Forum menu
Pondo, for me it’s the fact that the terrorists (Union and IRA) committed much worse, however have been given impunity for those crimes.
This seems wrong. Surely it’s a case of it was all bad, the people shooting soldiers, civilians, blowing up UK cities and Belfast, they all should be held to account. But they’re not.
I’m in no way saying the actions were correct, or lawful. They probably weren’t. But why pursue against the paras and allowing others to walk free?
For me I’m afraid it’s not about morality, justice or any of that. In NI that went out of the window long ago. The only upside is that the mindless killing has stopped. It is simply a desire not to see any more of it. If the past is not left then it WILL start again. I have seen interviews with the relatives of murder victims who talk of the searing anger of seeing the murderer of their sons/ daughters/ fathers etc walking round heads held high in their community, but even they accept it is a price that has to be paid.
I find it really frustrating when people who have never been in such a situation are able to state what is cold blooded murder.
Are you suggesting bloody Sunday wasn't cold blooded murder?
John 'Jackie' Duddy, age 17. Shot as he ran away from soldiers in the car park of Rossville Flats.[2] The bullet struck him in the shoulder and entered his chest. Three witnesses said they saw a soldier take deliberate aim at the youth as he ran.[2] He was the first fatality on Bloody Sunday.[2] Both Saville and Widgery concluded that Duddy was unarmed.[2]
Michael Kelly, age 17. Shot in the stomach while standing at the rubble barricade on Rossville Street. Both Saville and Widgery concluded that Kelly was unarmed.[2] The Saville Inquiry concluded that 'Soldier F' shot Kelly.[2]
Hugh Gilmour, age 17. Shot as he ran away from soldiers near the rubble barricade.[2] The bullet went through his left elbow and entered his chest.[51] Widgery acknowledged that a photograph taken seconds after Gilmour was hit[52] corroborated witness reports that he was unarmed.[53] The Saville Inquiry concluded that 'Private U' shot Gilmour.[2]
William Nash, age 19. Shot in the chest at the rubble barricade.[2] Three people were shot while apparently going to his aid, including his father Alexander Nash.[54]
John Young, age 17. Shot in the face at the rubble barricade, apparently while crouching and going to the aid of William Nash.[54]
Michael McDaid, age 20. Shot in the face at the rubble barricade, apparently while crouching and going to the aid of William Nash.[54]
Kevin McElhinney, age 17. Shot from behind, near the rubble barricade, while attempting to crawl to safety.[2]
James 'Jim' Wray, age 22. Shot in the back while running away from soldiers in Glenfada Park courtyard. He was then shot again in the back as he lay mortally wounded on the ground. Witnesses, who were not called to the Widgery Tribunal, stated that Wray was calling out that he could not move his legs before he was shot the second time.[2] 'Soldier F' faces charges for his murder.[55]
William McKinney, age 26. Shot in the back as he attempted to flee through Glenfada Park courtyard.[56] 'Soldier F' faces charges for his murder.[55]
Gerard 'Gerry' McKinney, age 35. Shot in the chest at Abbey Park. A soldier, identified as 'Private G', ran through an alleyway from Glenfada Park and shot him from a few yards away. Witnesses said that when he saw the soldier, McKinney stopped and held up his arms, shouting "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!", before being shot. The bullet apparently went through his body and struck Gerard Donaghy behind him.[2]
Gerard 'Gerry' Donaghy, age 17. Shot in the stomach at Abbey Park while standing behind Gerard McKinney. Both were apparently struck by the same bullet. Bystanders brought Donaghy to a nearby house. A doctor examined him, and his pockets were searched for identification. Two bystanders then attempted to drive Donaghy to hospital, but the car was stopped at an Army checkpoint. They were ordered to leave the car and a soldier drove it to a Regimental Aid Post, where an Army medical officer pronounced Donaghy dead. Shortly after, soldiers found four nail bombs in his pockets. The civilians who searched him, the soldier who drove him to the Army post, and the Army medical officer, all said that they did not see any bombs. This led to claims that soldiers planted the bombs on Donaghy to justify the killings. Donaghy was a member of Fianna Éireann, an IRA-linked republican youth movement.[2] Paddy Ward, a police informer,[57] told the Saville Inquiry he gave two nail bombs to Donaghy several hours before he was shot.[58] The Inquiry concluded that the bombs were probably in Donaghy's pockets when he was shot; but that he was not about to throw a bomb when he was shot, and was not shot because he had bombs. "He was shot while trying to escape from the soldiers".[2]
Patrick Doherty, age 31. Shot from behind while attempting to crawl to safety in the forecourt of Rossville Flats. The Saville Inquiry concluded that he was shot by 'Soldier F', who came out of Glenfada Park.[2] Doherty was photographed, moments before and after he died, by French journalist Gilles Peress. Despite testimony from 'Soldier F' that he had shot a man holding a pistol, Widgery acknowledged that the photographs show Doherty was unarmed, and that forensic tests on his hands for gunshot residue proved negative.[2][60]
Bernard 'Barney' McGuigan, age 41. Shot in the back of the head when he walked out from cover to help Patrick Doherty. He had been waving a white handkerchief to indicate his peaceful intentions.[53][2] The Saville Inquiry concluded that he was shot by 'Soldier F'.[2]
John Johnston, age 59. Shot in the leg and left shoulder on William Street 15 minutes before the rest of the shooting started.[2][61] Johnston was not on the march, but on his way to visit a friend in Glenfada Park.[61] He died on 16 June 1972; his death has been attributed to the injuries he received on the day. He was the only one not to die immediately or soon after being shot.[2]
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.
