Bloody Sunday: Soldier F faces murder charges

[mancity2012_eamo]

M18CTID said: ↑
I get that bit about those who were already in prison but I’m talking about all the incidents pre-GFA that had never led to any arrests and prosecution. Unless I’m very much mistaken, I can’t think of any of those being pursued since the GFA was signed.

Genuinely dont know.

I honestly don’t know either, but there would be plenty of people on the Nationalist side who would like closure too cocerning the IRA. They have never revealed the burial sites of the countless disappeared from their own communities.
The whole thing will take generations.
The GFA was such a step forward though. It could all go very wrong up there again very easily if old entrenched positions are allowed stymie progress.
Families of victims will take the injustices to the grave with them. But the community as a whole deserves total support towards making things work from their own politicians, from the UK government, from the UK people as a whole as well as the Irish people and Government.

Asking them to forgive and forget might be a bit much, but helping them accept and move on requires work from the rest of us too.

 

[andyhinch]

Totally agree. We’ve all got some good reason to be angry at the ‘other side’, even if only second hand. The Troubles touched so many lives, especially in terms of the nation's consciousness. Always used to seriously shit myself as a kid going into Manchester city centre with my mum in case an IRA bomb went off. Not trying to compare that to losing a child, but everyone was affected - and there was fault on all sides. In those circumstances, I feel people have to put their grief to one side, if they can.

Otherwise, it festers and turns toxic.

I know people that haven’t got past the uprising’s from the 1500’s no idea what the answer is but it’s genuinely saddening.

 

[aguero93:20]

I get that bit about those who were already in prison but I’m talking about all the incidents pre-GFA that had never led to any arrests and prosecution. Unless I’m very much mistaken, I can’t think of any of those being pursued since the GFA was signed.

There was no amnesty for crimes that hadn't been prosecuted, only an early release program for those serving sentences related to paramilitary activity, provided the ceasefire was kept.
In effect they're all out on licence and can be rejailed if their groups break the ceasefire.

 

[BobKowalski]

If there is a right answer to all of this I haven’t a clue what it is. My old man was in the Army so as a kid raised on Army estates near Army bases you know about NI from an Army viewpoint along with bomb drills and bomb scares and the Army is kind of like family I grew up with. The old man’s view on it was that you don’t put Paras in to do that job. He blamed the decision to use them and the officers in charge and yeah I get that. But you don’t shoot 13 unarmed civilians dead either and these were British citizens on British soil. No matter which direction you come at this it’s still 13 dead British citizens shot by British troops on British soil.

And that really is it I guess. You just don’t do that.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

So, 'Shooting unarmed civilians...'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ness-WAS-armed-machine-gun-Bloody-Sunday.html

 

[lancs blue]

So, 'Shooting unarmed civilians...'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/apr/07/bloodysunday.northernireland
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ness-WAS-armed-machine-gun-Bloody-Sunday.html

The people who were killed were unarmed civilians, I don't think anyone has ever seriously questioned that. You think the soldiers were right to fire into a crowd like that?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The people who were killed were unarmed civilians, I don't think anyone has ever seriously questioned that. You think the soldiers were right to fire into a crowd like that?

McGuiness apparently fired a shot.
So how can he be considered an unarmed civilian?

 

[lancs blue]

McGuiness apparently fired a shot.
So how can he be considered an unarmed civilian?

The allegation was that he fired from a position in a block of flats, weren't soldiers in NI supposed to identify the source of incoming fire before returning live rounds, all those killed were at street level.

 

[blueinsa]

We are in danger of rerunning the inquiry here.

Its been done.

The question is why nearly 50 years later are we seeking to prosecute a single soldier whilst a blind eye is turned on many other atrocities during the troubles in the name of the GFA?

 

[BobKowalski]

McGuiness apparently fired a shot.
So how can he be considered an unarmed civilian?

I kind of lost interest at ‘apparently’.

 

[BobKowalski]

We are in danger of rerunning the inquiry here.

Its been done.

The question is why nearly 50 years later are we seeking to prosecute a single soldier whilst a blind eye is turned on many other atrocities during the troubles in the name of the GFA?

Without seeing the evidence on which this prosecution is based how do we answer that question?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The allegation was that he fired from a position in a block of flats, weren't soldiers in NI supposed to identify the source of incoming fire before returning live rounds, all those killed were at street level.

Easy to say and qualify when you're not the ones coming under fire, maybe they could have been more professional,
I'm not a trained soldier, so can't say. What I'm arguing against is the assertion that the Paras were facing unarmed civilians,
if someone was shooting at them, then clearly, they were not.

 

[blueinsa]

Without seeing the evidence on which this prosecution is based how do we answer that question?

