Forum menu
if the prosecution of the 1 soldier accused of murder happens, will it be fair?
or a unjustice.
If the evidence is there he should be charged - but I would like to see the officers in court as well. Shooting unarmed people can never be right.
I think there should be an amnesty for all "troubles" crimes committed before the GFA - 1998. An amnesty applied to all sides.
Did he:
Follow correct process?
Due diligence ?
Under orders ?
and not:
Vigilante action ?
Acted on own ?
Decided to take out revenge attack ?
Tricky, but the Law is there to cover this and other actions during the “troubles”
And I wasn’t there, I too got the news feeds like you lot.
Times past since then though, and bringing cases like this will no doubt split the country again and add more angst to what is now a stable and thriving environment for those that live there.
IMO
Doesn't seem a very level playing field to me.
McGuiness (if he was still alive) and Jerry Adams should be being investigated and prosecuted for their crimes as well but that won't happen.
Approx 100 bombers/murderers linked to 200 deaths were given those letters comfort from Tony Blairs government saying they were no longer wanted for past crimes.
How could anyone possibly know yet?
So far only the initial hearing is scheduled isn't it? Plus "soldier f" will be retaining his anonymity, so all you can say is that a case is proceeding to court... End of.
or a unjustice.
I do however have an opinion about your attempt to murder the English language...
I think there should be an amnesty for all “troubles” crimes committed before the GFA – 1998. An amnesty applied to all sides.
i agree with this.
your attempt to murder the English language…
i dont speak english, i speak yorkshire....... ;o)
I think maybe truth and recovery nciliation may be an appropriate model to follow.
I don't like it.
For the facts that others have in effect had a dismissing or letter of comfort.
Others still seeing be brought to a court on both sides, through politics, through inaction, through lack of resources, protectionism or passage of time.
It's very unfair to have just one on the stand.
he was given the chance to come clean, he lied, he lied again and again.
He had the chance to wipe the slate clean he chose not to, hang him.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/
It’s not a particularly fair amnesty when it’s only one side who benefits...
I’d like to see all of them in court (from both sides)....or none of them.
I'm uneasy about the whole thing, but this particular soldiers actions if true went way beyond acceptable behaviour, very much this
Vigilante action ?
Acted on own ?
Decided to take out revenge attack ?
Sadly I think there is a case to answer, also that he should have a chance to explain his actions himself.
is there a figure of how many convicted muderers were released after the good friday debacle?
would it be fair to convict him of murder, then release him?
What Ming & mrlebowski said.
Add Corbyn to the list as well, for being a terrorist.
Has there been an amnesty? I thought the letters just said at the time of issue there was insufficient evidence to charge in relation to specific offences but this could change if new evidence came to light
Add Corbyn to the list as well, for being a terrorist.
Obvious troll is obvious.
the good friday debacle?
Good Friday debacle? Are you a bit dim or a troll? Have you noticed not many bombs going of these days, why do you think that might be?
Good Friday debacle? Are you a bit dim or a troll?
neither. i worded it wrong.
i meant the part where they parties agreed on the release of convicted murderers from both sides.
I don't understand why the GFA didn't learn from the South African Truth and Reconciliation hearings - that seemed to deal with similar issues successfully.
Part of me thinks that crimes should be investigated and people charged when necessary. But charging one person for these wider actions risks him becoming a scapegoat for the whole horrible mess.
And it's blatantly unfair for British soldiers to be prosecuted when terrorists appear to have been given a free pass for their crimes. Has to be all or none, surely.
ton
Member
if the prosecution of the 1 soldier accused of murder happens, will it be fair?
Well no, cause there should be more than 1 soldier up on charges.
But charging one person for these wider actions
It was very specific actions on one particular day.
I think that was part of the reconciliation and moving forwards process open to those who were convicted members of groups who had signed the ceasefire, were not going to get beck in th game, not sure why that is getting conflated with soldier f
terrorists appear to have been given a free pass for their crimes
Have they?
Have they?
kilo, are you a bit dim or trolling.
how many convicted murderers were released from the maze post gfa
Soldiers should be held to higher standards than terrorists, no? There are very specific charges that occurred on a very specific event that this one soldier should answer for. He should be held accountable.
Besides which as others have pointed out, they (the terrorists of both colours) are effectually "on license" for the rest of their lives.
He's getting a trial. That's a lot more fair than the unarmed people shot got.
Those released from all hues have done time and released under conditions - a free pass is never standing trial, the state covering it up etc See Loughisland
ton
how many convicted murderers were released from the maze post gfa
what does that have to do with bloody sunday?
what does that have to do with bloody sunday?
nothing, i was just asking.
why?
If you actually read the accounts of what the accused soldier is supposed to have done, you will perhaps understand why he and he alone is being prosecuted.
I was very against the prosecution until I really read about his individual case. He went well beyond being reckless, and he and his brick were responsible for a large amount of the damage that was caused on bloody Friday.
This notion that a British soldier (deployed within the UK) can kill a someone who was unarmed and no threat is a right wing nuts wet dream.
No one is above the law, being trigger happy is not an excuse and so they absolutely should go to trial.
