Bloody Sunday Dead 'All Innocent'

[DaveF]

According to the Saville inquiry.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10320609.stm

[hibsbollah]

I thought David Camerons speech in the Commmons was excellent. Unequivocal apology and no attempt to defend the indefensible.

[steakbake]

I thought David Camerons speech in the Commmons was excellent. Unequivocal apology and no attempt to defend the indefensible.

Yes - I heard it and I thought he got the measure of the moment brilliantly.

[lyonhibs]

Maybe David Cameron can actually be a decent statesman for the UK.

That speech was top notch.

[Pretty Boy]

About time this report and apology was forthcoming.

The lies and smear campaign from the British Government over the years has been nothing short of shameful. One man who wasn't even on the protest march shot dead, several individuals shot in the back and constant lies about troops coming under 'hostile' fire and the first shots being fired by protesters. Now we have it officially noted the first shots were fired by soldiers who were not under fire , not before time.

Hopefully this can be another step in the right direction for the rebuilding process in Northern Ireland.

[ArabHibee]

£191 million well spent? You decide.

“Expedient” and “urgent” are not words anyone would now apply to the tribunal led by Lord Saville of Newdigate. The tone was set in the opening speech by Saville’s senior counsel, Christopher Clarke QC: it lasted 42 days, the longest in British legal history. The heroic quantity of Mr Clarke’s output – that speech alone contained a million and a quarter words - has been rewarded with equally heroic fees: £4.5 million. Nineteen lawyers have become millionaires thanks to the Saville Inquiry.
Between 5,000 and 20,000 people marched on the fateful afternoon in 1972. The number benefiting from the inquiry has, at times, been little smaller. As well as all the lawyers, the 921 oral witnesses, the dozens of officials and the support staff have created an entire Saville micro-economy in Londonderry, a city of just 85,000 people.
The council charged a bargain £500,000 a month for the 19th-century Guildhall, home of the public hearings. Lord Saville himself spent four years – at £175 a night – in the best suite of Northern Ireland’s top country-house hotel. He was such a good customer, they didn’t even move him when President Clinton came to stay.
An entirely new hotel, the City, was opened for the Bloody Sunday market, housing the Saville yeomanry – junior counsel, press officers and the like – at the special rate of £65 a night. Ryanair started direct flights from London to Derry. The total cost of Saville has been £191 million, enough to pay the salaries of every primary-school teacher in Northern Ireland for a year.

[CropleyWasGod]

£191 million well spent? You decide.

“Expedient” and “urgent” are not words anyone would now apply to the tribunal led by Lord Saville of Newdigate. The tone was set in the opening speech by Saville’s senior counsel, Christopher Clarke QC: it lasted 42 days, the longest in British legal history. The heroic quantity of Mr Clarke’s output – that speech alone contained a million and a quarter words - has been rewarded with equally heroic fees: £4.5 million. Nineteen lawyers have become millionaires thanks to the Saville Inquiry.
Between 5,000 and 20,000 people marched on the fateful afternoon in 1972. The number benefiting from the inquiry has, at times, been little smaller. As well as all the lawyers, the 921 oral witnesses, the dozens of officials and the support staff have created an entire Saville micro-economy in Londonderry, a city of just 85,000 people.
The council charged a bargain £500,000 a month for the 19th-century Guildhall, home of the public hearings. Lord Saville himself spent four years – at £175 a night – in the best suite of Northern Ireland’s top country-house hotel. He was such a good customer, they didn’t even move him when President Clinton came to stay.
An entirely new hotel, the City, was opened for the Bloody Sunday market, housing the Saville yeomanry – junior counsel, press officers and the like – at the special rate of £65 a night. Ryanair started direct flights from London to Derry. The total cost of Saville has been £191 million, enough to pay the salaries of every primary-school teacher in Northern Ireland for a year.

Some things are beyond numbers on a spreadsheet, and IMO this is one of them.

[hibs0666]

£191 million well spent? You decide.

“Expedient” and “urgent” are not words anyone would now apply to the tribunal led by Lord Saville of Newdigate. The tone was set in the opening speech by Saville’s senior counsel, Christopher Clarke QC: it lasted 42 days, the longest in British legal history. The heroic quantity of Mr Clarke’s output – that speech alone contained a million and a quarter words - has been rewarded with equally heroic fees: £4.5 million. Nineteen lawyers have become millionaires thanks to the Saville Inquiry.
Between 5,000 and 20,000 people marched on the fateful afternoon in 1972. The number benefiting from the inquiry has, at times, been little smaller. As well as all the lawyers, the 921 oral witnesses, the dozens of officials and the support staff have created an entire Saville micro-economy in Londonderry, a city of just 85,000 people.
The council charged a bargain £500,000 a month for the 19th-century Guildhall, home of the public hearings. Lord Saville himself spent four years – at £175 a night – in the best suite of Northern Ireland’s top country-house hotel. He was such a good customer, they didn’t even move him when President Clinton came to stay.
An entirely new hotel, the City, was opened for the Bloody Sunday market, housing the Saville yeomanry – junior counsel, press officers and the like – at the special rate of £65 a night. Ryanair started direct flights from London to Derry. The total cost of Saville has been £191 million, enough to pay the salaries of every primary-school teacher in Northern Ireland for a year.

Worth every penny.

[The Harp Awakes]

£191 million well spent? You decide.

“Expedient” and “urgent” are not words anyone would now apply to the tribunal led by Lord Saville of Newdigate. The tone was set in the opening speech by Saville’s senior counsel, Christopher Clarke QC: it lasted 42 days, the longest in British legal history. The heroic quantity of Mr Clarke’s output – that speech alone contained a million and a quarter words - has been rewarded with equally heroic fees: £4.5 million. Nineteen lawyers have become millionaires thanks to the Saville Inquiry.
Between 5,000 and 20,000 people marched on the fateful afternoon in 1972. The number benefiting from the inquiry has, at times, been little smaller. As well as all the lawyers, the 921 oral witnesses, the dozens of officials and the support staff have created an entire Saville micro-economy in Londonderry, a city of just 85,000 people.
The council charged a bargain £500,000 a month for the 19th-century Guildhall, home of the public hearings. Lord Saville himself spent four years – at £175 a night – in the best suite of Northern Ireland’s top country-house hotel. He was such a good customer, they didn’t even move him when President Clinton came to stay.
An entirely new hotel, the City, was opened for the Bloody Sunday market, housing the Saville yeomanry – junior counsel, press officers and the like – at the special rate of £65 a night. Ryanair started direct flights from London to Derry. The total cost of Saville has been £191 million, enough to pay the salaries of every primary-school teacher in Northern Ireland for a year.