I fear that it was me that brought up the shooting the unarmed man with the white flag in the head but it turns out Soldier F isn't being charged with that one. In fact he's being charged with stuff where they don't even know if he fired the shot. Which makes me think there's a load of stuff here we don't know.
Yup, not been charged, but he did do it. Not sure what's going on there tbf. It makes me wonder if it's being kept as a future charge, which if so would be pretty shit.
There definitely is stuff we don't know- which is a big part of the point, I suppose. But the stuff we do know is damning enough I reckon. Honestly, the question isn't "did soldier F murder people", it's "is it OK to put him on trial now, for the murder we can be certain he committed".
Tbh it's fairly academic, he'll not do a day in jail.
He's meant to be in his 70s, so it'll get dragged out long enough. None of the others will face justice either.
Soldier F is nothing more than the public scapegoat to try and appease the families and the wider republican movement. (imo, you never know, british 'justice' might surprise us, but it'll get dragged out is my feeling.)
I'm with oldandpastit on this.
A soldier is trained to kill. He is a weapon.
If you have a large enough group of people trained to kill and set them against unarmed civilians, then there's a percentage chance one amongst them will do what he's trained to do.
It's a scenario that has been played out many times in the history of the UK. It is a probability not a surprise when it does happen.
If you point a weapon at a person and it accidentally goes off, you are as guilty as if you meant it.
Those who pointed the weapon are responsible.
The greater responsibility lies with those who put that soldier there, i.e. politicians and senior officers. If the soldier is charged, then they should also be prosecuted because they are equally guilty.
Those who pointed the weapon are responsible.
Very true - it’s a shame though that it is only being my applied to one set of combatants..
This just stinks of political point scoring.
After the GFA one of my neighbours dads was released from prison.
He was inside for burying a member of a rival terrorist group alive.
Did the victims family ever feel they had closure?
A relative of mine found a shoe in a hedge while playing in the street a few weeks after his neighbour, a policeman, was blown up while waving cheerio his family.
The policemans wife and children probably still live within 20 miles of the killers today.
It would be nice to be able to draw a line between those in the troubles who did bad things because they were politicised or desperate normal people and those who were psychopathic bloodthirsty killers and then make judgements about who deserves forgiveness, and who needs hunting down.
But the GFA required a degree acceptance from the people who were left behind that they had to let it go.
This bloke might be a killer and a scumbag and deserving of punishment, but it feels one sided and divisive to dig into this one event (horrific, significant and self defeating as it was) and expect people to just forget about the rest.
It was a terrible mistake not to have a truth and justice commission in NI (like, the one in SA), but this will help no-one.
Its certainly a difficult moral situation
However "truth and reconciliation" along the lines of the SA decisions requires the truth and its clear that around the events of bloody sunday the truth has not been told by the army side.
I would prefer a truth and reconciliation commission type setup but bloody sunday clearly was a deliberate armed attack on unarmed protestors.
Like many of these moral mazes a lot depends on the angle you are looking at things from
One thing for sure - I'd like to see the officers in court as well as the squaddies and the politicians who put them there
I think there should be an amnesty for all “troubles” crimes committed before the GFA – 1998. An amnesty applied to all sides.
I reluctantly agree, the greater good here is to forgive move on. Members of the IRA and UDA have been given amnesty for the horrible acts they committed upon civilians, this should extent to the Army and RUC as well.
At least some of the blame should go to the Goverment of the day, I'm not making any excuse for the Soldier, but the Parachute Regiment are trained as an aggressive fighting force, their role in war is to jump out of aircraft, land behind enemy defences and kill or wound everyone who stands in their way before they're killed themselves. We know the Army does this by taking very young men, breaking them mentally and then rebuilding them as psychopaths who'll kill without question or pause. Then told them to be Police Officers.
I fear this sort of thing will reopen old wounds.