You miss my point.

Evidence aside, the GFA has meant an amnesty against prosecution so why now are we prosecuting a single soldier for something that happened nearly 50 years ago?

Its an entirely political decision to do so but as always, too many forget the politics woks both ways and whilst one community will be happy with it, another wont.

Is that respecting the GFA?

By all means prosecute. If he has done wrong he should answer for his crimes but then so too should every single terrorist alive that we have evidence on yes?

 

[Ancient Citizen]

By all means prosecute. If he has done wrong he should answer for his crimes but then so too should every single terrorist alive that we have evidence on yes?

Exactly. The outrage about this is directed at a government that was prepared to free or grant immunity to,
people who actively sought to, and succeeded at, wreaking carnage on this country's citizens, yet then proceeds
to persecute one of its military.

 

[lancs blue]

Easy to say and qualify when you're not the ones coming under fire, maybe they could have been more professional,
I'm not a trained soldier, so can't say. What I'm arguing against is the assertion that the Paras were facing unarmed civilians,
if someone was shooting at them, then clearly, they were not.

Yes it is, but the Paras were some of the most highly trained soldiers in the Army so you'd expect them to be totally professional. The alternative explanation of course is that they were ordered by their commanders to fire into the crowd and the Widgery tribunal enquiry was a "sweep it under the carpet" exercise.

 

[BobKowalski]

Easy to say and qualify when you're not the ones coming under fire, maybe they could have been more professional,
I'm not a trained soldier, so can't say. What I'm arguing against is the assertion that the Paras were facing unarmed civilians,
if someone was shooting at them, then clearly, they were not.

Firing into a crowd of unarmed civilians, including shooting people who were running away or trying to help people already shot, is shooting unarmed civilians no matter how hard people try to shoehorn McGuinness, ‘possibly’ carrying a gun that ‘apparently’ he may have shot, into the picture.

 

[M18CTID]

There was no amnesty for crimes that hadn't been prosecuted, only an early release program for those serving sentences related to paramilitary activity, provided the ceasefire was kept.
In effect they're all out on licence and can be rejailed if their groups break the ceasefire.

Thanks for the info. I just feel that even if there has been no amnesty, there most certainly has been a reluctance to bring people to justice for any pre-GFA crimes since the signing of the GFA.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Firing into a crowd of unarmed civilians, including shooting people who were running away or trying to help people already shot, is shooting unarmed civilians no matter how hard people try to shoehorn McGuinness, ‘possibly’ carrying a gun that ‘apparently’ he may have shot, into the picture.

I lost interest as soon as you responded.

 

[AlexWilliamsGloves]

Are you's just deliberately ignoring the terms of the GFA or cant be arsed to understand?

It wasnt an amnesty on prosecution...it was about releasing those who had been caught and convicted....it was not about not prosecuting people for their crimes....it was releasing those already in prison.

Yes there were the "on the run letters"...but they came to light after...that wasnt something that was considered and agreed upon by the entire country.

You are agreeing/condoning that because Martin McGuinness supposedly fired a shot, that 28 people be shot...14 of them killed, some teenagers...and a number of them were shot in the back whilst trying to run away.

A subsequent multimillion pound inquiry concluded that these action were unlawful, that ALL of the victims were innocent and unarmed....yet you think noone is accountable? That only one of those soldiers should not be charged? Of the 17 soldiers found to be involved, in retaliation to one supposedly fired shot, none of them should face the consequences of firing indiscriminately into crowds of people.

You genuinely think thats OK?

Really?

Again, this was the start of the troubles....there was no precedent that made those paras think they were in a war-zone. This was the streets of britain....similar situation to the poll tax riots, the miners strikes....would it have been perfectly OK to shoot and kills those protestors?

 

[cibaman]

Yes it is, but the Paras were some of the most highly trained soldiers in the Army so you'd expect them to be totally professional. The alternative explanation of course is that they were ordered by their commanders to fire into the crowd and the Widgery tribunal enquiry was a "sweep it under the carpet" exercise.

One BBC reporter who has followed the case since being sent to Derry the day after, and since becoming very sympathetic to the families of the deceased, said yesterday that he didnt believe that the soldiers had been given direct orders to fire. Their orders were to arrest the ringleaders. But he did mention that 2-3 weeks before, a very senior army officer had been reported as saying something along the lines of "it might become necessary to shoot the ringleaders in Derry".

He also said that he believed the soldiers genuinely believed they were being fired on. But that was because the soldiers had become split into two groups. Those at the front had fired warning shots above the heads of the crowd. Those a bit further back heard the shots, believed they had come from the crowd and started shooting.