I don't think the cost is relevant, as it's getting to the truth that matters after all the denials, cover-ups and lies by the British Army, which in some respects are worse than the murders themselves.

I listened to a Unionist on the TV tonight who said that there should be no prosecutions following the report and that it is time to move on. I think the report's findings are too damming for there not to be prosecutions and, for the British Army's ongoing credibility there has to be some punishment inflicted on those responsible for the murders and for the lies and deceit displayed after the atrocity.

[degenerated]

£191 million well spent? You decide.

“Expedient” and “urgent” are not words anyone would now apply to the tribunal led by Lord Saville of Newdigate. The tone was set in the opening speech by Saville’s senior counsel, Christopher Clarke QC: it lasted 42 days, the longest in British legal history. The heroic quantity of Mr Clarke’s output – that speech alone contained a million and a quarter words - has been rewarded with equally heroic fees: £4.5 million. Nineteen lawyers have become millionaires thanks to the Saville Inquiry.
Between 5,000 and 20,000 people marched on the fateful afternoon in 1972. The number benefiting from the inquiry has, at times, been little smaller. As well as all the lawyers, the 921 oral witnesses, the dozens of officials and the support staff have created an entire Saville micro-economy in Londonderry, a city of just 85,000 people.
The council charged a bargain £500,000 a month for the 19th-century Guildhall, home of the public hearings. Lord Saville himself spent four years – at £175 a night – in the best suite of Northern Ireland’s top country-house hotel. He was such a good customer, they didn’t even move him when President Clinton came to stay.
An entirely new hotel, the City, was opened for the Bloody Sunday market, housing the Saville yeomanry – junior counsel, press officers and the like – at the special rate of £65 a night. Ryanair started direct flights from London to Derry. The total cost of Saville has been £191 million, enough to pay the salaries of every primary-school teacher in Northern Ireland for a year.

this was always far more important than the cost and no cut and paste from the torygraph will make me change my mind.

[Sir David Gray]

Obviously the report finds the British soldiers were at fault for what happened and there can be no excuses for that but I heard Martin McGuinness on the news tonight pointing blame at people who were involved in illegal activity in Northern Ireland back in the 70's as if he is some kind of saint.

That really is the pot calling the kettle black, coming from him. I also see his pal, Gerry Adams, was quick to get his oar in and condemned the murders of innocent, unarmed people. He should know all about that. :bitchy:

Thousands of people died during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, many of them were completely innocent but not all of their loved ones have been afforded the right to hold a public inquiry into the events surrounding their deaths.

Yes what happened on "Bloody Sunday" was completely wrong, as David Cameron has said already, it was totally unjustified, but surely the deaths of those who seem to have been forgotten are equally as tragic and just as significant as the deaths that occurred on that day.

I think that, in order for Northern Ireland to move on from its past, a line has to be drawn under everything that has occurred over the past thirty and forty years and all its citizens should look to the future where past enemies can work together for the better of the entire country.

[Sir David Gray]

I don't think the cost is relevant, as it's getting to the truth that matters after all the denials, cover-ups and lies by the British Army, which in some respects are worse than the murders themselves.

I listened to a Unionist on the TV tonight who said that there should be no prosecutions following the report and that it is time to move on. I think the report's findings are too damming for there not to be prosecutions and, for the British Army's ongoing credibility there has to be some punishment inflicted on those responsible for the murders and for the lies and deceit displayed after the atrocity.

:agree: I totally agree with you. The British soldiers who killed those innocent people should be put on trial, they are a complete disgrace to the British Armed Forces.

Just as long as every single PIRA murderer, who terrorised local communities for decades, is also given the same treatment and made to face up to their alleged crimes.

[Geo_1875]

If they decide to prosecute the paras involved in Bloody Sunday they must also rescind the Good Friday Agreement and return all convicted terrorists to prison. They should also pursue those self confessed murderers who refuse to take their seats in Parliament and swear .loyalty to the crown.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It didn't take long for the partisan lines to be drawn here. Predicatable and disappointing.

I think we should all take time to breath a collective gasp at the revelation that Bloody Sunday happened because trained soldiers lost their discipline. They are a disgrace to the British Army.

Let's not move on too fast, as we may miss lessons for the future. The provos were ****, the UDA were ****, but I was always led to believe that our soldiers were there to keep the peace. What comes out of this is that the actions of the British Army escalated civil unrest into an isurrection.

The one thing that was supposed to put our troops above the terrorists was the fact they were neutral. It appears that they weren't, that they were looking for a fightl, and when the opportunity arose they acted like the heartless thugs they were supposed to be protecting the very people they were firing on against.

Many lives were lost because of what happened that day. We must get to the bottom of the soldiers' motivation, and that can be achieved through a trial.

Common sense has to tell us all that something is far wrong when troops fire on their own civilians. B*gger the expense, I'd rather know what's happening to the money we pay for our forces.

[Peevemor]

Many lives were lost because of what happened that day. We must get to the bottom of the soldiers' motivation, and that can be achieved through a trial.

Almost 40 years down the line? I doubt it.


Common sense has to tell us all that something is far wrong when troops fire on their own civilians. B*gger the expense, I'd rather know what's happening to the money we pay for our forces.

Obviously something was very wrong, due I suspect mostly to the inexperience of the soldiers and, above all, their officers in dealing with such an extreme domestic situation. However, and without getting into a big debate over the recent history of N. Ireland, if lessons hadn't been learned the 30 years or so that followed could easily have been punctuated by similar incidents.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Almost 40 years down the line? I doubt it.



Obviously something was very wrong, due I suspect mostly to the inexperience of the soldiers and, above all, their officers in dealing with such an extreme domestic situation. However, and without getting into a big debate over the recent history of N. Ireland, if lessons hadn't been learned the 30 years or so that followed could easily have been punctuated by similar incidents.

