Bloody Sunday: Soldier F faces murder charges

[Machiavelli]

I neither hate the armed forces nor sympathise with terrorists, so I would like to see both Soldier F and the accused Birmingham pub bomber prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence to justify it.

Has anyone argued otherwise?
Seems the anger should be aimed at the people who make these decisions. After all it is them who decides who should face trail and who doesn’t.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Wasn't aimed at you mate. But as you're well aware, Michael Hayes will never be brought to justice for the murder of innocent civilians. Why?.... well, apparently in the interests of peace in NI. Soldier F however, well that seems to be a different matter.

It is not solely Hayes, there are many of these murderous scum who received get off free letters, which is why
there is such outrage. None of the supporters of soldier prosecution appear to share the same outrage against murderous
terrorists, yet they welcome this perversion. If you know this, why would anyone find satisfaction in such one sided justice?

 

[Cheesy]

It is not solely Hayes, there are many of these murderous scum who received get off free letters, which is why
there is such outrage. None of the supporters of soldier prosecution appear to share the same outrage against murderous
terrorists, yet they welcome this perversion. If you know this, why would anyone find satisfaction in such one sided justice?

There's a simple explanation to this though it's one I can't get my head round...

There are some people who hate our Armed Forces.

To be honest with you, I'm not that bothered what they think. They're perfectly entitled to hold that view even if it makes no sense at all as over the years many good men have laid down their lives so that these people have got the freedom to be able to express such views.

Oh, and before anyone says this is bullshit, I can tell you I've been verbally abused in the street, spat on by protestors who had set up outside base. I was even called a 'baby murderer' on this forum.

 

[BobKowalski]

Wasn't aimed at you mate. But as you're well aware, Michael Hayes will never be brought to justice for the murder of innocent civilians. Why?.... well, apparently in the interests of peace in NI. Soldier F however, well that seems to be a different matter.

Yes Soldier F does seem to be a different matter as he has been treated differently to the other soldiers involved and until we know why I will reserve judgement. As for Michael Hayes if the authorities feel there is enough evidence to launch an investigation then they should do so. If they feel there isn’t enough evidence or are minded not to for other reasons then they can say so and we can discuss the merits or otherwise of that decision.

None of this changes the fact that after an investigation, and with a dozen or so soldiers not charged, soldier F was charged. The key question is why was soldier F different? What was it about the evidence against him that the authorities felt they had to bring charges? In the circumstances perhaps it would make sense to wait and see what the evidence is before we pronounce judgement.

 

[Cheesy]

Yes Soldier F does seem to be a different matter as he has been treated differently to the other soldiers involved and until we know why I will reserve judgement. As for Michael Hayes if the authorities feel there is enough evidence to launch an investigation then they should do so. If they feel there isn’t enough evidence or are minded not to for other reasons then they can say so and we can discuss the merits or otherwise of that decision.

None of this changes the fact that after an investigation, and with a dozen or so soldiers not charged, soldier F was charged. The key question is why was soldier F different? What was it about the evidence against him that the authorities felt they had to bring charges? In the circumstances perhaps it would make sense to wait and see what the evidence is before we pronounce judgement.

Sorry, but the key question is why isn't Michael Hayes (and others known to have committed terrorist attacks) going to face prosecution but Soldier F is?

You say that Hayes should face prosecution for what he did but you know full well that he won't due to shady dealings between the British Government and the IRA.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Yes Soldier F does seem to be a different matter as he has been treated differently to the other soldiers involved and until we know why I will reserve judgement. As for Michael Hayes if the authorities feel there is enough evidence to launch an investigation then they should do so. If they feel there isn’t enough evidence or are minded not to for other reasons then they can say so and we can discuss the merits or otherwise of that decision.

None of this changes the fact that after an investigation, and with a dozen or so soldiers not charged, soldier F was charged. The key question is why was soldier F different? What was it about the evidence against him that the authorities felt they had to bring charges? In the circumstances perhaps it would make sense to wait and see what the evidence is before we pronounce judgement.

