# General > General >  Bloody Sunday Report due out on Tuesday

## Anfield

The long awaited (12 years)  report on the deaths of 13 peace protesters in Derry,  Ireland  in 1972 is due out on Tuesday,  and already snippets have been leaked to the media.

According to The Guardian the report will announce that "a number" of the deaths were as a result of unlawful killing and that charges may be brought against some of the soldiers involved.
main story here

This report is rumoured to have cost £190 Million of which £100 million were spent on legal costs.

----------


## Bruce

who are the terrorists the brittish or the irish???hardly anyone was involved with the IRA until this happened!!

----------


## Crackeday

> The long awaited (12 years)  report on the deaths of 13 peace protesters in Derry,  Ireland  in 1972 is due out on Tuesday,  and already snippets have been leaked to the media.
> 
> According to The Guardian the report will announce that "a number" of the deaths were as a result of unlawful killing and that charges may be brought against some of the soldiers involved.
> main story here
> 
> This report is rumoured to have cost £190 Million of which £100 million were spent on legal costs.


Think you'll find thats* LONDONDERRY*.
Hope no-one gets convicted because the paras were under a hell of alot of pressure on that day.
Only hope it highlights the stress that the paras went through as well and not just look for scapegoats.
There was wrongs on both sides but in todays PC World no doubt HM forces will get the blame.

----------


## Crackeday

> who are the terrorists the brittish or the irish???hardly anyone was involved with the IRA until this happened!!


I think you need to search google and you will find that the IRA were on the go(and active) long before this happened. It was merely a platform for them to mount a campaign against us, which included many dead including Warrington,Omagh and Enniskillen.

----------


## LMS

> I think you need to search google and you will find that the IRA were on the go(and active) long before this happened. It was merely a platform for them to mount a campaign against us, which included many dead including Warrington,Omagh and Enniskillen.


No arguments that the IRA were active before then, but Bloody Sunday added much fuel to the already raging fire.  Membership escalated from that day and 'retired' members came out of the woodwork in order to defend their community from the British Army.  I fully understand and agree that the Paras were under much pressure that day and that they can't be apportioned all the blame for the atrocity.  That fateful day was a major PR coup for the IRA and was a complete own goal for the British Army.  

As for the enquiry, it has been a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money to tell us what?  The Paras were under pressure, some IRA players were on the ground during a peaceful demo, someone (who knows on which side) fired shots and thirteen Irish nationalists/republicans died.

----------


## Anfield

> Think you'll find thats* LONDONDERRY*.
> Hope no-one gets convicted because the paras were under a hell of alot of pressure on that day.
> Only hope it highlights the stress that the paras went through as well and not just look for scapegoats.
> There was wrongs on both sides but in todays PC World no doubt HM forces will get the blame.


City is called Derry.
Airport is called City of Derry airport
City Council is called Derry City Council
Even Wiki refer to it primarily as  Derry

If soldiers killed people unlawfully then they deserve to be prosecuted and if convicted (in a criminal court and not an Army court) along with any peace protesters that broke the law.

----------


## northener

> No arguments that the IRA were active before then, but Bloody Sunday added much fuel to the already raging fire. Membership escalated from that day and 'retired' members came out of the woodwork in order to defend their community from the British Army. I fully understand and agree that the Paras were under much pressure that day and that they can't be apportioned all the blame for the atrocity. That fateful day was a major PR coup for the IRA and was a complete own goal for the British Army. 
> 
> As for the enquiry, it has been a complete and utter waste of taxpayers' money to tell us what? The Paras were under pressure, some IRA players were on the ground during a peaceful demo, someone (who knows on which side) fired shots and thirteen Irish nationalists/republicans died.


Sums it up nicely. Well put.

----------


## northener

> City is called Derry.
> Airport is called City of Derry airport
> City Council is called Derry City Council
> Even Wiki refer to it primarily as Derry
> 
> If soldiers killed people unlawfully then they deserve to be prosecuted and if convicted (in a criminal court and not an Army court) along with any peace protesters that broke the law.