The paras have behaved a like the marines in "A Few Good Men". Closing ranks to defend their own, and ignoring what they were supposed to be fighting for in the first place.

I'd like to know who gave the order to fire. If we were to put the soldiers on trial questions could be asked that might get us to the bottom. Telling a guy in his late 50s that he is going to jail for the rest of his life might just focus minds.

I agree that we will never get the complete truth, but if the British people could at least entertain the idea that someone in government, or high in the army, actually wanted a war against the republicans, then the people might be more vigiliant in future.

It's hardly an outrageous theory, and just as people couldn't entertain the notion that the royal family would bump off one of their own before Diana, seeds of doubt about the integrity of our forces could be sewn.

I am not excusing the provos, I am sure that Bloody Sunday was just the sort of outrage they were trying to goad the army into. As I said earlier though, the terrorists never held themselves up as honourable people. The army did.

[CropleyWasGod]

The paras have behaved a like the marines in "A Few Good Men". Closing ranks to defend their own, and ignoring what they were supposed to be fighting for in the first place.

I'd like to know who gave the order to fire. If we were to put the soldiers on trial questions could be asked that might get us to the bottom. Telling a guy in his late 50s that he is going to jail for the rest of his life might just focus minds.

I agree that we will never get the complete truth, but if the British people could at least entertain the idea that someone in government, or high in the army, actually wanted a war against the republicans, then the people might be more vigiliant in future.

It's hardly an outrageous theory, and just as people couldn't entertain the notion that the royal family would bump off one of their own before Diana, seeds of doubt about the integrity of our forces could be sewn.

I am not excusing the provos, I am sure that Bloody Sunday was just the sort of outrage they were trying to goad the army into. As I said earlier though, the terrorists never held themselves up as honourable people. The army did.

I think lines have to be drawn now. Lessons can be learned from South Africa, where the emphasis was on "truth and reconciliation" rather than justice. Calling people to account at this stage can only re-open old wounds, and potentially old conflicts.

At a time when Paisley and Adams are actually working together, why go down the road of punishment? Especially as, as many have pointed out, the GF agreement has already excused many of the criminals.

[Peevemor]

The paras have behaved a like the marines in "A Few Good Men". Closing ranks to defend their own, and ignoring what they were supposed to be fighting for in the first place.

I'd like to know who gave the order to fire. If we were to put the soldiers on trial questions could be asked that might get us to the bottom. Telling a guy in his late 50s that he is going to jail for the rest of his life might just focus minds.

I agree that we will never get the complete truth, but if the British people could at least entertain the idea that someone in government, or high in the army, actually wanted a war against the republicans, then the people might be more vigiliant in future.

It's hardly an outrageous theory, and just as people couldn't entertain the notion that the royal family would bump off one of their own before Diana, seeds of doubt about the integrity of our forces could be sewn.

I am not excusing the provos, I am sure that Bloody Sunday was just the sort of outrage they were trying to goad the army into. As I said earlier though, the terrorists never held themselves up as honourable people. The army did.

The problem is the guys who are in their late 50s or even 60s now may have made mistakes (but would they admit them?) but they certainly wouldn't have been behind the sort of agenda your suggesting - these people will be either long gone or well protected.

I think that an (expensive) trial will leave us with more questions than answers and will serve little purpose in terms of progressing in the right direction.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The problem is the guys who are in their late 50s or even 60s now may have made mistakes (but would they admit them?) but they certainly wouldn't have been behind the sort of agenda your suggesting - these people will be either long gone or well protected.

I think that an (expensive) trial will leave us with more questions than answers and will serve little purpose in terms of progressing in the right direction.

I think it would be beneficial to our society if the questions were actually asked though. If people have a seed of doubt in their mind about the state, they'll be more careful in future.

It's hypothetical, as the trial will never happen, and anyone who might give evidence that would show something up will either be dealth with, or die before it reaches court.

[degenerated]

Almost 40 years down the line? I doubt it.



Obviously something was very wrong, due I suspect mostly to the inexperience of the soldiers and, above all, their officers in dealing with such an extreme domestic situation. However, and without getting into a big debate over the recent history of N. Ireland, if lessons hadn't been learned the 30 years or so that followed could easily have been punctuated by similar incidents.

were lessons learned, i don't think they were. the behaviour of the paras in coal island in the early 90's demonstrated that nothing was learned from bloody sunday. It was probably more by luck than design than only three unamred civilians were shot during the period of the paras occupation of coal island. In suspending the officer in charge there was at least an admission of guilt in this unsavoury incident.

[khib70]

It didn't take long for the partisan lines to be drawn here. Predicatable and disappointing.

I think we should all take time to breath a collective gasp at the revelation that Bloody Sunday happened because trained soldiers lost their discipline. They are a disgrace to the British Army.

Let's not move on too fast, as we may miss lessons for the future. The provos were ****, the UDA were ****, but I was always led to believe that our soldiers were there to keep the peace. What comes out of this is that the actions of the British Army escalated civil unrest into an isurrection.

The one thing that was supposed to put our troops above the terrorists was the fact they were neutral. It appears that they weren't, that they were looking for a fightl, and when the opportunity arose they acted like the heartless thugs they were supposed to be protecting the very people they were firing on against.

Many lives were lost because of what happened that day. We must get to the bottom of the soldiers' motivation, and that can be achieved through a trial.

Common sense has to tell us all that something is far wrong when troops fire on their own civilians. B*gger the expense, I'd rather know what's happening to the money we pay for our forces.
Excellent post. There's no defence for the Bloody Sunday murders along the lines of "yes but what about the IRA/UDA" unless you accept that the armed forces of the Crown should be behaving like terrorist paramilitaries. A supposedly elite branch of the Army lost all semblance of discipline or command structure and ran amok, shooting 28 innocent and unarmed people - some of them while wounded or surrendering.

But the key point is the bit in bold. The actions of 1 Para and the subsequent Widgery coverup was the IRA's biggest recruiter and led to the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands on both sides. Bloody Sunday was an act of wanton, homicidal thuggery, which created hundreds more in its image.

Yes, the people involved should be prosecuted, without reference to any kind of school playground mentality along the lines of "but what about him then?"

