Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Here you can discuss anything froth related that does not fit into another forum, or indeed any nonsense that should enter your head.

Moderator: FU!UK Committee

Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Bronshtein » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:02 am

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47540271
Any thoughts?
I was in the Upper Fifth Form at the time so didn't participate - but what do we think?
I don't think soldiers should be above the law.
I don't think it is easy to put yourself into the mood or place of 'Derry' in 1972, 47 years later.

He joined in 1966 so was probably 23ish in 1972.
He claimed to have fired 13 shots.
Nationalists claim Saville said he killed 5.
The report in fact cites him as being responsible for 3 and possibly a fourth.

If there are reasonable grounds for believing he deliberately shot unarmed and unthreatening people he should be charged with murder. If we believe he had reasonable belief his life or the lives of others were in danger from the actions of those rioters then he shouldn't be charged with murder. (possibly manslaughter but the 'belief' element is key. His chain of command led him to believe there were gunmen present. Did he honstly belive he was saving life?).

I would think with a junior barrister with 3 months qualification he will get off (unless the Jury is comprised of people called Adams).
Bu this is war.
Still.
A war by other (infowar) means.
Truth left the building a long time ago.
But I'm interested what you think about it all.
User avatar
Bronshtein
 
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:53 am
Location: The Promised Land

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby rebelyell2006 » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:25 am

Was it technically a war/state of emergency/etc etc? Would he be considered a soldier or law enforcement? His official status might include certain protections for his actions. Over here in the USA, the issue would be whether or not he had a reasonable fear for his life, specifically when facing the specific group he faced, and whether or not the soldiers with him also had a reasonable fear for their lives. But that might not be the case for the UK.
rebelyell2006
 
Posts: 4499
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:10 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Derek H » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:52 am

It's all a bit more complicated than most people seem to think. Here's an article from The Spectator, which is generally over to the right of British Politics.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/

If you believe what's said there Soldier F deserves everything that's coming his way.

The Saville inquiry had promised immunity from further legal action to all witnesses who told the truth about their actions on the day


He did not tell the truth.
Pimping my blog at http://dereksweetoys.com/
User avatar
Derek H
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:01 am

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Derek H » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:56 am

From the BBC report.

His assertion that there were "gunmen and bombers killed" was rejected in Lord Saville's report.


The Saville Inquiry stated that 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.
Pimping my blog at http://dereksweetoys.com/
User avatar
Derek H
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:01 am

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:15 am

Why did it take 47 years?
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Derek H » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:38 am

An official cover up by Widgery then years of delay until the Saville inquiry was convened in 2003. It didn't report until 2010.

"the wheels of justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine."
Pimping my blog at http://dereksweetoys.com/
User avatar
Derek H
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:01 am

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Derek H » Fri Mar 15, 2019 2:45 am

You can learn much about the British Government's attitude towards this issue from a quote from the Northern Secretary Karen Bradley.

“Over 90 per cent of the killings during the troubles were at the hands of terrorists. Every single one of those was a crime. The under 10 per cent that were at the hands of the military and police were not crimes; they were people acting under orders and instructions, fulfilling their duties in a dignified and appropriate way.”


They were only obeying their orders.
Pimping my blog at http://dereksweetoys.com/
User avatar
Derek H
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:01 am

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby Bronshtein » Fri Mar 15, 2019 3:17 am

Times change of course.

Do we think Saville was less affected by the emotional mood of the time than Widgery?

Ted Heath appointed Widgery to enquire into the shootings while the 'Troubles' (not a war :lol: ) were in full spate and hundreds of people were dying and thousands being maimed on the streets of the UK by IRA terrorists.

Blair appointed Saville (in 1998 Derek not 2003) at a time when the IRA was almost broken and seeking an exit strategy (as was the UK Government) and it was felt 'better' to surrender legal rigour to the zeitgeist of building peace.

I wouldn't say the results of either were rigged to suit needs of the times (but the results of both were rigged to suit the needs of the times).

No doubt a jury will decide whether Lance Cpl F 'told the truth' about what happened. Do we think a LCpl definitively knew what was happening on the day in the midst of all that shit?

I said it was 'still' an infowar because the spokespersons for the families have claimed Saville said various things he didn't say. I heard a representative of the 'nationalist' community claim there were no shots fired by the Repubicans that day. Saville decided that at least one OIRA gunman had fired at the Paras that Sunday.

I'm not suggesting the Paras were innocent (or guilty). But the chances of knowing what really happened in an atmosphere of violence and revolution in the 70s in a continuing propaganda war of 2019 are slim to non-existent.

(As for Bradley - she seems a bit of a dope, but what she said was essentially true - the IRA were criminals setting out to murder, and ALL their actions were crimes, whereas the Army were legally seeking to preserve the peace and protect the innocent.)
User avatar
Bronshtein
 
Posts: 7266
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:53 am
Location: The Promised Land

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby FFS » Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:49 am

Does anyone know who the officer was who sent a bunch of Paramongs to "aid the civil power"? Just asking for trouble.
User avatar
FFS
 

Re: Unfortunately Sanguinary Sunday Prosecution

Postby heaps of bodies » Fri Mar 15, 2019 1:32 pm

The one tendency I have noticed in the press treatment (apart from 'our soldiers right or wrong' of course) is an incredulity at the idea of a soldier being charged for a crime committed in these circumstances, as though somehow it's never happened before.

I can't be arsed looking this up - i know there were convictions following the Boston Massacre - were any of the Yeomanry charged after Peterloo for instance?
User avatar
heaps of bodies
 

Next

Return to The Froth Pot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: GarrisonMiniatures and 42 guests