Seeing as no-one involved would be still in the Army, I doubt very much that the trial would fall under their jurisdiction. Not only that, Courts Martial would be used for the breaking of military law. Cases like this would fall under the remit of the civil jurisdiction.

Personally, I feel that the conviction of anyone on any side involved in this tragic incident would be pointless. We've already seen  early releases, horse trading and dealing regarding alleged crimes and convictions.

Time to move on.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

LMS summed it up brilliantly and as Northerner says, time to move on.

----------


## Bruce

> I think you need to search google and you will find that the IRA were on the go(and active) long before this happened. It was merely a platform for them to mount a campaign against us, which included many dead including Warrington,Omagh and Enniskillen.


 i did not say the IRA was not active before then.they did not have that much support from the public at that time untill bloody sunday!!did the paras not get medals for shooting all thoose on the civl rights march!?

----------


## Crackeday

To Be honest I am more interested in what the IRA did with Shergar? ::

----------


## scotsboy

> City is called Derry.
> Airport is called City of Derry airport
> City Council is called Derry City Council
> Even Wiki refer to it primarily as  Derry
> 
> If soldiers killed people unlawfully then they deserve to be prosecuted and if convicted (in a criminal court and not an Army court) along with any peace protesters that broke the law.


It is still Londonderry though.........and you know it :Wink: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/n...st/8557181.stm

----------


## ss.sv650

> I think you need to search google and you will find that the IRA were on the go(and active) long before this happened. It was merely a platform for them to mount a campaign against us, which included many dead including Warrington,Omagh and Enniskillen.


and Newry, Warrenpoint, Ballygawley bus bombing, and the countless others that have already been put into the history books and forgotten about by so many.

And look at the news and the web as its still going on in a big way only just never reported as its 'peace'

----------


## ss.sv650

> i did not say the IRA was not active before then.they did not have that much support from the public at that time untill bloody sunday!!did the paras not get medals for shooting all thoose on the civl rights march!?


the IRA had plenty of support before this why do you think the Army had to be sent there in the first place it defenatly was not because the repubicans had no support

and its Londonderry on all counts the the history behind the shortened name is because republicans wanted to drop the London part because of its obvious british connections.

----------


## DeHaviLand

> the IRA had plenty of support before this why do you think the Army had to be sent there in the first place it defenatly was not because the repubicans had no support
> 
> and its Londonderry on all counts the the history behind the shortened name is because republicans wanted to drop the London part because of its obvious british connections.


The Army were originally sent to Londonderry to protect the Nationalist residents of Bogside when they came under attack from the supporters of an Apprentice Boys of Derry march. RUC and B Special police completely mishandled the situation, and the Army were sent to restore order. Interestingly the Nationalist population were at first overwhelmingly in support of the Army intervention.

----------


## Bruce

well said!!at least someone knows what hes talking about!!

----------


## Bazeye

ss.sv650, you dont really know what youre talking about do you.

----------


## ss.sv650

> The Army were originally sent to Londonderry to protect the Nationalist residents of Bogside when they came under attack from the supporters of an Apprentice Boys of Derry march. RUC and B Special police completely mishandled the situation, and the Army were sent to restore order. Interestingly the Nationalist population were at first overwhelmingly in support of the Army intervention.


your quite right, my answer was to the point that bruce made in the IRA having no support and they did, they had plenty, and a lot of the Nationalist population still are (or were until they were withdrawn) in support of both the RUC(gc), as was, and the military presence in the North, it was and still is only the few who cause the problems

----------


## Anfield

> "..it still is only the few who cause the problems.."


You mean like these:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/761849.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...ll-road-murder

And we all thought that the UVF guns were decommissioned

----------


## Amy-Winehouse

> You mean like these:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/761849.stm
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ju...ll-road-murder
> 
> And we all thought that the UVF guns were decommissioned


And of course the Provos are absolutely squeaky clean, dear me , Both sides have people that do not want peace- real ira certainly dont.

