "legitimate targets"?

Had the lone off duty part time UDR soldier an opportunity to arrest and try the IRA gang who ambushed him ? It would take a brave public servant to stand in the road and flag down unknown van or car loads of heavily armed pira men on an "active service" mission and try to arrest them. I would'nt have fancied his chances.

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 2:22pm

Love how people have steered this thread totally away from the main subject to try and score points

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 2:22pm

janfebmar wrote: »

But at what point does the opportunity to arrest and try those who saw themselves engaged in a "war"..

There is no equivocation or ambiguity. You either agree with this or not...do you?

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

04-08-2019 2:31pm

downcow wrote: »

The purpose of the army that day was not solely to protect the army.
In army in the world has a responsibility to step on if there is serious rioting happening in front of them. So level of threat to army is a red herring

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 2:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

We all seen in 2011 the Army will do nothing in the street of England when there was days of riots in cities all over England

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 2:58pm

citytillidie wrote: »

We all seen in 2011 the Army will do nothing in the street of England when there was days of riots in cities all over England

We also saw that the people in England will do nothing like kill 2 police officers, one catholic and one protestant, like they did in Derry 2 days before Bloody Sunday. Lessons have been learnt, policing of marches and riots now is nothing like it was half a century ago.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 3:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

They have never even fired rubber/plastic bullets in Britain. A sobering thought in and off itself.

Rubber bullets were invented by the British Ministry of Defence for use against people in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and they continued to use them even knowing the dangers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-22848421

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 3:14pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Rubber bullets were invented by the British Ministry of Defence for use against people in Northern Ireland during The Troubles, and they continued to use them even knowing the dangers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-22848421

Poor old Francie, you get your facts wrong yet again. Rubber bullets have not been used in Northern Ireland since 1975.

Plastic bullets were used in riot control since then. If you had hundreds of people rioting who wanted you dead, and who had killed your comrades, security forces have to have some form of crowd control.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 3:18pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Poor old Francie, you get your facts wrong yet again. Rubber bullets have not been used in Northern Ireland since 1975.

Plastic bullets were used in riot control since then. If you had hundreds of people rioting who wanted you dead, and who had killed your comrades, security forces have to have some form of crowd control.

*

Soldiers used rubber bullets in Northern Ireland at a time when they knew they were more dangerous than had been disclosed, a human rights group has said.

The details were found in declassified Ministry of Defence (MoD) papers, according to the Pat Finucane Centre.

They contain legal advice for the MoD to seek a settlement over a Londonderry boy blinded by a rubber bullet in 1972.

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 3:19pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They have never even fired rubber/plastic bullets in Britain. A sobering thought in and off itself.

Wrong yet again, Francie. The police fired rubber bullets in Dorchester in 2002, hitting someone, and last time I looked Dorchester was in Britain.

downcow · 04-08-2019 3:25pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, when riots occur in Britain, or among the Loyalist community in the North, the British army can go on a hunting spree, like they did on Bloody Sunday, and you think this would be acceptable?

No? So, the level of threat to the army is very, very relevant.

Btw, I'm still waiting on a response to my earlier posts....

I believe I have answered everything I’ve been asked. Unlike the response I get to most of my questions

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 3:32pm

janfebmar wrote: »

Wrong yet again, Francie. The police fired rubber bullets in Dorchester in 2002, hitting someone, and last time I looked Dorchester was in Britain.

Correct, my apologies. I should have said they fired 98,503 rubber and plastic bullet rounds up to 1983 in northern Ireland, killing 17 people, 8 of them children and injuring countless more, they fired 1 in Britain, they hit a 'hostage taker' who survived.

Keep defending this stuff with pedantry, it is you who looks immoral.

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 3:39pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Correct, my apologies. I should have said they fired 98,503 rubber and plastic bullet rounds up to 1983 in northern Ireland, killing 17 people, 8 of them children and injuring countless more, they fired 1 in Britain, they hit a 'hostage taker' who survived.

Keep defending this stuff with pedantry, it is you who looks immoral.