The point is, it shouldn't matter what the evidence is against soldier F, if a decision was taken to offer amnesty/ freedom from prosecution
for terrorists, around 200 of them, for the sake of bringing the troubles to a close, then to single out a member of the armed forces, in defiance
of that decision, is perverse.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The point is, it shouldn't matter what the evidence is against soldier F, if a decision was taken to offer amnesty/ freedom from prosecution
for terrorists, around 200 of them, for the sake of bringing the troubles to a close, then to single out a member of the armed forces, in defiance
of that decision, is perverse.

I completely agree.

 

[Tb1981]

We should hold our armed forces in the highest of regard and support them.
We should also hold them to the highest standards and as such we should not tolerate any murders by them.
As for releasing terrorists I don’t agree with that either.
The problem is the same old whitewash and the truth comes out years later when most people in high posts are dead.

 

[BobKowalski]

Sorry, but the key question is why isn't Michael Hayes (and others known to have committed terrorist attacks) going to face prosecution but Soldier F is?

You say that Hayes should face prosecution for what he did but you know full well that he won't due to shady dealings between the British Government and the IRA.

They are different cases so no it isn’t the key question. Also why do you continually ignore the fact that a dozen or so other soldiers who were investigated for their involvement in Bloody Sunday were not charged? Does it not strike you as significant that despite setting a very high bar for bringing charges, which allowed the other soldiers to avoid prosecution, soldier F was charged?

I didn’t say Hayes should face prosecution. I said he should be investigated to see if there is sufficient evidence to merit charges being brought ie the same procedure that applied to the soldiers in the Bloody Sunday investigation. If the authorities decline to investigate then they can explain why and that explanation can be challenged on behalf of the families seeking justice if necessary.

All you seem to be doing is yelling that soldier F should be excused shooting innocent civilians because we have not tried to bring the people behind the pub bombings to justice (well we did try but the bar for prosecution back in the day was ‘looking a bit Irish’ which is a whole different story). The authorities investigated Bloody Sunday and brought charges against one soldier and excused a dozen other soldiers. No one is demanding that the rest be prosecuted despite the certainty some of the others committed some of the killings. Is that right? Is that fair? Probably not but it’s a messy difficult business and no one has all the fucking answers so for the umpteenth fucking time I’m going to wait until we see what evidence there is and what made the authorities feel they had no option but to bring charges against soldier F and no one else.

 

[BobKowalski]

The point is, it shouldn't matter what the evidence is against soldier F, if a decision was taken to offer amnesty/ freedom from prosecution
for terrorists, around 200 of them, for the sake of bringing the troubles to a close, then to single out a member of the armed forces, in defiance
of that decision, is perverse.

A reasonable point. Which begs the question why despite all this they decided to bring charges against one soldier. Not any one else on the day or any other soldier in any other incident (at least as far as I am aware). You really think the authorities were looking to charge anyone 40 years on for Bloody Sunday? You don’t think they would have preferred to have set a very high bar for a successful prosecution and have everyone fail to meet it rather than reopen old wounds and unpack this shit for everyone to pick over? What about the command officers on the day? The decision to employ paratroops? Their state of mind. Where they ‘geed’ up for trouble? That’s all going to come out in any trial because soldier F will have defence lawyers who will argue he is a scapegoat and he shouldn’t have been put in that situation and then the whole sorry mess will be laid bare. So you really think the authorities want that? I don’t and yet despite this they felt they couldn’t overlook this one soldier and what he did on the day and until we do know we are all just guessing in the dark.

 

[lancs blue]

Which begs the question why despite all this they decided to bring charges against one soldier. Not any one else on the day or any other soldier in any other incident

I've bad a look at the relevant bits of the Saville Inquiry report. There was a group of four members of 1 Para whose actions were particularly criticised in the report - Corporal E, L/Cpl F, Privates G and H. Three of them are dead, L/Cpl F is the only one still alive.

