Soldier F is singled out for prosecution, seems a bit selective and unfair to me?

CleggHall wrote:Soldier F is singled out for prosecution, seems a bit selective and unfair to me?

I imagine the selection process was "is there enough evidence to prosecute?" If there isn't then they don't prosecute. If there is, well... you get the picture.

Still think it's wrong. Yet they let the killers and murderers be released under the good Friday agreement.

The sad truth is that there is more to this than what meets the eye. I agree to a certain extent with what IT says but in this case it isn’t that easy. There are a number of mitigating factors to consider, was there mistakes on the day yes of course as it turns out horrible mistakes which cost lives.

I have no idea about the basis for prosecution or if he will be the only one prosecuted but there are more to blame for this than just him and not just within the UK Government, Army confines either. Anybody who thinks that what happened wasn’t a reaction, as it turns out the wrong reaction, to something that happened at the time is living in cloud cuckoo land even if the IRA deny it.

beddie wrote:Still think it's wrong. Yet they let the killers and murderers be released under the good Friday agreement.

They were tried and convicted. I agree with you on them getting released, but justice was done.

This guy, Soldier F, if he's guilty then he deserves the book being thrown at him every bit as hard as any other murderer. There'll be an outcry among the usual "our boys" brigade, but this is what should happen when 13 innocent civilians are murdered at the hands of our military. It should have happened a lot sooner.

JarrowClaret wrote:The sad truth is that there is more to this than what meets the eye. I agree to a certain extent with what IT says but in this case it isn’t that easy. There are a number of mitigating factors to consider, was there mistakes on the day yes of course as it turns out horrible mistakes which cost lives.

I have no idea about the basis for prosecution or if he will be the only one prosecuted but there are more to blame for this than just him and not just within the UK Government, Army confines either. Anybody who thinks that what happened wasn’t a reaction, as it turns out the wrong reaction, to something that happened at the time is living in cloud cuckoo land even if the IRA deny it.

Any mitigating factors will be presented and tested at trial. That's kind of the point of a trial

Agree that it had to be investigated, but there has to be a element of "look what those guys had to go through every day" to this.

Put it one way, the evidence better be absolutely overwhelming if anything happens to Soldier F. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.

A sample scapegoat of 1 should be enough to score some political points.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Agree that it had to be investigated, but there has to be a element of "look what those guys had to go through every day" to this.

Put it one way, the evidence better be absolutely overwhelming if anything happens to Soldier F. It wouldn't be fair otherwise.

Murder trials don't tend to have low burden of proof requirements.

Many of the badges of murder don't apply in this case, because obviously there's no blame attached to him being armed or firing a gun. The prosecution case must be that he deliberately aimed and fired at someone (or a crowd) with intent to kill, knowing that he was disobeying orders. The prosecution must feel that they have enough evidence now that he was not just a young soldier who made a mistake, but that he was deliberately and with malice aforethought out to kill. (How they can find that evidence fifty years on; that's another question.)

How to keep the hostilities going on the UK side.

Step one Release all terrorists.

Step two Charge British soldiers and bring old feelings back.

The problem with it for me is that if he says “I heard a gunshot or what I thought was gunshots and returned fire as I felt my life was at threat” or words to that effect how can you question that feeling. You can question the direction of his shooting definately but not his decision to open fire I would guess.

The failure here for me more than what they did on the ground that day is the decision to send the Paras down from there own area to deal with it in the first place which lies much higher probably even Governmental.

Quickenthetempo wrote:How to keep the hostilities going on the UK side.

Step one Release all terrorists.

Step two Charge British soldiers and bring old feelings back.

Just because we were wrong to release certain prisoners doesn't mean we should let someone get away with murder if we have good reason to think they are guilty of murder.

Two somethings don't make a something.

Edit: And btw, this soldier deserves his day in court just as much as anyone else.

by overwhelming evidence IT, its what dsr is alluding to. If there is tv footage of a British soldier firing into a crowd (not saying there is btw), then that there is a case to answer.

If its not as clear as that, then its probably not.

And again, I wasn't there, I don't know what its like to be in a combat zone, and that has to be taken into account.

But this is key, British soldiers fired on British citizens. That has to be investigated.

beddie wrote:Still think it's wrong. Yet they let the killers and murderers be released under the good Friday agreement.

Weren't they also handed a get out of jail free card from any future prosecutions by Blair at the time?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Just because we were wrong to release certain prisoners doesn't mean we should let someone get away with murder if we have good reason to think they are guilty of murder.

Two somethings don't make a something.

Edit: And btw, this soldier deserves his day in court just as much as anyone else.

How can a witness be believed on what happened all that time ago.

You only have to read on here people describing past matches how the mind plays tricks. How many mistaken details get spoken about.

Quickenthetempo wrote:How can a witness be believed on what happened all that time ago.

You only have to read on here people describing past matches how the mind plays tricks. How many mistaken details get spoken about.