If you take just one of those killed in Northern Ireland for example, a television cameraman captured a rioter running up behind a security force person and raising a large bar over his head to bring down on the security force person, who turned around just in time to see the rioter attacking him. On impulse, he fired his plastic bullet at close range, and the attacker died. If he had waited a second later, he would have been hit by the bar or plank or whatever the attacker was wielding. That was one of the extremely small % of fatalities out of close to 100.000 fired.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 3:44pm

janfebmar wrote: »

That was one of the extremely small % of fatalities out of close to 100.000 fired.

Jesus, the moral bankruptcy in that sentence.

I think it is quite clear now what you are about.

careless sherpa · 04-08-2019 3:47pm

janfebmar wrote: »

If you take just one of those killed in Northern Ireland for example, a television cameraman captured a rioter running up behind a security force person and raising a large bar over his head to bring down on the security force person, who turned around just in time to see the rioter attacking him. On impulse, he fired his plastic bullet at close range, and the attacker died. If he had waited a second later, he would have been hit by the bar or plank or whatever the attacker was wielding. That was one of the extremely small % of fatalities out of close to 100.000 fired.

You are morally repugnant in defending this sort of stuff. The British army has a hideous history of using plastic and rubber bullets in the north in deliberately hitting civilians and causing them permanent and severe disability. You are a disgrace

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 3:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jesus, the moral bankruptcy in that sentence.

You (Davycc) are the one who is morally bankrupt in that you condoned some of the paramilitaries in other threads.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 3:56pm

janfebmar wrote: »

You (Davycc) are the one who is morally bankrupt in that you condoned some of the paramilitaries in other threads.

I believe it was ALL wrong from the get go.

Nice try in shifting the focus off your pathetic immoral defence.

downcow · 04-08-2019 4:03pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I believe it was ALL wrong from the get go.

Nice try in shifting the focus off your pathetic immoral defence.

You realise they could not possibly have stopped 10,000 people walking down garvaghy road without plastic bullets. What would you propose they should have done.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 4:09pm

downcow wrote: »

You realise they could not possibly have stopped 10,000 people walking down garvaghy road without plastic bullets. What would you propose they should have done.

They managed fine without them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Toxteth_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Brixton_riot

They'll turn the gun on your people if it suits them too downcow, the sad fact is the gun was turned (loaded with real and plastic/rubber bullets) on the nationalist/catholic/ Irish community far and away more often and with more lethal consequences.

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 4:30pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They managed fine without them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Toxteth_riots

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Brixton_riot

.

And indeed the population of Toxteth and Brixton did not include large numbers of people who wanted to and did kill large numbers of people. That's the difference Francie, but you probably knew that already.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 4:35pm

janfebmar wrote: »

And indeed the population of Toxteth and Brixton did not include large numbers of people who wanted to and did kill large numbers of people. That's the difference Francie, but you probably knew that already.

Sure jan...sure. :rolleyes:

Toxteth

In all, the rioting lasted nine days during which 468 police officers were injured, 500 people were arrested, and at least 70 buildings were damaged so severely by fire that they had to be demolished. Around 100 cars were destroyed, and there was extensive looting of shops. Later estimates suggested the numbers of injured police officers and destroyed buildings were at least double those of the official figures

Brixton

That evening, the police lost control of the area for approximately 48 hours. In the subsequent riot, severe injuries were sustained by both sides, with police injured as they were attacked by young black and white youths equipped with bricks and wooden stakes.[1][2] After further skirmishes, the rioters built a defensive wall out of upturned cars across the Brixton Road, which were set alight at various times. From behind this wall, the rioters threw petrol bombs at the police, and looted local shops.[1][2][8] Police later stated that they made 149 arrests that evening, mostly for violence, 20 for burglary and theft and two for petrol bombing.[2]

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 5:12pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sure jan...sure. :rolleyes:

Toxteth

Brixton

My point exactly. How many people security people / police / civilians did the people of Toxteth or Brixton set out to kill, or kill? Zero is the answer to both questions, Francie. Did paramilitaries hide among civilians in Brixton, or did any of the rioters in Brixton want to kill a policeman or police people? A whole different ball game.

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 5:18pm

janfebmar wrote: »

My point exactly. How many people security people / police / civilians did the people of Toxteth or Brixton set out to kill, or kill? Zero is the answer to both questions, Francie. Did paramilitaries hide among civilians in Brixton? A whole different ball game.

How do you know?

What is the difference between a brick fired in Toxteth and Brixton and one in Derry or Belfast.