----------


## BillyEspie

well what ever happened to everywhere that got blown up in Ulster by the scum of the earth the i.r.a.??? no one seems to ever worry about prosecuting the main i.r.a. leaders which was in fact Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness the head guys in the SDLP them two should be brought to trial cause they gave the orders on all the ira murders and bombings and they have the cheek to stand up and say that the ira are finished and have handed in all their weapons, and not to mention that my hometown was bombed more than once including our post office and i can still remember the sound of the bomb going off. When the government brings those two to trial and finds them guilty then they can then start to bring us loyal brothers of the protestant faith to justice and the british army aswell for protecting our ULSTER

----------


## ss.sv650

> well what ever happened to everywhere that got blown up in Ulster by the scum of the earth the i.r.a.??? no one seems to ever worry about prosecuting the main i.r.a. leaders which was in fact Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness the head guys in the SDLP them two should be brought to trial cause they gave the orders on all the ira murders and bombings and they have the cheek to stand up and say that the ira are finished and have handed in all their weapons, and not to mention that my hometown was bombed more than once including our post office and i can still remember the sound of the bomb going off. When the government brings those two to trial and finds them guilty then they can then start to bring us loyal brothers of the protestant faith to justice and the british army aswell for protecting our ULSTER


Well said at last a voice of reason

----------


## DeHaviLand

> well what ever happened to everywhere that got blown up in Ulster by the scum of the earth the i.r.a.??? no one seems to ever worry about prosecuting the main i.r.a. leaders which was in fact Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness the head guys in the SDLP them two should be brought to trial cause they gave the orders on all the ira murders and bombings and they have the cheek to stand up and say that the ira are finished and have handed in all their weapons, and not to mention that my hometown was bombed more than once including our post office and i can still remember the sound of the bomb going off. When the government brings those two to trial and finds them guilty then they can then start to bring us loyal brothers of the protestant faith to justice and the british army aswell for protecting our ULSTER





> Well said at last a voice of reason


Lol, how can you possibly call someone the voice of reason after they have just stated that Adams and McGuiness were the head guys in the SDLP? I think you'll find that they are both Sinn fein members! Blindness and ignorance were 2 of the main reasons for the Troubles in Ulster lasting for so long. Its sad to see that this ignorance is rife in Caithness even to this day.

In threads such as this, its easy to tell from posts where peoples prejudices and bigotry lie, but please, at least make some attempt to get to know what you're talking about before you spout your peurile drivel!

----------


## ducati

What I still can't come to terms with is that convicted Terrorists (directly involved with murder and bombings) who have never served their full term in punishment are now in positions of political power in that province.

And we have the nerve to criticise other regimes around the world  ::

----------


## scotsboy

.......and lets be honestthe Republicans only want the "truth" that suits their agenda. Martin McGuiness refused to answer questions relating to IRA arms in the area.......as had taken a republican oath - so much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but he truth. A sham that has been a total waste of money - and I suggest will onlly serve to set back any progress made on peace in Northern Ireland.

----------


## Crackeday

The British Army will no doubt end up being the scapegoats while the nationalists will declare it a triumph of justice, but wheres the justice for EVERYONE involved in the troubles? Will the soldiers wives who lost their men get justice from the IRA? very much doubt it, justice to them only works one way.
The British government has bent over backwards and released convicted killers on both sides now to make matter worse they spent £200 million on an enquiry into 13 deaths from the 70's, makes no sense at all to me. ::

----------


## rob murray

I predict at 3 30 another fudged decision. There can never be any winners in this situation and the peace process in NI ( precarious to say the least ) will always take precedent ( politically ) over what did or did not happen. In any case, if the situation is not fudged, marginal extremist groups will be the only people to gain anything here, thats why I smel a fdged decision. The real losers are always the innocent.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Lets just call this inquiry what it was and is, a gesture made to appease the IRA before the Good Friday agreement could be signed. While the Armed Forces are not above the law (and rightly so) it seems that that did not apply to convicted terrorists serving their sentence, how many were released years early to appease the two former IRA Brigade Commanders who now sit in Government ??, how many deaths are attributable to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness (Or Agent Kingfisher as he was known to British Intelligence), yet they will march today and talk about justice when Republicans killed more than anyone else in "The Troubles". Still, no one does a grief-fest like Gerry and his mob do they ??

