Bloody Sunday Prosecution

[whelk]

Fair?

Seems an amnesty to the IRA and soldier gets charged.

[buctootim]

He shot six unarmed people, killing two. It wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Fair?

Seems an amnesty to the IRA and soldier gets charged.

 

Are we allowed to feel anything at this - I know you like to police people's feelings on things? Want to know what rules you're setting out before I answer.

[whelk]

He shot six unarmed people, killing two. It wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate.

 

Judging him before a trial are you?

[whelk]

Are we allowed to feel anything at this - I know you like to police people's feelings on things? Want to know what rules you're setting out before I answer.

 

Ha you soppy cnt. You are too tender.

Think Brexit is really getting to you.

Although probably struggling with faux grief too.

You dad you

[buctootim]

Judging him before a trial are you?

 

Absolving him despite compelling evidence, including soldier F's own testimony are you?

 

Lord Saville, Justice of the Supreme Court stated there was "no doubt" Soldier F had shot father-of-six Paddy Doherty, who was unarmed. Saville also found there was "no doubt" Soldier F had shot an unarmed Bernard McGuigan on Bloody Sunday as he went to the aid of Patrick Doherty, waving a white handkerchief. At the Saville Inquiry, Soldier F admitted he had shot 17-year-old Michael Kelly - but he said that he had only fired at people with bombs or weapons. However, Saville concluded Mr Kelly was unarmed. The inquiry report also stated Soldier F had changed his story over the years.

 

Thats good enough for me to believe he's guilty.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Ha you soppy cnt. You are too tender.

Think Brexit is really getting to you.

Although probably struggling with faux grief too.

You dad you

 

Hey, don't have a go at me because you've got no feelings. It's OK to feel sad at things.

 

I'm sure you'd have cared more if they were more 'similar' to you.

[whelk]

Ha you soppy cnt. You are too tender.

Think Brexit is really getting to you.

Although probably struggling with faux grief too.

You dad you

 

I don’t know enough about it but 47 years is a long time ago to be trawling memories,

My bias is that I have no Republican sympathies though and soldiers scared sh1tless in that environment.

Did I hear that law will be changed to protect soldiers in future?

[whelk]

Hey, don't have a go at me because you've got no feelings. It's OK to feel sad at things.

 

I'm sure you'd have cared more if they were more 'similar' to you.

 

You are not bright enough for this sunshine. Stick to watching Sky News pundits talking about Brexit and spewing it back in the EU thread.

You don’t have enough wit or original thought and you don’t feel sad really do you? Lost sheep

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You are not bright enough for this sunshine. Stick to watching Sky News pundits talking about Brexit and spewing it back in the EU thread.

You don’t have enough wit or original thought and you don’t feel sad really do you? Lost sheep

 

 

I'm not the one who said that there are no rules to what we should find sad, and then in the next breath is telling people what they should find sad.

 

I know you don't like being caught out (people don't in general), but I think you should just admit you ****ed up on this one and back down.

[whelk]

 

I'm not the one who said that there are no rules to what we should find sad, and then in the next breath is telling people what they should find sad.

 

I know you don't like being caught out (people don't in general), but I think you should just admit you ****ed up on this one and back down.

 

Lol OCD boy comes back for more, Get help and stop replying to my posts. It’s getting embarrassing.

[benjii]

You wake up in the morning, you've got to read all the Sunday papers, the kids are running round, you've got to mow the lawn, wash the car, and you think "Sunday, bloody Sunday!".

[Batman]

Absolving him despite compelling evidence, including soldier F's own testimony are you?

 

Lord Saville, Justice of the Supreme Court stated there was "no doubt" Soldier F had shot father-of-six Paddy Doherty, who was unarmed. Saville also found there was "no doubt" Soldier F had shot an unarmed Bernard McGuigan on Bloody Sunday as he went to the aid of Patrick Doherty, waving a white handkerchief. At the Saville Inquiry, Soldier F admitted he had shot 17-year-old Michael Kelly - but he said that he had only fired at people with bombs or weapons. However, Saville concluded Mr Kelly was unarmed. The inquiry report also stated Soldier F had changed his story over the years.