I expect that question will be asked and answered at a trial. Again, that's the point of a trial. We had no problem with Rolf Harris being tried and convicted for crimes from the 70s, because the evidence available at the time of his trial was enough to convict him. The standard of proof isn't lowered just because the crime happened long ago. All that time does is make it harder to reach the standard of proof required for a conviction.

Not sure why anyone would have a problem with what IT is saying, other than them having a problem with everything IT says.

If a crime has been committed, the perpetrator needs to be held to account. If a trial finds that he has not committed a crime, then he walks free and a long overdue line is drawn under it.

I think people have three objections to this trial - one is that obviously the IRA have more favourable treatment than UK soldiers; one is that it is very doubtful whether there can be a fair trial at all fifty years down the line, when the main issue is not just what actually happened, but also what was in the mind of the soldier and the men who commanded him; and one is that there is a belief that UK soldiers ought to be protected to some extent from their actions, specifically their mistakes.

Are we comfortable with the idea that this soldier potentially thought he could get away with the unrepentant, random murder of several innocent people - and be proved right by the justice system of an apparently civilised society?

Imploding Turtle wrote:Murder trials don't tend to have low burden of proof requirements.

Murder trials have the same burden of proof as any other criminal trial.

willsclarets wrote:Are we comfortable with the idea that this soldier potentially thought he could get away with the unrepentant, random murder of several innocent people - and be proved right by the justice system of an apparently civilised society?

The whole point of the Good Friday agreement was that in the interests of peace, we should allow large numbers of unrepentant, random murderers of innocent people to get away with it. Are we comfortable with the Good Friday agreement?

Surely the guy should not be charged, forgive and forget move forward. The people who planted bombs in shops, murdered fathers in front of their children because they were either Catholic or Protestant have been forgiven surely this should apply to this man ?

He's been charged with two counts of murder and four of attempted murder.

I absolutely hate to say it, but that suggests he fired into the crowd on automatic, or picked off six people at random.

Either way, there must be compelling evidence to charge him (sadly)

bfcjg wrote:Surely the guy should not be charged, forgive and forget move forward. The people who planted bombs in shops, murdered fathers in front of their children because they were either Catholic or Protestant have been forgiven surely this should apply to this man ?

There are any number of atrocities far worse than this inflicted by the IRA, INLA, UVF etc, and there seems to be little or no attempt to investigate or charge the purpetrators. The IRA was funded through protection rackets, drug smuggling, prostitution rings etc again, nothing happening ..

Clarets4me wrote:There are any number of atrocities far worse than this inflicted by the IRA, INLA, UVF etc, and there seems to be little or no attempt to investigate or charge the purpetrators. The IRA was funded through protection rackets, drug smuggling, prostitution rings etc again, nothing happening ..

Start with:

Guildford
Birmingham
Hyde Park
Harrods
Brighton
London Stock Exchange
Warrington
The murder of Cpls Wood and Howes in cold blood, captured on national TV

All conveniently brushed under the carpet with the Good Friday agreement.

The whataboutism is real.

It really does seem as though some people think that our soldiers should be allowed to get away with murdering people if there are crimes committed by our enemies that we've not been able to punish people for.

It's a truly twisted type of thinking that belongs in the despotic countries, not a supposedly modern nation with modern justice.

If this guy is innocent then he won't be found guilty. So what are you all worried about? Are you seriously worried that he might be guilty and be punished for it? Really?

Yep

But guess what, that is what happens to sort out insurrections and guerilla campaigns, or it just continues.

I've got experience of the difference in NI between the troubles starting and the GFA. Its a remarkable economic and political success story, which of course suddenly isn't important at the moment.

Thousands of people are still alive because of the GFA. Please bear that in mind.

And also bear in mind that I'm not a fan of this, but he's been charged with six counts of murder or attempted murder. That suggests some pretty compelling evidence, whether we like it or not.

Imploding Turtle wrote:The whataboutism is real. It really does seem as though some people think that our soldiers should be allowed to get away with murdering people if there are crimes committed by our enemies that we've not been able to punish people for.

It's a truly twisted type of thinking that belongs in the despotic countries, not a supposedly modern nation with modern justice.

Nonsense ! Pointing out glaringly obvious examples of people being treated unequally, is not " whataboutery ", it's about equal treatment ... you used to be keen on that sort of thing !

Lancasterclaret wrote:
Thousands of people are still alive because of the GFA.

And one of my best friends from school days is dead because of the murderous terrorists. If only his killers were pursued with the same vigour and vigilance that is afforded our armed service personnel.

Clarets4me wrote:Nonsense ! Pointing out glaringly obvious examples of people being treated unequally, is not " whataboutery ", it's about equal treatment ... you used to be keen on that sort of thing !

Equal under the law, yes. And he will go on trial just like you or I would go on trial if we were accused of this crime.

This guy might have literally murdered multiple innocent civilians. How can any decent person want someone to get away with that? There's a lot of valid complaints about other multiple murderers getting away with killing innocent civilians, but it is glaringly hypocritical to complain about that WHILE arguing that this guy should be allowed to get away with it, should he be guilty.