[hibsbollah]

Excellent post. There's no defence for the Bloody Sunday murders along the lines of "yes but what about the IRA/UDA" unless you accept that the armed forces of the Crown should be behaving like terrorist paramilitaries. A supposedly elite branch of the Army lost all semblance of discipline or command structure and ran amok, shooting 28 innocent and unarmed people - some of them while wounded or surrendering.

But the key point is the bit in bold. The actions of 1 Para and the subsequent Widgery coverup was the IRA's biggest recruiter and led to the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands on both sides. Bloody Sunday was an act of wanton, homicidal thuggery, which created hundreds more in its image.

Yes, the people involved should be prosecuted, without reference to any kind of school playground mentality along the lines of "but what about him then?"

:top marks

[Phil D. Rolls]

Excellent post. There's no defence for the Bloody Sunday murders along the lines of "yes but what about the IRA/UDA" unless you accept that the armed forces of the Crown should be behaving like terrorist paramilitaries. A supposedly elite branch of the Army lost all semblance of discipline or command structure and ran amok, shooting 28 innocent and unarmed people - some of them while wounded or surrendering.

But the key point is the bit in bold. The actions of 1 Para and the subsequent Widgery coverup was the IRA's biggest recruiter and led to the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands on both sides. Bloody Sunday was an act of wanton, homicidal thuggery, which created hundreds more in its image.

Yes, the people involved should be prosecuted, without reference to any kind of school playground mentality along the lines of "but what about him then?"

:agree: We deserve the truth, and if Britain really stands for justice and freedom we have to put our own house in order first. If we do that, maybe the Republicans will have less excuse to dismiss the attrocities they committed.

[steakbake]

It didn't take long for the partisan lines to be drawn here. Predicatable and disappointing.

I think we should all take time to breath a collective gasp at the revelation that Bloody Sunday happened because trained soldiers lost their discipline. They are a disgrace to the British Army.

Let's not move on too fast, as we may miss lessons for the future. The provos were ****, the UDA were ****, but I was always led to believe that our soldiers were there to keep the peace. What comes out of this is that the actions of the British Army escalated civil unrest into an isurrection.

The one thing that was supposed to put our troops above the terrorists was the fact they were neutral. It appears that they weren't, that they were looking for a fightl, and when the opportunity arose they acted like the heartless thugs they were supposed to be protecting the very people they were firing on against.

Many lives were lost because of what happened that day. We must get to the bottom of the soldiers' motivation, and that can be achieved through a trial.

Common sense has to tell us all that something is far wrong when troops fire on their own civilians. B*gger the expense, I'd rather know what's happening to the money we pay for our forces.

Dead on with that.

It doesn't take long before people are on about "what about the others".... if paras get arrested then all the terrorists should go back to jail etc etc. This is not the attitude or the way to progress anywhere, least of all in NI. There are people from all sides with blood on their hands. Part of this reconcilliation process is the recognition by all sides of their own part in the Troubles. This is part of the British paying recognistion.

I was interested in a Question Time from Belfast where the loudest applause of the evening was for a guy in the audience - a self-declared Unionist - who slated a Unionist on the panel who kept on about McGuinness and Adams and their very dubious roles in the conflict. He made the point that the vast majority of people want to move forward but they are often held back my a vocal minority who want to look back.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Ultimately a very successful outcome for the families, they finally have it on record that their loved-ones were unarmed and innocent - and that's the main thing. But I've got a few reservations.

Firstly, Cameron's speech was - credit where it's due - pretty good, but it was very notable that he implied this would be the end of any state funded enquiries into events of the Troubles. This presumably means that their will be no similar outcome for the families of those killed at the Ballymurphy Massacre; which to my mind is equally, if not more, befitting of an enquiry. Where Bloody Sunday was chaotic and confused, Ballymurphy was the cold, calm and collected (targetted?) sniping of innocent individuals involved in no massed street protest over the course of a number of days.

Which leads to my second reservation, absolutely nothing has been done to attempt to work out if Bloody Sunday (along with Ballymurphy and other similar events, the vicious dispersal of peaceful CRA protestors a few days before Bloody Sunday, for example) was part of an institutionalised and systemic policy on behalf of Westminster and/or Stormont to break the back of what was a broad-based, mass movement for substantial social change. And whether this, in turn and if it was proven, was part of a designed policy to sublimate mass non-violent activism into an elite-led paramilitary insurgency; the latter of which had always been easier for the British state to control throughout its imperial history - whether in Aden, Malaya, Kenya or wherever. In short, whether it was the case that the Ballymurphy and Bogside massacres were essentially meant to be seen as an object lesson in how the state would react to such a concerted, non-violent assault on the fundamentals of British rule in Ireland.

Perhaps this is mostly conspiratorial rubbish (though I don't think so) - but if so, why the constant cover-ups and the bizarre manipulations of the Widgery Report? I think to characterise the events of that day as a criminal 'loss-of-control' by individual Paratroopers is a really dangerous conclusion to come to.

Finally, it's probably not really my place to weigh in on this - and I think it should ultimately be the decision of the families in consultation with lawyers - but I don't think there's a great deal to be gained from a criminal trial of the individual Paras involved. Presumably the GFA precludes sentencing them since the events occurred before 1998 and again nothing would be done to attempt to see if there are leads from 1 Para up into the corridors of power.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've just been thinking (dangerous I know) if Cameron has given an unconditional apology, why are people on here trying to defend the paras? Whether we move on now is not in our hands, it is up to those who were wronged.

It would be great if they were Christian about it, and said let's put it behind us. Who could blame them for wanting to take it further though, after being lied to, and having their loved ones blamed for what happened?

[Peevemor]

I've just been thinking (dangerous I know) if Cameron has given an unconditional apology, why are people on here trying to defend the paras? Whether we move on now is not in our hands, it is up to those who were wronged.

It would be great if they were Christian about it, and said let's put it behind us. Who could blame them for wanting to take it further though, after being lied to, and having their loved ones blamed for what happened?