Had some Facebook friends go on a bike rally in support of Soldier F, and it left me a bit conflicted - it feels unfair because one side was bound by rules that the other did not have to obey, but I think it's correct that this is so, otherwise we're living in some kind of totalitarian regime, we have to be better and held to higher standards.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Sorry, not trolling.
Just forgot to add the word 'sympathiser' on the end.
Soldiers are trained to kill people. This is literally their job.
If you go ahead and use them instead of police you shouldn't be surprised if that's what they do.
Throwing this man under the bus seems wrong to me.
Well, I tell you one thing about it... we will all hear first hand what did happen on that particular day.
Because, I suspect like many, I have either forgotten/dismissed/blotted out/erased from memory a very large proportion of the atrocities that occurred on both sides during those mighty terrible years.
The last comment from me on this thread is:
Since the GFA was signed, there has been a reconciliation between warring parties on both sides, religion and in particular sectarianism has played a far less prominent feature in the daily lives of the many that either got caught up in it, born during it, lived next door to it and the many that lost their lives or lived in fear of it all.
There is peace now because people want it, not that they are being forced into it.
I fear this particular case will resurrect a certain type of person back into making division rule rather than cohesion.
No he shouldn’t be prosecuted.
EDIT: Changed my mind again. He's not been charged with the one that seems cut and dried to me which makes me think I don't know enough to express an opinion.
You could come up with hundreds and hundreds of such reports of cold blooded murder and in some cases prolonged torture beforehand. Prosecuting them will not help NI move forwards.
It also has to be remembered "bloody Sunday" was not a military engagement against an enemy that went too far, it was a crime against civilians.
That being said, I worry that raking over these events again could increase tensions, especially in the current climate. I would rather we now just move on.
What he did was clearly wrong, criminally wrong. My concern is that there are plenty of loyalist and republican killers who are not being pursued as relentlessly.
Soldiers should be held to standards, but we don't know what was going on over there day to day - they are only human.
My BIL was a Para serving over there, and he had a mate/colleague that was shot dead. His stupidity, some girl asked to see his 'gun' then shot him dead with it.
He still should face the consequences, but so should others from the IRA.
Lots of people on here have clearly never served their country. Lots of people on here have never come under enemy fire. Have never had to perform daily patrols with their life under threat. Never having to check under their vehicle before they get in. But feel free to comment chaps.
As an aside, I served, brother served and dad did. Dad was a para from the early 70s through to the mid 80s. My mum is from Belfast, she was also ex army and they met in Aldershot.
Dad was shot by a sniper in Belfast, two rounds, first round went into his left hand side while the second round hit the armoured vehicle. The round then sprayed up his left arm and into his left hand side of the body.
I know a lot of former soldiers, two boys I worked with were blown up by IRA in 1988 in Nederland.
My dad was regularly sent the letters from the government, he honestly can’t really recall too much about it.
I find it really frustrating when people who have never been in such a situation are able to state what is cold blooded murder.
And yes a lot of terrorists where given the letters from the government saying they will not be investigated. A lot of wrong went on on all sides. What happened on that day was wrong, but reading snippets doesn’t portray the reality of being a teenager with your life under constant threat and being in the middle of a riot. It should be left in the past, not just one party but all involved.
I could go on, but I’d best leave it before I say something I shouldn’t.
I find it really frustrating when people who have never been in such a situation are able to state what is cold blooded murder.
Yes, I apologise for that. Turns out he isn't being charged for the act I described as cold blooded murder which called into question my understanding of the whole thing so I removed the post before you made this one.
mrlebowski
Member
It’s not a particularly fair amnesty when it’s only one side who benefits…
Top be fair, it's not "only one side", it applies equally to unionist and seperatist terrorists.
And remember, the Saville report granted them immunity from self-incrimination- it was essentially their own personal amnesty. He chose to continue perjuring himself instead. That for me is what makes me think this case is right- it's one thing to do something terrible in the heat of the moment, in what was a totally crazy situation to be put in, and another to still be choosing to perjure yourself, and to slander the people you killed, 30 years later. As discussed above I can't put myself in the shoes of those men on the day but you can say for sure that in the cold light of day he's conspired to pervert the course of justice and committed contempt of court, over and over. But I guess he can't really be charged for those lesser offences, without also putting forward charges for the actual killings on the day? It'd make a bit of a nonsense of it all, like by all means shoot an unarmed man with a white flag in the head, but don't lie about it.
OTOH it seems ridiculous to me that Dave F can be prosecuted but Colonel Wilford has a bloody OBE.
Forgive me, but these were soldiers deployed to make arrests amongst a crowd of marchers (protesting, for what it's worth, against the introduction of a bill that allowed them to be held indefinitely without trial) - I have the utmost respect for and empathy with the boots on the ground, that have to address every task sent their regardless of what they think about it, and I know that no-one without having been there, without having served in similar circumstances, will have a remote understanding of what it would be like to have been there. But.
But.
Evidence suggests that Soldier F shot a man from behind, then shot in the back of the head a man waving a white handkerchief who was going to help the first person. It may be that this evidence is not correct, that Soldier F's actions were justifiable, but these actions do need to be held to account - they should have been held to account years ago. Again, I sympathise with the view that "the other side" should be pursued with the same veal, but that does not excuse Soldier F from scrutiny. It's a cliche, but we cannot claim any morality if we work to the same illegal standards as our opponents.