But today my mind is far away, at a Petrol Station in Germany in fact. There, on a day in September 1989 a lad who worked in the Comm Centre of my section was filling his car up with Petrol while his daughter, just under a year old, dozed in her car seat in the rear. Two IRA gunmen approached the back of the car and opened fire, one with an AK47 and one with a 9mm Pistol. Mick was hit but not killed instantly, his daughter was not so lucky and died after taking a round to the head. That Mick lived long enough to try and drag himself to his daughter is not in dispute, the blood trails showed that. I pray he never made it before the gunmen, who as the amount of shell cases found would later show, stopped, re-loaded and finished Mick off. The IRA later said they were "sorry" for shooting the child, despite the car seat being highly visible from the rear of the car. They were just being thorough in riddling the car apparently. Mick's wife, obviously reeling from the murder of her husband and daughter was dealt a sickening insult a few weeks later when she opened a package that contained a child's doll, the head had been crushed and daubed with red paint. It was posted from Ireland. No Public Inquiry for Mick or his daughter though.

The real irony is that if even if Mick's murderer's had been caught they would have been out not ten years later courtesy of Tony Blair, a man who would also free the killers of Cpl Woods and Cpl Howe, dragged from their car, beaten and executed after straying into a Republican funeral in 1988 after just eight years. Both acts of pre-meditated murder yet overlooked to appease people like Gerry Adams. The same Gerry Adams whose life was saved by a certain Staff Sergent Andy Mudd during an attempt on his life by Loyalist paramilitaries, Andy Mudd later had his legs blown off by an IRA car bomb at Colchester Barracks as way of thanks. The same Gerry Adams who stood, not long after the Good Friday agreement was signed and said "They haven't gone away you know". The same Gerry Adams marching today. Two years later Tony Blair would sign our Armed Forces up for a "War on Terror", now I like irony but this much was, and still is, utterly sickening.

If there is firm evidence that the Paratroopers who opened fire that day should stand trial then so be it, as an ex serviceman I would support that. Because, at the end of the day that is what makes us better then the murdering scum that walked up behind Mick's car, and the likes of Gerry Adams, McGuiness and their equivalents in the Loyalist Paramilitaries. Rats who joined organisations with "Army" in the title yet claimed to be "Political Prisoners" when caught.

I think everyone should spare a thought today for the victims of all sides. After all the victims of Enniskillen, Omagh and Warrenpoint as well as all those others who were murdered are apparently not worthy of a multi million pound inquest but are victims none the less. Victims like Mick's little girl who would have been 21 this year. God rest them all I say.

----------


## ducati

What a fantastic post DD. I really feel for Mick and his little girl and his wife and family. I do remember it happening, and I remember the revulsion we all felt at the time. I know loads of Irish people and have done for a very long time. I have never been able to reconcile these great, thoroughly likable, generous individuals with the sort of people who can do such things. And I can't forgive-these people are still wandering around the world as far as we know, anyone who could do that will not change, and I don't care what the cause.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> What a fantastic post DD. I really feel for Mick and his little girl and his wife and family. I do remember it happening, and I remember the revulsion we all felt at the time. I know loads of Irish people and have done for a very long time. I have never been able to reconcile these great, thoroughly likable, generous individuals with the sort of people who can do such things. And I can't forgive-these people are still wandering around the world as far as we know, anyone who could do that will not change, and I don't care what the cause.


Yup .. totally agree, Been to Dublin and got a warm welcome and lots of cold Guinness !!, fantastic people. And let us not forget either that many men from Southern Ireland fought in the British Forces in World War II for freedom, their sacrifices are often overlooked. 