The text below is from the conclusions of the summary report, Chapter 3

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../uploads/attachment_data/file/279167/0030.pdf

We have above identified Corporal E, Lance Corporal F, Private G and Private H as the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North, between them killing William McKinney and Jim Wray, injuring Joe Mahon, Joe Friel, Michael Quinn and Patrick O’Donnell, and possibly injuring Daniel Gillespie. All claimed that they had identified and shot at people in possession of or seeking to use bombs or firearms. In our view none of these soldiers fired in the belief that he had or might have identified a person in possession of or using or about to use bombs or firearms. William McKinney and Jim Wray were both shot in the back and none of the other casualties (with the possible exception of Daniel Gillespie) appears to have been facing the soldiers when shot. We are sure that these soldiers fired either in the belief that no-one in the areas towards which they respectively fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat. In their cases (with the possible exception of Private H), it is unlikely that they fired in a state of fear or panic. All four soldiers denied shooting anyone on the ground. However, Jim Wray was shot for a second time in the back, probably as he lay mortally wounded in the south-western corner of Glenfada Park North. Whichever soldier was responsible for firing the second shot, we are sure that he must have known that there was no possible justification for shooting Jim Wray as he lay on the ground.

And then, referring to a separate incident shortly afterwards, the inquiry concludes that L/Cpl F killed two more men and probably wounded two others although he has not been charged in connection with these deaths despite giving a false account of his actions :-

We have no doubt that Lance Corporal F shot Patrick Doherty and Bernard McGuigan, and it is highly probable that he also shot Patrick Campbell and Daniel McGowan. In 1972 Lance Corporal F initially said nothing about firing along the pedestrianised area on the southern side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, but later admitted that he had done so. No other soldier claimed or admitted to firing into this area. Lance Corporal F’s claim that he had fired at a man who had (or, in one account, was firing) a pistol was to his knowledge false. Lance Corporal F did not fire in a state of fear or panic. We are sure that he fired either in the belief that no-one in the area into which he fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat.

 

[BobKowalski]

I've bad a look at the relevant bits of the Saville Inquiry report. There was a group of four members of 1 Para whose actions were particularly criticised in the report - Corporal E, L/Cpl F, Privates G and H. Three of them are dead, L/Cpl F is the only one still alive.

The text below is from the conclusions of the summary report, Chapter 3

https://assets.publishing.service.g.../uploads/attachment_data/file/279167/0030.pdf

We have above identified Corporal E, Lance Corporal F, Private G and Private H as the soldiers who went into Glenfada Park North, between them killing William McKinney and Jim Wray, injuring Joe Mahon, Joe Friel, Michael Quinn and Patrick O’Donnell, and possibly injuring Daniel Gillespie. All claimed that they had identified and shot at people in possession of or seeking to use bombs or firearms. In our view none of these soldiers fired in the belief that he had or might have identified a person in possession of or using or about to use bombs or firearms. William McKinney and Jim Wray were both shot in the back and none of the other casualties (with the possible exception of Daniel Gillespie) appears to have been facing the soldiers when shot. We are sure that these soldiers fired either in the belief that no-one in the areas towards which they respectively fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat. In their cases (with the possible exception of Private H), it is unlikely that they fired in a state of fear or panic. All four soldiers denied shooting anyone on the ground. However, Jim Wray was shot for a second time in the back, probably as he lay mortally wounded in the south-western corner of Glenfada Park North. Whichever soldier was responsible for firing the second shot, we are sure that he must have known that there was no possible justification for shooting Jim Wray as he lay on the ground.

And then, referring to a separate incident shortly afterwards, the inquiry concludes that L/Cpl F killed two more men and probably wounded two others although he has not been charged in connection with these deaths despite giving a false account of his actions :-

We have no doubt that Lance Corporal F shot Patrick Doherty and Bernard McGuigan, and it is highly probable that he also shot Patrick Campbell and Daniel McGowan. In 1972 Lance Corporal F initially said nothing about firing along the pedestrianised area on the southern side of Block 2 of the Rossville Flats, but later admitted that he had done so. No other soldier claimed or admitted to firing into this area. Lance Corporal F’s claim that he had fired at a man who had (or, in one account, was firing) a pistol was to his knowledge false. Lance Corporal F did not fire in a state of fear or panic. We are sure that he fired either in the belief that no-one in the area into which he fired was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or not caring whether or not anyone there was posing such a threat.

Thanks for that. Appreciate you making the effort and posting the relevant parts.