Where? :confused:

[AndyM_1875]

Finally, it's probably not really my place to weigh in on this - and I think it should ultimately be the decision of the families in consultation with lawyers - but I don't think there's a great deal to be gained from a criminal trial of the individual Paras involved. Presumably the GFA precludes sentencing them since the events occurred before 1998 and again nothing would be done to attempt to see if there are leads from 1 Para up into the corridors of power.

A very good post LH.

This has brought some form of closure to the families hopefully. What happened that day cannot be justified and engaging in Whataboutery is pointless. The Paras were the wrong regiment in the wrong place at the wrong time and NI in the early 1970s was a desperate place.

But I hope that the line is now drawn here as dragging this on further in the climate of NI post GFA will bring nothing but problems and more rancour in a country which is moving forward.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Where? :confused:

Nowhere.

But somebody will - so I wanted to get my righteous indignation in first.

[AndyP]

Finally, it's probably not really my place to weigh in on this - and I think it should ultimately be the decision of the families in consultation with lawyers - but I don't think there's a great deal to be gained from a criminal trial of the individual Paras involved. Presumably the GFA precludes sentencing them since the events occurred before 1998 and again nothing would be done to attempt to see if there are leads from 1 Para up into the corridors of power.

IMO, it is more likely that the families will persue a civil action rather than the authorities following a criminal one. A couple of reasons behind this:

1. Burden of proof is less in a civil case and trying to find out which soldier fired which shot and additionaly when the shot became the fatal one (Clegg case was thrown out on appeal on this reason) is going to make a criminal case nearly impossible to complete.

2. Some of the soldiers have already been given immunity for their testimony.

3. It will undoubtedly lead to a continuation of tit for tat demands for inquiries and prosecutions ie the murderers of Ptes John and Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey have still never been brought to justice, what would then prevent the government launching a similar inquiry to resolve this. We end up going around in circles and at some time we have to stop and move forward giving EVERYBODY a clean slate with NO EXCEPTIONS and NO COMPLAINTS from any side of the clonflict. Rightly or wrongly it seems that the Republicans are getting all they want yet aren't extending the courtesy, something wrong there surely.

We get the luxury of disecting this in every minute detail from the luxury of hindsight and the comfort of the computer chair, the guys that go on the ground never get that luxury and people forget just how bad things were in Northern Ireland in the 12 months leading up to Bloody Sunday.

No complaints about the result of the inquiry from me but as usual I prefer to take a step back and not fire in with the knee jerk reactions, (not aimed at you LH but have been reading Forums from both sides of this for the last 24 hours and have yet to find too many posters taking the middle ground) and no defence of the soldiers involved but perhaps the Government of the day shouldn't have "fudged" the original inquiry and perhaps real justice would have been done sooner.

[Phil D. Rolls]

IMO, it is more likely that the families will persue a civil action rather than the authorities following a criminal one. A couple of reasons behind this:

1. Burden of proof is less in a civil case and trying to find out which soldier fired which shot and additionaly when the shot became the fatal one (Clegg case was thrown out on appeal on this reason) is going to make a criminal case nearly impossible to complete.

2. Some of the soldiers have already been given immunity for their testimony.

3. It will undoubtedly lead to a continuation of tit for tat demands for inquiries and prosecutions ie the murderers of Ptes John and Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey have still never been brought to justice, what would then prevent the government launching a similar inquiry to resolve this. We end up going around in circles and at some time we have to stop and move forward giving EVERYBODY a clean slate with NO EXCEPTIONS and NO COMPLAINTS from any side of the clonflict. Rightly or wrongly it seems that the Republicans are getting all they want yet aren't extending the courtesy, something wrong there surely.

We get the luxury of disecting this in every minute detail from the luxury of hindsight and the comfort of the computer chair, the guys that go on the ground never get that luxury and people forget just how bad things were in Northern Ireland in the 12 months leading up to Bloody Sunday.

No complaints about the result of the inquiry from me but as usual I prefer to take a step back and not fire in with the knee jerk reactions, (not aimed at you LH but have been reading Forums from both sides of this for the last 24 hours and have yet to find too many posters taking the middle ground) and no defence of the soldiers involved but perhaps the Government of the day shouldn't have "fudged" the original inquiry and perhaps real justice would have been done sooner.

Great post. My main gripe is that the soldiers lied afterwards, I realise politics come into it, but they should just have told the truth. I know that sounds very naive.

[Leicester Fan]

I've not read the report, I'm just going on what I've heard on TV.

I can't see there being any court proceedings coming from this. If I was 1 of the paras involved I'd get the best lawyers (on legal aid of course) and throw as much mud as possible. I'd want Martin McGuiness to explain under oath why he was probably carrying a machine gun at a peaceful protest. Or why one of the shot protestors was carrying a nail bomb.

This is rather a convenient result for the authorities they won't want all this dragging up again.

[The Harp Awakes]

I've not read the report, I'm just going on what I've heard on TV.

I can't see there being any court proceedings coming from this. If I was 1 of the paras involved I'd get the best lawyers (on legal aid of course) and throw as much mud as possible. I'd want Martin McGuiness to explain under oath why he was probably carrying a machine gun at a peaceful protest. Or why one of the shot protestors was carrying a nail bomb.

This is rather a convenient result for the authorities they won't want all this dragging up again.

And conveniently, you wouldn't want alleged murderers and those responsible for the lies and cover-ups within the British Army to go under oath either? Robert Mugabe would be proud of your smokescreens and denial.

[degenerated]

I've not read the report, I'm just going on what I've heard on TV.

I can't see there being any court proceedings coming from this. If I was 1 of the paras involved I'd get the best lawyers (on legal aid of course) and throw as much mud as possible. I'd want Martin McGuiness to explain under oath why he was probably carrying a machine gun at a peaceful protest. Or why one of the shot protestors was carrying a nail bomb.

This is rather a convenient result for the authorities they won't want all this dragging up again.

or alternatively it could just be the truth

[AndyM_1875]

And conveniently, you wouldn't want alleged murderers and those responsible for the lies and cover-ups within the British Army to go under oath either? Robert Mugabe would be proud of your smokescreens and denial.

You go down that road you are opening up a can of worms. Where does it stop?