 

Thats good enough for me to believe he's guilty.

 

I doubt many will argue. I think people are (rightly) peed off with the disgraceful lack of justice against the 'other side' in all this. In some cases, they get free passes

[OldNick]

If it was murder so be it,but didnt Blair erase all the murders from the other side???? I think this is a generation thing. The people lived at the time and saw the crimes committed to our servicemen may have more sympathy than the 'anything the Brits did was wrong' later generations.

[OldNick]

I knew somebody who was out there in the troubles and he said to me one time that never does a day go by that he doesnt regret pulling the trigger when he had McGuinness in his sights. Army training stopped him from doing so.

The bitterness of the servicemen at the time knowing that people like him were doing cowardly crimes but using civilian status to be safe in his world must have been pretty sickening.

[buctootim]

I doubt many will argue. I think people are (rightly) peed off with the disgraceful lack of justice against the 'other side' in all this. In some cases, they get free passes

 

It's true about the the lack of justice, but not just on the "other side". It was the necessary price for stopping the violence - hard to swallow but it worked.

 

Almost no British soldiers have been prosecuted for shootings related to the troubles, and probably rightly so. 28 people were killed or injured by soldiers on Bloody Sunday. Only soldier F is being prosecuted. Why? because his actions were so extreme and so unjustifiable that there is no possible defence of feeling his life was threatened or he mistook a hankie for a gun.

 

Bloody Sunday was a seminal moment in the history of the troubles. It spelled the end of peaceful protest - why would you march and get shot? - and gave an massive impetus to the IRA which until then had been marginal and unpopular. Soldier F killed more than two people on the day. His actions led indirectly to countless other deaths.

[benjii]

If it was murder so be it,but didnt Blair erase all the murders from the other side???? I think this is a generation thing. The people lived at the time and saw the crimes committed to our servicemen may have more sympathy than the 'anything the Brits did was wrong' later generations.

 

If you don’t think shooting unarmed civilians waving white hankies is wrong then you’re a complete waste of space, regardless of your generation.

[buctootim]

I knew somebody who was out there in the troubles and he said to me one time that never does a day go by that he doesnt regret pulling the trigger when he had McGuinness in his sights. Army training stopped him from doing so.

The bitterness of the servicemen at the time knowing that people like him were doing cowardly crimes but using civilian status to be safe in his world must have been pretty sickening.

 

You do know the killings were started by the 'loyalist' UVF? The house burnings and 'cleansing' of areas was started by the loyalists, whilst the protestant police force stood by or did little. If you were a property owner you could vote up to six times. If you rented you didnt get a vote. The IRA grew up as a defence force force for Catholics because the Ulster government offered no protection. If the British government had stepped in with direct rule much sooner the troubles would never have happened.

[doddisalegend]

You do know the killings were started by the 'loyalist' UVF? The house burnings and 'cleansing' of areas was started by the loyalists, whilst the protestant police force stood by or did little. If you were a property owner you could vote up to six times. If you rented you didnt get a vote. The IRA grew up as a defence force force for Catholics because the Ulster government offered no protection. If the British government had stepped in with direct rule much sooner the troubles would never have happened.

 

That's a big claim. Sectarian violence has a long history in Ireland dating back to the 17th century at some point violence was inevitable government intervention or not 300 years of hate isn't easily erased.

 

The IRA had existed in one form or another since 1918 it split several times ( including the late 60s) over its history but it had carried out guerilla warfare against northern Ireland in both the 1940s and in the border campaign of the late 50s early 60s let's not paint them out to be merely a defence force.

 

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

That's a big claim. Sectarian violence has a long history in Ireland dating back to the 17th century at some point violence was inevitable government intervention or not 300 years of hate isn't easily erased.

 

The IRA had existed in one form or another since 1918 it split several times ( including the late 60s) over its history but it had carried out guerilla warfare against northern Ireland in both the 1940s and in the border campaign of the late 50s early 60s let's not paint them out to be merely a defence force.