 

[i kne albert davy]

To be honest if you're not there its hard to judge but to single out one man seems wrong to me, lots of things happened over there and nobodies blameless, you put armed paratroopers in that situation there's every chance of a disaster in the making if we've brushed the IRA atrocities under the carpet then why are we dragging this on.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

A reasonable point. Which begs the question why despite all this they decided to bring charges against one soldier. Not any one else on the day or any other soldier in any other incident (at least as far as I am aware). You really think the authorities were looking to charge anyone 40 years on for Bloody Sunday? You don’t think they would have preferred to have set a very high bar for a successful prosecution and have everyone fail to meet it rather than reopen old wounds and unpack this shit for everyone to pick over? What about the command officers on the day? The decision to employ paratroops? Their state of mind. Where they ‘geed’ up for trouble? That’s all going to come out in any trial because soldier F will have defence lawyers who will argue he is a scapegoat and he shouldn’t have been put in that situation and then the whole sorry mess will be laid bare. So you really think the authorities want that? I don’t and yet despite this they felt they couldn’t overlook this one soldier and what he did on the day and until we do know we are all just guessing in the dark.

When you put it like that, it’s very bizarre.

 

[Abattoir Blue]

It's clearly an emotive subject on both sides; but that sometimes leads to knee-jerk reactionary commentary based upon ingrained prejudices without thinking about the perspective from the other side. Which is utterly pointless.

Pro forces - how would you feel if your children were shot dead on an unarmed protest by armed forces, who then seemed to face no repercussions.

Anti forces- how easy would it be to to do that job? To be faced with a hostile crowd, seeing threats everywhere (after paramilitary attacks on your colleagues). Strict orders from above about how to respond.

I'm not going to wade in too deep - I'm no expert. But what I would ask is; if shooting and killing unarmed civilians (then repeatedly lying about what happened) is not the requisite threshold to be put on trial, what is?

 

[i kne albert davy]

It's clearly an emotive subject on both sides; but that sometimes leads to knee-jerk reactionary commentary based upon ingrained prejudices without thinking about the perspective from the other side. Which is utterly pointless.

Pro forces - how would you feel if your children were shot dead on an unarmed protest by armed forces, who then seemed to face no repercussions.

Anti forces- how easy would it be to to do that job? To be faced with a hostile crowd, seeing threats everywhere (after paramilitary attacks on your colleagues). Strict orders from above about how to respond.

I'm not going to wade in too deep - I'm no expert. But what I would ask is; if shooting and killing unarmed civilians (then repeatedly lying about what happened) is not the requisite threshold to be put on trial, what is?

How about unarmed soldiers one being a 17 year old kid in the back of the head and not facing prosecution that would seem to many to be the threshold of being put on trial.

 

[Abattoir Blue]

How about unarmed soldiers one being a 17 year old kid in the back of the head and not facing prosecution that would seem to many to be the threshold of being put on trial.

1) I'm not sure what you mean. Which case is this? I'd like to read more about it
2) So you think soldier should face charges then?

 

[i kne albert davy]

1) I'm not sure what you mean. Which case is this? I'd like to read more about it
2) So you think soldier should face charges then?

Everybody should read the murders of the 3 scots soldiers in 1971 i remember it as a kid it showed the IRA had sunk to new depths reminded me a lot of how the Germans murdered unharmed people, yes the soldier should stand trial the very same day the bastard who put a gun to the back of a 17 year olds kids head does.

 

[Cheesy]

Pro forces - how would you feel if your children were shot dead on an unarmed protest by armed forces, who then seemed to face no repercussions.

Anti forces- how easy would it be to to do that job? To be faced with a hostile crowd, seeing threats everywhere (after paramilitary attacks on your colleagues). Strict orders from above about how to respond.

1. I'd want justice to be served on those responsible.

I've got a couple of questions for you now....

How would you feel if a member of your family had been murdered by IRA terrorists but you knew there was no possibility of justice being served due to deals put in place between the Government and the IRA, supposedly for the greater good of lasting peace in Ireland?

How would you feel if you were a member of the Armed Forces who has lost mates they've served with in terrorist atrocities and you know the perpetrators won't face justice, again due to these deals put in place, yet one of your comrades is to face trial for murder?

Why is it in the greater good to grant an amnesty (because, let's not kid ourselves here, that's what this deal between the Government and the IRA is) to suspected terrorist murderers but not to suspects who served in the Armed Forces?

 

[Machiavelli]

Has anybody said on this thread that the soldiers should face trial but the IRA members should get away with what they’ve done?