I'd suggest you read AndyP's post in particular section 3 and think again.
"3. It will undoubtedly lead to a continuation of tit for tat demands for inquiries and prosecutions ie the murderers of Ptes John and Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey have still never been brought to justice, what would then prevent the government launching a similar inquiry to resolve this. We end up going around in circles and at some time we have to stop and move forward giving EVERYBODY a clean slate with NO EXCEPTIONS and NO COMPLAINTS from any side of the clonflict. "

There should not be any prosecutions - its time to draw a line under this.
We have just spent 200m on an inquiry and hopefully delivered closure for the families and the people of Derry. Stirring up further acrimony will achieve nothing but pain and more suffering.

[khib70]

I've not read the report, I'm just going on what I've heard on TV.

I can't see there being any court proceedings coming from this. If I was 1 of the paras involved I'd get the best lawyers (on legal aid of course) and throw as much mud as possible. I'd want Martin McGuiness to explain under oath why he was probably carrying a machine gun at a peaceful protest. Or why one of the shot protestors was carrying a nail bomb.

This is rather a convenient result for the authorities they won't want all this dragging up again.
And what, precisely has whether or not Martin McGuiness was carrying a sub machine gun got to do with this report or its consequences? Even the most perjured testimony by the soldiers concerned never claimed that any automatic weapons were used against them. As far as I know no one claimed to have sighted this weapon. And to suggest that it either explains or justifies the shooting of 28 unarmed civilians is ludicrous. Given that the Paras shot people who were patently unarmed without any provocation or warning, I suspect Mr McGuiness would not be with us today had he appeared in public visibly armed.

And that's not to say that McGuiness should have been carrying an SMG, or that he never took part in terrorist activity. To condemn and deplore this act of murder and the duplicity and lying which followed does not and should not imply one scintilla of support for the Provisional IRA. These were people paid by us and acting in our name and on that day they committed murder and there should be no immunity and no statute of limitations.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I've not read the report, I'm just going on what I've heard on TV.

I can't see there being any court proceedings coming from this. If I was 1 of the paras involved I'd get the best lawyers (on legal aid of course) and throw as much mud as possible. I'd want Martin McGuiness to explain under oath why he was probably carrying a machine gun at a peaceful protest. Or why one of the shot protestors was carrying a nail bomb.

This is rather a convenient result for the authorities they won't want all this dragging up again.

As I said earlier, I think the most important thing is to sort out things on our side. Cameron made a unconditional, unreserved apology. That means that whatever the other side did is no concern of ours. On that day, the British Army got it wrong.

One of the protestors was found with nail bombs on his body. Said bombs were never used, and were unknown to our forces at the time of the shooting. They do not jusify our troops losing their discipline.

I can understand how the tensions which had been building in NI up to the event explain the mindset of our troops. However, an army isn't supposed to work on emotion.

I also understand how, when it all kicked off, there was confusion. Again, that only explains the actions of professional soldiers, it doesn't excuse them. How much sympathy would we have for a surgeon who botched an operation because he was "under pressure".

What is most inexcusable is the way the British State his from the truth of what had actually happened and even went as far as to blame the victims.
We can't put the Republicans house in order, we can only make sure that we do things right on our side.The Republican side, one day will be brought to book by their own regarding their contribution to this atrocity.

I write this as a British citizen, taking responsibility for what I think was done in my name. If we had ever been given a say, and given the truth, the troubles would have never happened.

[Leicester Fan]

And conveniently, you wouldn't want alleged murderers and those responsible for the lies and cover-ups within the British Army to go under oath either? Robert Mugabe would be proud of your smokescreens and denial.

I'm not denying anything or putting up a smokescreen. I'm just an ordinary working class Englishman, I've no connection to the authorities nor any interest in all this sectarian nonsense.

Imo,for what it's worth (which is admittedly FA),this enquiry was a gesture to the IRA at the time of the peace process and it's been dragged out for 12 years to keep it on the back burner. There was never any chance that this enquiry would find any other result.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the 2 extremes.

[AndyP]

As I said earlier, I think the most important thing is to sort out things on our side. Cameron made a unconditional, unreserved apology. That means that whatever the other side did is no concern of ours. On that day, the British Army got it wrong.

One of the protestors was found with nail bombs on his body. Said bombs were never used, and were unknown to our forces at the time of the shooting. They do not jusify our troops losing their discipline.

I can understand how the tensions which had been building in NI up to the event explain the mindset of our troops. However, an army isn't supposed to work on emotion.

I also understand how, when it all kicked off, there was confusion. Again, that only explains the actions of professional soldiers, it doesn't excuse them. How much sympathy would we have for a surgeon who botched an operation because he was "under pressure".

What is most inexcusable is the way the British State his from the truth of what had actually happened and even went as far as to blame the victims.
We can't put the Republicans house in order, we can only make sure that we do things right on our side.The Republican side, one day will be brought to book by their own regarding their contribution to this atrocity.

I write this as a British citizen, taking responsibility for what I think was done in my name. If we had ever been given a say, and given the truth, the troubles would have never happened.

Cracking post, IMO, and whilst we would like the Loyalists/Republicans to be honest it is more important (to me anyway) that the military are above reproach. However IIRC Pipe Bombs (or nail bombs) were in use from the early part of The Troubles, I'll need to check back on Ken Whartons first book to confirm but given the deviousness of the Intelligence services I doubt they would have brought in an unknown weapon into the smokescreen.

[AndyP]

I'm not denying anything or putting up a smokescreen. I'm just an ordinary working class Englishman, I've no connection to the authorities nor any interest in all this sectarian nonsense.

Imo,for what it's worth (which is admittedly FA),this enquiry was a gesture to the IRA at the time of the peace process and it's been dragged out for 12 years to keep it on the back burner. There was never any chance that this enquiry would find any other result.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the 2 extremes.

It's been dragged out for one reason and one reason only, they guys on the ground where NEVER going to open up without various conditions being met. The findings had to be presented in a way that gave the families closure, criticised the correct parts of the military (going upwards from the Company/Battalion Commander) but preventing a legal case being brought against the individual soldiers. The Rules of Engagement for NI at the time did not protect the soldier on ground (and nothing in the proceeding 40 years has changed) and left it to the individuals discretion, not a good thing when you have been in constant fire fights in the weeks leading up to a potentially volatile "march".