Way I see it Ducati is that if those Para's are deemed to be worthy of the dock why aren't Adam's and McGuinness in one as well instead of Government ministers ??, McGuinness was there that day and is suspected of firing the first shot. Of course you cant say that or else the Guardianista will cream their pants and shout conspiracy !!, because after all any eyewitness in an Army unifrom must have been lying. Nothing can get in the way of the demonisation of the British Army in this case after all.

----------


## ducati

To true-well I'm just going to sack work for a while and go and see what the report said.

----------


## BillyEspie

What really gets to me is how the I.R.A. were able to fire at Para Troopers, then when the police comes on the scene the I.R.A. magically have no guns visable but then i am not sure if this is true or not but i have heard from all my older generations that the Priests actually hid the guns under their robes which makes them just as guilty as the scums they all should be brought to justice , i dont know if anyone else has heard this story or not but i believe it to be true and justice should be taken against the priests for playing their part in The Bloody Sunday, cause surely te police would have questioned the priests at the time and they'd have stuck up for the I.R.A. which would always happen anyway but still its no different to aiding and a betting a criminal, they still took the guns and should be the first persons to be brought to justice.

----------


## rob murray

> Yup .. totally agree, Been to Dublin and got a warm welcome and lots of cold Guinness !!, fantastic people. And let us not forget either that many men from Southern Ireland fought in the British Forces in World War II for freedom, their sacrifices are often overlooked. 
> 
> Way I see it Ducati is that if those Para's are deemed to be worthy of the dock why aren't Adam's and McGuinness in one as well instead of Government ministers ??, McGuinness was there that day and is suspected of firing the first shot. Of course you cant say that or else the Guardianista will cream their pants and shout conspiracy !!, because after all any eyewitness in an Army unifrom must have been lying. Nothing can get in the way of the demonisation of the British Army in this case after all.


Apparently more than a dozen lawyers have become millionaires off the back of this.

----------


## rob murray

> I predict at 3 30 another fudged decision. There can never be any winners in this situation and the peace process in NI ( precarious to say the least ) will always take precedent ( politically ) over what did or did not happen. In any case, if the situation is not fudged, marginal extremist groups will be the only people to gain anything here, thats why I smel a fdged decision. The real losers are always the innocent.


Nah I wis wrong, didnt think they would go this way.  Best to put it behind everyone now and draw a line under it

----------


## The Drunken Duck

About what I expected from this, soldiers all in the wrong, protesters all in the right. I don't think this is the end of it though. I would expect a few attempts at getting soldiers up for a show trial, might flounder though if it means Martin McGuinness is called as a witness. Sinn Fein might balk at that. Expect compo claims to start soon though.

What a waste of £200,000,000.

----------


## John Little

I hope someone is big enough to think that show trials of anybody would be counter-productive.

It seems apparent that the truth is out and it is something we should not be afraid of but deal with.

5000 pages of evidence and 13 years is a pretty weighty tome and none of us have read it.

Have we?

But essentially it's a large history book and it treats with the evidence.

So I ain't gonna bury my head in the sand - however uncomfortable it is.  If the cold light of day shines on truth then we should not be afraid to deal with it.

What would do the most good here imho would be a truth and reconciliation commission along South African lines.  That would be constructive not destructive.  It would have to involve both sides.

And more human.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Full report can be read here if anyone is interested .. http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/

----------


## scotsboy

> I hope someone is big enough to think that show trials of anybody would be counter-productive.
> 
> It seems apparent that the truth is out and it is something we should not be afraid of but deal with.
> 
> 5000 pages of evidence and 13 years is a pretty weighty tome and none of us have read it.
> 
> Have we?
> 
> But essentially it's a large history book and it treats with the evidence.
> ...


Not read it John, and won't - my head ain't in the sand, and it isn't the whole truth, McGuiness refused to provide ANY information on IRA arms and activities in and around the area on the day. Its a sham.