And one of my best friends from school days is dead because of the murderous terrorists. If only his killers were pursued with the same vigour and vigilance that is afforded our armed service personnel.

Yes, and those two lads who died in Warrington. One dad is like you, and the other one is now an advocate for the peace process.

What is more important than anything is that the fighting and the killing is over (at least in a way that is now just glorified criminal gangs fighting it out)

Is it right that your mate died? Of course it isn't, and I hope the people who did it got their just desserts.

But I repeat, thousands of people are alive today because of the GFA. Thats the bigger picture, however horrible it is on a personal level.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Yes, and those two lads who died in Warrington. One dad is like you, and the other one is now an advocate for the peace process.

What is more important than anything is that the fighting and the killing is over (at least in a way that is now just glorified criminal gangs fighting it out)

Is it right that your mate died? Of course it isn't, and I hope the people who did it got their just desserts.

But I repeat, thousands of people are alive today because of the GFA. Thats the bigger picture, however horrible it is on a personal level.

I admire the work that Colin Parry has done. It must make him a better man than me to stand face to face with the head of the organization who ordered the bombing that robbed him of his son. I could not show such compassion, forgiveness and nor could I have shown restraint had I been face to face with McGuinness.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Equal under the law, yes. And he will go on trial just like you or I would go on trial if we were accused of this crime.

This guy might have literally murdered multiple innocent civilians. How can any decent person want someone to get away with that? There's a lot of valid complaints about other multiple murderers getting away with killing innocent civilians, but it is glaringly hypocritical to complain about that WHILE arguing that this guy should be allowed to get away with it, should he be guilty.

That depends on whether or not you have killed people in the name of a united Ireland. If you were an Irish terrorist, you would not go on trial; because this soldier is not an Irish terrorist, he will go on trial. The Good Friday agreement specifically says that certain people are not equal under the law.

dsr wrote:That depends on whether or not you have killed people in the name of a united Ireland. If you were an Irish terrorist, you would not go on trial; because this soldier is not an Irish terrorist, he will go on trial. The Good Friday agreement specifically says that certain people are not equal under the law.

That is the fault of the people who signed the agreement.

Prosecutors now are just abiding by due process, they can’t decide not to prosecute because it “isn’t fair”.

I admire the work that Colin Parry has done. It must make him a better man than me to stand face to face with the head of the organization who ordered the bombing that robbed him of his son. I could not show such compassion, forgiveness and nor could I have shown restraint had I been face to face with McGuinness.

Yep, know exactly where you are coming from. 100% sure I could not do what Colin Parry did, but it takes men like that to solve stuff like this

11 unarmed civilians were killed by the paras at Ballymurphy, Belfast some time before Bloody Sunday, it's a pity no firmer action was taken there.

dsr wrote:That depends on whether or not you have killed people in the name of a united Ireland. If you were an Irish terrorist, you would not go on trial; because this soldier is not an Irish terrorist, he will go on trial. The Good Friday agreement specifically says that certain people are not equal under the law.

Then we prosecute and convict as many evil ******* as we can without violating the agreement. Why does it matter what side they were on?

It’ll be interesting to eventually find out what the evidence was.

It’s a sorry state of affairs and I can certainly see why people think it unfair, when so many IRA murders have gone unsolved and murderers released.

Ultimately though, if this soldier is proven to have shot at innocent, unarmed people, without the grounds to do so, in my eyes, it’s murder and he should face the appropriate punishment.

Though I can’t help question just how innocent all of the victims were and we must consider just how difficult it must have been to be roaming the streets, knowing full well that the IRA may have been aiming, and perhaps firing, guns at them from the surrounding buildings.

Agreed DC it is without doubt that Bloody Sunday was the IRAs biggest recruiter and almost certainly extended the troubles beyond there natural conclusion as support for the IRA was at low point up until this. So with that in mind Soldier F if proved guilty of firing indiscriminately into a group of Civilians he deserves all he gets from the judiciary. The problem for me is that there are a number factors to consider even then.

What was his rules of engagement? I doubt they were particularly strict but I don’t know.
1 Para deployed with no formal training having been a couple of months earlier been WARFIGHTING in Malaya I think it was.
Was the IRA active (I have absolutely no doubt they were why wouldn’t they have been)
Did he feel life threatened

Probably more to consider also

A sample scapegoat of 1 should be enough to score some political points.

It should be noted that this isn't violating the agreement, given it was written that no prosecutions would be brought for crimes such as these committed from 1973 onwards. Should there have been enough evidence to prosecute the two IRA members implicated in this case, they would be in court too.

Awful state of affairs kicked off my Blair as this was the bone they insisted on for the GFA and even DC made a grovelling apology .Sadly there was always gonna be a scapegoat in this affair and these wounds run deep .It would be wholly innapropiate to 2nd guess the exact details of this soldiers actions ,which will be part of literally mountains of evidence on both sides .
Needs to be drastic law changes for combatants suffering back dated allegations in open theatre though .

Where's Boris, complaining about the waste of money on this historical case?