Bloody Sunday. This Might Be A Lively Topic.

[Halibut 12]

It clearly doesn't sit comfortably with the amnesties extended to others.

The best explanation I can think of is that we hold soldiers to higher standards than terrorists.  These were some of the most highly trained and disciplined men the army had to offer. Also it sends an important message to the Republican community.

[nightrider 13]

2 hours ago, woodview said:

Don't know about doing their duty, that throws it open to debate.

But, to have a terrorist amnesty, then hunt down people who were youngsters at the time, and there under orders is wrong.

Either a line is drawn under the troubles, or it isn't. Can't have two sets of actions.

Thats not quite true - terrorists from that conflict are being prosecuted at the moment....

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ira-bomb-suspect-does-not-have-amnesty-judge-rules-22c935c9d

 

The amnesty was only for people already convicted. Thus neither the above mentioned terrorist, nor soldiers that committed crimes they have never been convicted of, are immune to prosecution.

 

Edited March 14, 2019 by nightrider

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, woodview said:

How does that sit with the amnesty on terrorists who murdered civilians? How can there be two paths???

I don't think that you have any understanding of the Good Friday Agreement amnesties.

 

These were all people who had been convicted and jailed and released as part of the deal. There are still ongoing investigations into other acts and there are still people outside the UK who will be arrested if they enter UK jurisdiction.

 

These are crimes which have never been investigated properly and for which no one has ever been charged.

 

Have no doubt, this will give a massive boost to dissident Republicans who will be telling people that nothing has changed and that they are still second class citizens treated differently to the rest. And who can argue with that?

 

 

[Halibut 12]

1 minute ago, nightrider said:

Thats not quite true - terrorists from that conflict are being prosecuted at the moment....

 

The amnesty was only for people already convicted. Thus neither the above mentioned terrorist, nor soldiers that committed crimes they have never been convicted of, are immune to prosecution.

 

In that case, I'm even more Ok with this soldier being found guilty.

[tinfoilhat 11]

The cps would have prosecuted a couple of IRA men had they had sufficient evidence, which they didn’t have. They could have prosecuted more soldiers if they had sufficient evidence, which they didn’t have. 

 

Maybe this kid kid went over the top, maybe he was following orders to the letter. Soldiers throughout history from all sides have been involved in horrific acts - if he’s in the wrong, he’s in the wrong - he doesn’t get a free pass because he’s British.

[woodview 10]

13 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I don't think that you have any understanding of the Good Friday Agreement amnesties.

 

These were all people who had been convicted and jailed and released as part of the deal. There are still ongoing investigations into other acts and there are still people outside the UK who will be arrested if they enter UK jurisdiction.

 

These are crimes which have never been investigated properly and for which no one has ever been charged.

 

Have no doubt, this will give a massive boost to dissident Republicans who will be telling people that nothing has changed and that they are still second class citizens treated differently to the rest. And who can argue with that?

 

 

If it is correct that anyone can be open to prosecution for these historic killings, then it is far more acceptable. The problem being, is that you often post skewed versions and half of the facts. I'll have a read up myself later. If it's a level playing field, then things are different, and I'd take a different viewpoint.

What do you mean in the last paragraph? The prosecutions are going ahead. Do you mean if they didn't go ahead??

[nightrider 13]

23 minutes ago, woodview said:

If it is correct that anyone can be open to prosecution for these historic killings, then it is far more acceptable. The problem being, is that you often post skewed versions and half of the facts. I'll have a read up myself later. If it's a level playing field, then things are different, and I'd take a different viewpoint.

What do you mean in the last paragraph? The prosecutions are going ahead. Do you mean if they didn't go ahead??

I have seen people on twitter complaining today that not enough of the soldiers involved are being prosecuted. They claim they are sacrificing a small number to try and appease them, rather than going after all the guilty parties.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

19 minutes ago, woodview said:

What do you mean in the last paragraph? The prosecutions are going ahead. Do you mean if they didn't go ahead??

I can't remember the exact figures from the Savile Report but something like 150 unarmed people were shot at with live rounds by something like 60 members of the Parachute Regiment. 14 of these people died. This was a massacre.

 

Only one soldier being prosecuted is being seen by local people as a token ggesture despie the dignified response of the victims families.

[WalkleyIan 10]

no mention of the Ballymurphy massacre in the months before bloody Sunday? At least one was shot whilst waving a white flag to go to assist a wounded man.

 

2 Para were said to be involved.

[woodview 10]

20 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I can't remember the exact figures from the Savile Report but something like 150 unarmed people were shot at with live rounds by something like 60 members of the Parachute Regiment. 14 of these people died. This was a massacre.

 

Only one soldier being prosecuted is being seen by local people as a token ggesture despie the dignified response of the victims families.

Yeah, I've just seen only one will be prosecuted. I don't know what has happened there.

As one of our resident experts on the CPS and all matters legal, and upholder of the judiciary, you surely agree with their decision don't you? They will have access to all the facts, we don't....

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 hours ago, woodview said:

Yeah, I've just seen only one will be prosecuted. I don't know what has happened there.

As one of our resident experts on the CPS and all matters legal, and upholder of the judiciary, you surely agree with their decision don't you? They will have access to all the facts, we don't....

The government spokesman said that there was enough evidence to prosecute all of the soldiers but as most of this evidence had been made public at the Savile Inquiry it was not admissable in a criminal case.

 

I assume that this was a guarantee made to certain witnesses in exchange for a free and frank testimony at the inquiry.

[phil752 10]

3 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I can't remember the exact figures from the Savile Report but something like 150 unarmed people were shot at with live rounds by something like 60 members of the Parachute Regiment. 14 of these people died. This was a massacre.

 

Only one soldier being prosecuted is being seen by local people as a token ggesture despie the dignified response of the victims families.

only 21 service men fired their firearms that day, let not forget, it was McGuinness  that opened up on our troops with a machine gun that sparked it all off

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/mcguinness-fired-the-first-shot-on-bloody-sunday-280596.html 

Edited March 14, 2019 by phil752