----------


## John Little

Well I've stated my view - but I will add that I do not believe it a sham.

It is a partial sham because of what you say but partial is the operative word.

But I have not read it - and nor has anyone else here.

But I may indeed read it.

Parts of it are instructive; 

http://report.bloody-sunday-inquiry....51/#the-report

During the afternoon, there was some stone-throwing at the Army post...

There are various possible explanations for the shots that were fired at the Brandywell Army post that afternoon. There was an armed active service Provisional IRA unit in a car patrolling in the Brandywell that afternoon. There was also an armed Official IRA unit in the area.

But overall I do not think I am going to contest the point that an army patrol lost it.

It happens.

I can see why they lost it - I think that I might have done too under the stress they were under - and the Provos obviously have not said everything.

Apportioning guilt to the squaddies on the ground though is too simple.
Yes - they lost it.

But it was a civil rights march.

Why were combat trained troops policing a civil rights march?  Is it not more a police job.

And the IRA have to answer too.

It's a partial sham.

But it's also partial truth.

Which is why a truth and reconciliation commission would be a far better idea than hanging anyone out to dry.

I've said my piece.

----------


## scotsboy

Good post John.

----------


## ducati

So having waded a reasonable way through it. The gist is: several identified (but not in the report) soldiers of various lower ranks took it upon themselves without orders to shoot random demonstrators for no apparent reason.

Well I'm convinced.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Having thought about it I would perhaps disagree slightly with the use of the phrase "lost it" John, it indicates something that Paratroopers don't really do. I think the situation escalated and they reacted as Paratroopers do, aggressively. A good term the Forces use is "Situational Awareness", I think that was lost in what was obviously a confusing and rapidly evolving situation and wrong decisions were taken, and that tragically led to the loss of 13 lives. If the Para's had put their fangs in the floor and, as has been suggested, gone for some kills, then not to put too fine a point on it, they would have taken a lot more than 13 down with 100 rounds. That would suggest fire being returned under pressure. Where's Tubs or Beks ??, they were Green Army and ideally placed for an opinion.

I have read some bits of the report and am a bit confused, why can the death of Gerald Donaghey be called unlawful yet the fact he was carrying Nail bombs go virtually overlooked ??, or Soldier F and Soldier 017 claims of hearing high velocity shots be discounted, and one openly labelled a "liar" because they differ on some details concerning the direction ?? .. some conclusions here are extremely selective and seem to omit the pressure and confusion of the situation. Still, its out now and that's that I suppose.

Have to say though, after seeing some of the conclusions of this report I am damn glad that I kept copies of every Mission Log from my time in the Gulf, I joked at the time they were my "Get out of Jail Free" cards, it doesn't seem so funny now. Just waiting for an Iraqi Surface to Air missile Operator to pitch up in ten years and claim that when we zapped him and his mates while he was tracking/locking up our jets he was, in fact, "protesting".

----------


## sids

The only thing I'm sure about, with regard to the Irish question, is that the green side definitely have the best songs.

----------


## speedo215

the goverment have come up with the conclusion to keep the republicans happy and to keep the peace process intact, will that coward mcguniess be brought to task and an inquiry launched into his sanctioning of attacks on innocent people, gerry adams is not any better and is in fact even worse, brendan hughes states this in a vwery interesting book

----------


## adi1

The shootings in The Bogside that day had a terrible repercussion for the whole of Britain. It gave Irish republicans a wake up call to join terror groups such as the IRA.
The Para's involved in the shootings we have to remember where trained killers and sending them to police a march was not a good idea,the number of people killed with head and chest shots say that they did shoot to kill.
Watching Big Brother tonight I was deeply moved by Steve who is the double amputee and blind in one eye after being blasted by what we call now a IED, in Belfast.
The bomb was in a beer keg and the top of it sliced one of his legs off in the explosion, he was blinded by a house brick stuck in his face.Being conscious after the blast with one leg gone and the other ripped to shreads and blinded he remembers the barbarians who exploded the device set a dog on him!
He does not seem a bitter man after what as happened to him and is a credit to his country.