[Mibbes Aye]

As I said earlier, I think the most important thing is to sort out things on our side. Cameron made a unconditional, unreserved apology. That means that whatever the other side did is no concern of ours. On that day, the British Army got it wrong.

One of the protestors was found with nail bombs on his body. Said bombs were never used, and were unknown to our forces at the time of the shooting. They do not jusify our troops losing their discipline.

I can understand how the tensions which had been building in NI up to the event explain the mindset of our troops. However, an army isn't supposed to work on emotion.

I also understand how, when it all kicked off, there was confusion. Again, that only explains the actions of professional soldiers, it doesn't excuse them. How much sympathy would we have for a surgeon who botched an operation because he was "under pressure".

What is most inexcusable is the way the British State his from the truth of what had actually happened and even went as far as to blame the victims.
We can't put the Republicans house in order, we can only make sure that we do things right on our side.The Republican side, one day will be brought to book by their own regarding their contribution to this atrocity.

I write this as a British citizen, taking responsibility for what I think was done in my name. If we had ever been given a say, and given the truth, the troubles would have never happened.

:top marksVery good post with some apposite points.


You go down that road you are opening up a can of worms. Where does it stop?



What's wrong with opening 'a can of worms'? Who would be made uncomfortable by that?

Isn't the important thing that we don't close off the avenues to open justice, especially where an actor as powerful as the state is suggested to be involved in the murder of its own citizens?

[Sir David Gray]

I understand what people are saying about how the British soldiers should be treated differently from the IRA/UVF terrorists as the soldiers should be professional in their conduct and are accountable for their actions in a way that the IRA and UVF are not.

However, we're not just talking about random terrorists. We are talking about people, two in particular, who are now high profile politicians and one of them now holds the joint-highest position in the government of Northern Ireland.

If we are going to prosecute these soldiers then, by all means, do that but I think it would take Northern Ireland back about 20 years and if we put them on trial, I think you have to seriously look at the cases of people who are only out of prison, and who subsequently only hold political positions today, because of the Good Friday Agreement, which was intended to help Northern Ireland move forward and away from all the violence and the bloodshed in its recent past.

Out of the five current Sinn Fein MP's, three of them have a pretty "colourful" past. Martin McGuinness was arrested after being caught with 250lb of explosives and nearly 5,000 rounds of ammunition. He was sentenced to six months in prison for this. There are other allegations that he had prior knowledge of an IRA bombing in Enniskillen, which killed 11 people, although he denies this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7356159.stm). Obviously there is also the accusation that he was in possession of a weapon on the day of Bloody Sunday.

Gerry Adams played a key role in the Bloody Friday attacks as the IRA detonated 22 bombs that killed nine people and injured 130.

Conor Murphy was sentenced to five years in prison for being a member of the IRA and being in possession of explosives. He also admitted in 2005 that he did not regret the Brighton bombing which killed five people. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4309568.stm)

Of the Sinn Fein MLA's, Martina Anderson was charged with possession of a firearm and causing an explosion. In 1986, she was convicted, along with five others, of conspiring to cause explosions in England. Gerry Kelly was convicted in relation to the car bomb attacks on the Old Bailey and Scotland Yard, which killed one person and injured nearly 200. He was convicted of causing explosions and conspiracy to cause explosions. As a result, he received two life sentences plus 20 years. Jennifer McCann was sentenced to 20 years in prison for shooting a police officer. Raymond McCartney was convicted of the murder of a police officer.

We've had this inquiry into Bloody Sunday, it has been an extremely damning indictment of the British army and the British government has issued its own condemnation of what happened that day. I honestly believe that should be that and Northern Ireland should now be allowed to move on and deal with the current issues that are facing the country, instead of always looking backwards and potentially opening old wounds.

The Sinn Fein politicians that I have highlighted above seem to have finally renounced violence and are apparently now completely devoted to sorting out their problems through peaceful, political means. That is fine and they should be left to get on with it as I don't believe it would do any good to put them back in jail after all this time, in the same way that I don't believe it would do any good to bring legal proceedings against the British soldiers who fired the shots on Bloody Sunday.

[AndyM_1875]

What's wrong with opening 'a can of worms'? Who would be made uncomfortable by that?


A number of members of Northern Ireland's current government and probably a few MLAs for starters.




Isn't the important thing that we don't close off the avenues to open justice, especially where an actor as powerful as the state is suggested to be involved in the murder of its own citizens?

Truth and reconciliation committees I have no problem with.

Dragging men now in their 50s, and 60s into court for the admittedly terrible mistakes made in the early 1970s in the post GFA environment whilst convicted Republican and Loyalist murderers walk the streets of Belfast I have a real problem with. Where does it stop? Do we then go through the Republican community like a dose of salts to get at who was responsible for the murders of Ptes John and Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey? Or through the Loyalists to get at the truth of the actions of Michael Stone and Billy Wright?

In post GFA Northern Ireland can we? Putting any soldiers on trial is nothing more than an exercise in self-flagellation IMHO and would send out the wrong message.

Doing that would put the whole Northern Ireland government at risk IMHO and stir up all the old resentments and hatreds bringing the dinosaurs back to the fore. Let sleeping dogs lie.

The line needs to be drawn here.

[steakbake]

Dragging men now in their 50s, and 60s into court for the admittedly terrible mistakes made in the early 1970s in the post GFA environment whilst convicted Republican and Loyalist murderers walk the streets of Belfast I have a real problem with. Where does it stop? Do we then go through the Republican community like a dose of salts to get at who was responsible for the murders of Ptes John and Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey? Or through the Loyalists to get at the truth of the actions of Michael Stone and Billy Wright?

In post GFA Northern Ireland can we? Putting any soldiers on trial is nothing more than an exercise in self-flagellation IMHO and would send out the wrong message.

Doing that would put the whole Northern Ireland government at risk IMHO and stir up all the old resentments and hatreds bringing the dinosaurs back to the fore. Let sleeping dogs lie.

The line needs to be drawn here.

:top marks

As Vic and Bob might say (though perhaps not in this context) you just have to let it lie. Vengence is no way out of the situation.

[Phil D. Rolls]

However, we're not just talking about random terrorists. We are talking about people, two in particular, who are now high profile politicians and one of them now holds the joint-highest position in the government of Northern Ireland.