 

Historically accurate, but specious. I'm talking about the most recent round of troubles which started in the 1960s, obviously. You might as well argue that because we can't change history we can't change the future. The 20th century saw progress in the rest of the UK - remember votes for women? racial equality? gay rights?

 

1960s NI was like a throwback to the 19th century with the right to vote tied to property ownership, discrimination in housing and employment. Those were causes of the problems not the ****ing Plantation of Ulster in 1606. Otherwise you can go back as far as you want always finding someone prior to blame. Maybe we should blame the Dál Riata in the 6th century, unless you know of something previous to that?

 

Failure by the British government to act to modernise NI brought about the civil rights movement and the further failure of the British Government to protect Catholics from the Loyalist backlash caused a stampede of recruits to the IRA, which till that point had been a marginal force.

Edited 15 March, 2019 by buctootim

[sadoldgit]

I know someone who was a senior officer in military intelligence stationed in Belfast when this happened. He told me that they used to carry little yellow cards on which were printed their Rules of Engagement. These often changed making life difficult for the troops. On one occasion the rules actually stated that you could only fire at someone if they had fired at you. So if you saw someone aiming at another soldier you couldn’t fire on him!

 

I asked him what he thought of the murder charge. He said that he thought that it was fair enough if there was evidence to suggest that soldier F had killed innocent people. He also said he felt very uneasy about the shootings at the time.

 

I also asked him about what he thought of the term “Troubles” used to describe the situation in NI. He said it was just a media term. He said that war was too strong a term for it but that the army saw it and treated it as a full scale insurrection.

 

When I asked him about the political expediency that was and is being used with convicted and non convicted terrorists he was less than complimentary to many former PMs.

 

If soldier F is found guilty and sentenced to a prison term it will make it even harder to accept the pardoning of convicted IRA murders but if innocent people were deliberately targeted and shot dead then someone has to be held to account. Just how innocent you are if you are lobbing bricks and Molotov cocktails and are aware that the IRA are using your disturbance as an opportunity to fire on the troops is another question.

[OldNick]

If you don’t think shooting unarmed civilians waving white hankies is wrong then you’re a complete waste of space, regardless of your generation.

Did I say that? No if it is proved to be murder then it is right to be brought to justice. A white hanky has never been a surety that surrender is the motive BTW

[OldNick]

You do know the killings were started by the 'loyalist' UVF? The house burnings and 'cleansing' of areas was started by the loyalists, whilst the protestant police force stood by or did little. If you were a property owner you could vote up to six times. If you rented you didnt get a vote. The IRA grew up as a defence force force for Catholics because the Ulster government offered no protection. If the British government had stepped in with direct rule much sooner the troubles would never have happened.

At what period are you talking about, initially or when the troubles started again?

[benjii]

Did I say that? No if it is proved to be murder then it is right to be brought to justice. A white hanky has never been a surety that surrender is the motive BTW

 

True, he could have been a Real Madrid fan.

[OldNick]

Historically accurate, but specious. I'm talking about the most recent round of troubles which started in the 1960s, obviously. You might as well argue that because we can't change history we can't change the future. The 20th century saw progress in the rest of the UK - remember votes for women? racial equality? gay rights?

 

1960s NI was like a throwback to the 19th century with the right to vote tied to property ownership, discrimination in housing and employment. Those were causes of the problems not the ****ing Plantation of Ulster in 1606. Otherwise you can go back as far as you want always finding someone prior to blame. Maybe we should blame the Dál Riata in the 6th century, unless you know of something previous to that?

 

Failure by the British government to act to modernise NI brought about the civil rights movement and the further failure of the British Government to protect Catholics from the Loyalist backlash caused a stampede of recruits to the IRA, which till that point had been a marginal force.

Yep they were all Mother Teresa's , playing no part in the problem at all.

[OldNick]

True, he could have been a Real Madrid fan.

Hilarious

[doddisalegend]

Historically accurate, but specious. I'm talking about the most recent round of troubles which started in the 1960s, obviously. You might as well argue that because we can't change history we can't change the future. The 20th century saw progress in the rest of the UK - remember votes for women? racial equality? gay rights?