You are talking pure rubbish again in your persistent, consistent defence of the defenceless.

Mark Durkan, SDLP wrote:

These papers confirm that the British government really knew just how unsafe, unreliable, injurious and lethal these weapons could be.

"At one level, the victims of these bullets and their families have felt and suspected something of this order all along. At another level it is grossly shocking to find that cynical malevolence corroborated in government papers.

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 5:31pm

janfebmar wrote: »

We also saw that the people in England will do nothing like kill 2 police officers, one catholic and one protestant, like they did in Derry 2 days before Bloody Sunday. Lessons have been learnt, policing of marches and riots now is nothing like it was half a century ago.

Still ignoring the other posts i see

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 5:37pm

citytillidie wrote: »

Still ignoring the other posts i see

Quite clear now that neither downcow or janfebmar believe the following:

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

Countless times now they have tried to vindicate what soldiers have unlawfully done in Ireland.

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 5:38pm

In London, between Monday afternoon and the early hours of Tuesday, 14 people were injured by rioters. These included a 75-year-old woman who suffered a broken hip in Hackney.[6]

In Barking, East London, 20-year-old Malaysian student Ashraf Rossli was beaten and then robbed twice by looters emptying his rucksack. Footage of the second mugging, which appears to show the second set of muggers pretend to help him then proceed to ransack his rucksack, was uploaded onto YouTube. He suffered a broken jaw, requiring surgery.[7][77] On 2 March 2012, two men, John Kafunda of Ilford and Reece Donovan of Romford, were found guilty of the robbery of Rossli and also violent disorder by a jury at Wood Green Crown Court.[78] The convictions were quashed by the Court of Appeal on 29 November 2012.[79]

In Chingford, East London, three police officers were hit by a car used as a getaway vehicle by a group who looted the Aristocrat store on Chingford Mount Road. Two of the officers were seriously injured and taken to hospital.[80]

In total, 186 police officers were injured[9] as well as 3 Police Community Support Officers.[8] Five police dogs were also reported injured.[81]

Ten firefighters were injured as the London Fire Brigade dealt with over 100 serious fires caused by the disturbances. The LFB also reported that eight of its fire engines had their windscreens smashed and that two fire cars were attacked.

I say those 3 police officers run over could easily have been killed

citytillidie · 04-08-2019 5:42pm

And again well done in moving the thread away from the 12th

janfebmar · 04-08-2019 5:58pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite clear now that neither downcow or janfebmar believe the following:

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

Countless times now they have tried to vindicate what soldiers have unlawfully done in Ireland.

I assume you are talking about cases like where the Irish army soldier tried to stop a car containing "the Border Fox",at a checkpoint in Co. Kilkenny in the eighties, and when it did not stop the car was fired on and the driver killed after a firefight. I thought cases like that were lawful, and there was no enquiry or anything?

I have always said soldiers should uphold and act according to the law. I do not believe the law was broken in cases like the above.

citytillidie wrote: »

I say those 3 police officers run over could easily have been killed

Could have. My aunt could have been my Uncle if .....

The point was nobody set out to kill or maim in London. Nobody was killed in those disturbances, accidentally or otherwise.

downcow · 04-08-2019 5:59pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Quite clear now that neither downcow or janfebmar believe the following:

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

Countless times now they have tried to vindicate what soldiers have unlawfully done in Ireland.

You see francie it would be easy for me to say it is always wrong, but I try to have integrity and be honest. I will say it’s complex and certainly to be avoided if at all possible.

Now it have answered you. Can you answer me a similar question. When the ira murdered people was it “wrong, fundamentally wrong,” in every case. ??

FrancieBrady · 04-08-2019 6:04pm

janfebmar wrote: »

I assume you are talking about cases like where the Irish army soldier tried to stop a car containing "the Border Fox",at a checkpoint in Co. Kilkenny in the eighties, and when it did not stop the car was fired on and the driver killed after a firefight. I thought cases like that were lawful, and there was no enquiry or anything?

I have always said soldiers should uphold and act according to the law. I do not believe the law was broken in cases like the above.

Now you throw denseness into the debate.

If the state is involved in killing somebody (whosoever that might be) when they have the opportunity to arrest and try them, that is wrong, fundamentally wrong, in front of any international court.

The glorious 12th

Comments