One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. William Wallace, George Washington, and most of Israel's high ranking politicians up to the 1980s were no different from the IRA.

A war was fought, and a peace was won. That seems to be what Cameron has recognised.

Let's not drag out McGuinnesses involvement, or we will start to get into arguing about his cause. People don't take up arms for no reason. Over the years Britain tried to use the clunking fist to control indigenous populations.

Britain got it badly wrong in Northern Ireland, the parallels between Bloody Sunday and the Boston Massacre of 1770 are striking. Britain needs to learn (and maybe it has) that there are times when it is better to talk than to fight. That the more you tell someone what to do, the less likely they are to do it.

[Mibbes Aye]

A number of members of Northern Ireland's current government and probably a few MLAs for starters.

Truth and reconciliation committees I have no problem with.

Dragging men now in their 50s, and 60s into court for the admittedly terrible mistakes made in the early 1970s in the post GFA environment whilst convicted Republican and Loyalist murderers walk the streets of Belfast I have a real problem with. Where does it stop? Do we then go through the Republican community like a dose of salts to get at who was responsible for the murders of Ptes John and Joseph McCaig and Dougald McCaughey? Or through the Loyalists to get at the truth of the actions of Michael Stone and Billy Wright?

In post GFA Northern Ireland can we? Putting any soldiers on trial is nothing more than an exercise in self-flagellation IMHO and would send out the wrong message.

Doing that would put the whole Northern Ireland government at risk IMHO and stir up all the old resentments and hatreds bringing the dinosaurs back to the fore. Let sleeping dogs lie.

The line needs to be drawn here.

Isn't the point that these murderers you talked about have been convicted, regardless of how they were disposed with.

I don't see how trying someone suspected of murder threatens to put the whole Northern Ireland government at risk. How would that work then?

To my mind there's a lot of conflation going on here. And to suggest soldiers breaking the law should be ignored because other people broke laws doesn't really cut it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

There is some good material here:

http://www.u.tv/BloodySunday/

[marinello59]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

One of the laziest and most inaccurate cliches in the book. Terrorism is a strategy. A terrorist is a terrorist no matter whether you think his cause was just or not.

[Phil D. Rolls]

One of the laziest and most inaccurate cliches in the book. Terrorism is a strategy. A terrorist is a terrorist no matter whether you think his cause was just or not.

It depends who is writing the history. Boadicea was a terrorist to the Romans, but to the English she is a heroine.

When I was growing up, I could never understand my father's antipathy towards the likes of Kenyata or Archibishop Makarios. To me they were leaders of their country, but to him they were enemies of Britain. I suppose there are people in South Africa right now who hate Mandela for his association with the ANC.

To the Nazis,the French and Dutch resistance were nothing more than terrorists, and so on. Paul Verhoeven's "Black Book", is a great account of the duplicity of people fighting in conflicts. It shows how causes are rarely as simple as people like to make out afterwards.

My concern is that in rallying round flags we lose sight of individuals. Where people's lives are at stake, I think you have to look deeper than simple labels. Clearly, our Prime Minister is prepared to do that.

Sure terrorism is a strategy. It was used by the British when they bombed Dresden. It was used by the USA when they napalmed civilians in Vietnam. To me, any war that harms civilians is terrorism.

I hope I've not gone off at a tangent here, by the way.

[matty_f]

:top marks

As Vic and Bob might say (though perhaps not in this context) you just have to let it lie. Vengence is no way out of the situation.

:greengrin Have to say that this is the last thread I would have expected to see a post referencing Vic Reeves Big Night Out!:thumbsup:

[Mibbes Aye]

Round about the time of the general election there were a good few posters on here supporting the Tories and calling for the powers of the state to be rolled back.

They seem to be in short supply now when the ultimate power of the state is being called into question - its power to execute its own citizens :confused:

[LiverpoolHibs]

It depends who is writing the history. Boadicea was a terrorist to the Romans, but to the English she is a heroine.

When I was growing up, I could never understand my father's antipathy towards the likes of Kenyata or Archibishop Makarios. To me they were leaders of their country, but to him they were enemies of Britain. I suppose there are people in South Africa right now who hate Mandela for his association with the ANC.

To the Nazis,the French and Dutch resistance were nothing more than terrorists, and so on. Paul Verhoeven's "Black Book", is a great account of the duplicity of people fighting in conflicts. It shows how causes are rarely as simple as people like to make out afterwards.

My concern is that in rallying round flags we lose sight of individuals. Where people's lives are at stake, I think you have to look deeper than simple labels. Clearly, our Prime Minister is prepared to do that.

Sure terrorism is a strategy. It was used by the British when they bombed Dresden. It was used by the USA when they napalmed civilians in Vietnam. To me, any war that harms civilians is terrorism.

I hope I've not gone off at a tangent here, by the way.

As I took it, marinello's point was that it's a stupid cliche (and it most certainly is) because terrorism isn't an ideology or a belief - even though it is nearly always portrayed as if it is.

It is a tactic within whatever ideology and belief motivates the tactic, the same as Ghandian non-violent resistance, guerilla warfare, general strikes, sit-ins etc. etc. Certain circumstances determine whether it will be taken up as a strategy or not. There's nothing essentialist about it.

Someone could, probably quite convincingly, put up a complete rejectionist argument against it - but there's nothing necessarily 'wrong' about it in terms of the motivation. An absolutely valid cause could institute terrorism and an absolutely invalid cause could institute terrorism.

[Phil D. Rolls]

As I took it, marinello's point was that it's a stupid cliche (and it most certainly is) because terrorism isn't an ideology or a belief - even though it is nearly always portrayed as if it is.

It is a tactic within whatever ideology and belief motivates the tactic, the same as Ghandian non-violent resistance, guerilla warfare, general strikes, sit-ins etc. etc. Certain circumstances determine whether it will be taken up as a strategy or not. There's nothing essentialist about it.

Someone could, probably quite convincingly, put up a complete rejectionist argument against it - but there's nothing necessarily 'wrong' about it in terms of the motivation. An absolutely valid cause could institute terrorism and an absolutely invalid cause could institute terrorism.

OK, people are goodguys or badguys. It just depends whose side they are on. That's all I'm trying to say.