Yup, not been charged, but he did do it. Not sure what’s going on there tbf.
If we're not sure about the one that seems most clear cut, then we should probably give him the benefit of the doubt on all of them.
Given the clear evidence that he shot a bloke at very close range the obvious reason is they can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that was murder. (Which feels to me like someone runs towards you in a riot, you're probably entitled to assume the guy's carrying a pipe bomb and therefore shooting them in the face is reasonable force.)
Meanwhile they're going for prosecutions where the evidence he did it is sketchy to say the least.
If seems to me Soldier Fs case is far less cut and dried than I thought yesterday.
tj,
So the army haven't told "the truth", I agree.
But please give a counter example of any involved group/side/interested party that has?
If the officers and politicians have to end up in court, what will you do about sinn fein?
Truth and reconciliation doesn't start with "you own up to all the shit you did, and I'll sit here and watch".
Sometimes justice is not possible.
Sometimes justice is not possible.
Or not desirable. That this man did wrong, then subsequently lied about it seems to deserve punishment but to what end? We shouldn't time-limit murder cases but this seems to be digging up old ills whilst folk have mostly moved on.
And those at the top will never be accountable
A soldier is trained to kill. He is a weapon.
No, they aren't some ruthless automata that you can set free and damn the consequences. You can hold to account politicians and senior officers, to look at the aims and strategies they employed, but no-one but soldier F pulled the trigger on that day.
So the army haven’t told “the truth”, I agree.
I agree to but failing to tell the truth isn't the same as lying.
I think Wellington said trying to describe a Battle afterwards is like trying to describe a dance. I'm sure a riot is just the same and we all know how unreliable eye witnesses are at the best of time. Why should these soldiers be more accurate in their memory than (say) someone who sees an air crash.
I think taking inaccurate accounts as evidence of guilt is a total red herring here.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar. I think proving at 50 years range that a Soldier unlawfully and with premeditation killed people during a riot he was policing where we know armed people were present is going to be impossible. On reflection I think they've charged him with the people who were unarmed and running away on the basis that they will be difficult to claim reasonable force. But then all he needs to say is "I thought I saw a pipe bomb up his jumper" to introduce doubt in a jury. How the hell are the prosecution going to prove he didn't "think he saw a pipe bomb".
Eat the pudding - the point I was making was you cannot have truth and reconciliation without the truth.
As I said tho - its a moral maze
What good can come from bringing this to court 47 years after the fact?
I reluctantly agree, the greater good here is to forgive move on. Members of the IRA and UDA have been given amnesty for the horrible acts they committed upon civilians, this should extent to the Army and RUC as well.
Not quite true, no one has had amnesty as such, and cases can still be brought if new evidence becomes available.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-46508044
Quote from article.
In fact, the IRA prisoner release was not an amnesty as prisoners were only released on licence, and the so-called letters of comfort made it clear that there would still be prosecutions should new evidence be found.
tj,
We agree, but you only mentioned the army above, i was just expanding.
taxi25
It was set up so that the authorities could say to the victims "if there is evidence we will act"
and to the perpetrators "we're no longer looking for evidence".
Not everyone gets to be happy, but hopefully no-one else dies.
Its just a sleight of hand/form of words, but it has been working because people decided to believe in it and not look too hard.
Stringently applying the search for truth to one side and not the other might turn out to be a grave error.
Pretty much agree ETP. But the Saville inquiry has let the cat out of the bag regarding this, it won't go back to easily 🙁
@w00dster, completely agree with your sentiments (ex para), there were a few times on op Herrick where things got very cloudy and trying to remember them all and make sense of it is hard. To put this in to perspective, i had one patrol to do providing protection for some VIP's and a very large crowd of children were beckoned over "to show some love".. Well we had just come back of a shi55y op, very tired and very highly strung - i found myself pulling my side arm on kids who would have been no older than 8 or 10. Its a crap memory to have (much like many other you see when on duty), but it wouldn't have taken much in that moment for things to go very very wrong..
NI, was a very difficult time, it was the first time a western army had encountered close quarter insurgency in that vain (un uniformed), a lot was being learnt, but also a of things unexepcted where being experienced by young soldiers. I find it incredibly hard to fathom how people who have not served in on the frontline can make decisions on events without having the context.
nickc
No, they aren’t some ruthless automata that you can set free and damn the consequences. You can hold to account politicians and senior officers, to look at the aims and strategies they employed, but no-one but soldier F pulled the trigger on that day.
I agree with what you are saying.
My point is that if you use military to contain civilian unrest, it is highly probable that there will be casualties because history shows that to be the case.
And following from that knowledge, a politician or senior officer using armed soldiers for police work is as responsible for any deaths as the individual soldier.