 

1960s NI was like a throwback to the 19th century with the right to vote tied to property ownership, discrimination in housing and employment. Those were causes of the problems not the ****ing Plantation of Ulster in 1606. Otherwise you can go back as far as you want always finding someone prior to blame. Maybe we should blame the Dál Riata in the 6th century, unless you know of something previous to that?

 

Failure by the British government to act to modernise NI brought about the civil rights movement and the further failure of the British Government to protect Catholics from the Loyalist backlash caused a stampede of recruits to the IRA, which till that point had been a marginal force.

 

Not sure why you are getting all angry just trying to have a civil discussion. Having said that I can't agree. You can't look at history with like that. History is cause and effect rarely can you look at a single event in isolation because previous events will have impacted the event you are looking at. The recent troubles don't happen without the chain of events that lead up to them all the way back to the Ulster plantations if you want to go that far back . Secondly its not about blame its trying to understand why something happened and how happened with putting your own modern moral code on it.

 

Further trouble in Ireland was imo always on the cards (and probably will be again) because circa 300 years of violence based on religious and cultural differences can't (or won't) be forgotten easily. Irish independence after ww1 also left both sides of the divide feeling unfulfilled it was a fudge which is why the IRA never went away and why the unionist acted the way they did (if you have a large minority of your population you identify as the enemy you aren't going to be to up for treating them well). Suggesting the British government modernise NI assumes that the unionists would have been up for that at the time, I would suggest the siege mentality of their political elite wouldn't have made it easy, and lets face both sides of Ireland haven't exactly been quick to take a modern view on other things like say abortion. Unionists are terribly entrenched in the past they still celebrate a battle that took place in 1690, a Dutch king who most British people have barely heard of or remember, so much so they will still march about it ever year despite knowing how their Catholic neighbours feel about it. Yet you think they would have taken increased rights for Catholics forced on them by the British government (at a time when NI was under home rule) happily? British government intervention in North Ireland in favour of Catholic rights would have most likely still caused trouble and violence it just would have been unionists flocking to join the UDF instead they would have fought tooth and nail to keep their dominance in Ulster.

 

You also can't get past religion in Irish politics its literally like the last place in Europe that hasn't got past the Reformation which comes back to cause and effect you can't disregard it as happening to long ago because both sides of the Irish divide don't see it that way it still matters to them. Those division in Irish society laid down in the 16th an 17th centuries still have ramifications in Ireland even now.

 

 

Personally I'm not really interested in the blame game both sides have so much blood on their hands it seems impossible to try and apportion blame now anyway.

 

 

Kudos for throwing in Dál Riata though, not to many people are boned up on their 6th century kingdoms of Britian, I think we can conclude they are as much to blame for current situation in Ireland as Ystrad Clud or Rheged though..

[Batman]

I know someone who was a senior officer in military intelligence stationed in Belfast when this happened. He told me that they used to carry little yellow cards on which were printed their Rules of Engagement. These often changed making life difficult for the troops. On one occasion the rules actually stated that you could only fire at someone if they had fired at you. So if you saw someone aiming at another soldier you couldn’t fire on him!

 

I asked him what he thought of the murder charge. He said that he thought that it was fair enough if there was evidence to suggest that soldier F had killed innocent people. He also said he felt very uneasy about the shootings at the time.

 

I also asked him about what he thought of the term “Troubles” used to describe the situation in NI. He said it was just a media term. He said that war was too strong a term for it but that the army saw it and treated it as a full scale insurrection.

 

When I asked him about the political expediency that was and is being used with convicted and non convicted terrorists he was less than complimentary to many former PMs.

 

If soldier F is found guilty and sentenced to a prison term it will make it even harder to accept the pardoning of convicted IRA murders but if innocent people were deliberately targeted and shot dead then someone has to be held to account. Just how innocent you are if you are lobbing bricks and Molotov cocktails and are aware that the IRA are using your disturbance as an opportunity to fire on the troops is another question.

 

exactly. many people in NI (from all sides) could easily tell you about their Bloody Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday etc etc. I will assume fair and proper justice will serve their losses if this is now the path to tread

Edited 15 March, 2019 by Batman

[Wade Garrett]

Whatever side of the fence you sit on, Bloody Sunday did more for the IRA than anything in history.

 

Northern Irish society is just sad. Seems to revolve around which particular branch of Christianity you believe in. Still so much hate, barriers need to be destroyed.

[norwaysaint]

I have to admit that I grew up having no real education about this or any part of what was really happening in Nortern Ireland and why. We were just led to believe that the IRA were evil people killing good honest British people for no good reason and that the British were just trying to keep law and order. It was years later I actually studied what had happened to the Irish people in Ulster for so many years and what was still happening. Knowledge was given in a frighteningly one sided way.

 

I will always be impressed by the people of Northern Ireland on both sides who have been strong enough to keep peace and try to move on, when they see the people responsible for the deaths of loved ones all around them. It has to be that way though. Anyone who still thinks that one side was good and the other side bad in Northern Ireland really needs to learn a bit more about the situation.

[buctootim]

Not sure why you are getting all angry just trying to have a civil discussion. Having said that I can't agree. You can't look at history with like that. History is cause and effect rarely can you look at a single event in isolation because previous events will have impacted the event you are looking at. The recent troubles don't happen without the chain of events that lead up to them all the way back to the Ulster plantations if you want to go that far back . Secondly its not about blame its trying to understand why something happened and how happened with putting your own modern moral code on it.

 

Further trouble in Ireland was imo always on the cards (and probably will be again) because circa 300 years of violence based on religious and cultural differences can't (or won't) be forgotten easily. Irish independence after ww1 also left both sides of the divide feeling unfulfilled it was a fudge which is why the IRA never went away and why the unionist acted the way they did (if you have a large minority of your population you identify as the enemy you aren't going to be to up for treating them well). Suggesting the British government modernise NI assumes that the unionists would have been up for that at the time, I would suggest the siege mentality of their political elite wouldn't have made it easy, and lets face both sides of Ireland haven't exactly been quick to take a modern view on other things like say abortion. Unionists are terribly entrenched in the past they still celebrate a battle that took place in 1690, a Dutch king who most British people have barely heard of or remember, so much so they will still march about it ever year despite knowing how their Catholic neighbours feel about it. Yet you think they would have taken increased rights for Catholics forced on them by the British government (at a time when NI was under home rule) happily? British government intervention in North Ireland in favour of Catholic rights would have most likely still caused trouble and violence it just would have been unionists flocking to join the UDF instead they would have fought tooth and nail to keep their dominance in Ulster.

 

You also can't get past religion in Irish politics its literally like the last place in Europe that hasn't got past the Reformation which comes back to cause and effect you can't disregard it as happening to long ago because both sides of the Irish divide don't see it that way it still matters to them. Those division in Irish society laid down in the 16th an 17th centuries still have ramifications in Ireland even now.

 

 

Personally I'm not really interested in the blame game both sides have so much blood on their hands it seems impossible to try and apportion blame now anyway.

 

 

Kudos for throwing in Dál Riata though, not to many people are boned up on their 6th century kingdoms of Britian, I think we can conclude they are as much to blame for current situation in Ireland as Ystrad Clud or Rheged though..

 

Apologies for being tetchy - more irritated than angry. What ****es me off is the slightly lazy assumption that the problems are somehow excused or insurmountable because 'its always been that way. Its simpler than that. We aren't still hating on the Dutch or Americans because of wars in the 18th century. People who are alive now had family members killed because of sectarian violence in living memory. I'm only alive because my dad left Belfast to get away from from discrimination and poverty and violence and met my mum in England.

 

Most people in England don't really 'get it' - even the PM who should know better. Ian Paisley, the man who described Catholics as vermin and promised to send 'troublemakers' to heaven founded the DUP. What message does it send that even in 2019 the British Government is prepared to skew NI politics and damage the economy for 10 votes to support her 'deal'.

Edited 16 March, 2019 by buctootim