----------


## Tubthumper

Any kind of 1970's/ 80's 'protest march', especially in NI could be seen as an excuse for a ruck. Poll tax, nuclear weapons, Irish Nationalist; they all usually ended up that way. And I suppose that's how people got their point across; you got no column inches for standing still with a placard. 
The Bloody Sunday march was NOT a peaceful demonstration, and a pissed-up angry mob moving through a town centre is not an easy thing to contain. While I sympathise with some of the issues that led to the Troubles, these protestations of innocence don't wash with me - Anyone who went on that march (or any other march in Derry at the time) knew the intention was to provoke the squaddies into reacting. Oldest trick in the book. And if they got no reaction, they would just push harder. You would not believe the tricks those chaps got up to during that dirty little scrap; yer man McGuinness and his scabby bearded sidekick thought nowt of pushing these people (especially the teenagers) into the firing line for their own ends. They got folk to plant bombs, they shot innocent women & kids, they were every bit as bad as those who are jihading in the middle east today. I remember your mate and his bairn, Duck. And the two Ozzies who got plugged in Holland (I was there the day before!) and the German lass shot in the quarters car park.
In my book, they went on the march, they got shot, but were they martyred or murdered? Who can remember? They had a point, they took the chance, they made their point because there was Outrage! And News!! And financial support and guns!!! And girls thought they were great!!! But 38 years later no-one can remember what the 'point' of the march actually was. 
The passionate campaigners were superseded by the haters and the cripplers, the sneaky under-car bombers and the shoot you in the car park artists. They thought they were big and tough... And the bloody UVF and their like were just as bad.
Being on the receiving end of bottles, rocks, petrol bombs is no fun. And if there is an ongoing fear of nail-bombs (a particularly nasty little home-made savoury that our pals in PIRA were keen on) your average gormless young bloke tends to get twitchy. In a city centre you can't see much, your comms aren't very good. You hear a baying mob, you know your oppos from the line regiment are taking a pasting round the corner, you're supposed to be the elite, the hard men... what do you do, stand and bite your nails? Or send in the Pigs?
Rounds were fired by the IRA as provocation, of that I have no doubt. Probably not many, not a real threat, but enough to convince one senior officer to set his psyched-up Paras running with their SLRs. Unfortunately, anyone in the way of a 7.62mm round from that baby was destined to be very sad. Often people on the other side of the building were sad...
Try and figure out whether a crack-thump zipping over your head in a built up area during a riot is a high-velocity round or some crappy little 9mm pop-gun, try and figure out what direction it came from. Try and figure it out 40 years after the event. Instead of shooting to kill, try shooting to annoy, or shooting to wag a finger under the nose of some smelly ignorant player...
Whatever, we're all pals now, reconciled and growing all the time. It was a poisonous and horrible part in the development of the UK. Pinning the blame exclusively on the paras does no one any favours. Nobody should come out of it with any glory. And like every other stinky war that gets engineered by our landed masters, or by some mutant cretin with an attitude and a grudge, it's the poor bloody sodjer (whether he's wearing DPM or jeans) that gets humped every time. But hey, that's political expediency. That's what you sign up for. 
If we want to have flags, we have to live with pish like this.

----------


## George Brims

My take on this is that:

(1) The root of the whole thing is that as usual the British political system reacted to the civil rights mess in NI when they were forced to, not years before. I remember my dad, a card-carrying member of the Tory party, not a raging lefty like me, being horrified when he found out how things were rigged there. "We were criticising the Americans for not letting black people vote, and this is going on in a part of of our own country?". They might as well have sent the IRA a printed invitation to come and start trouble. 

(2) Using soldiers not trained to handle a mob to handle a march that had every potential to become a mob was a dumb idea. I don't think the paras were totally to blame, but some of them clearly lost the plot. 

(3) Clearly no-one in the political or military establishment realised that early on that the IRA were no longer the old purely Nationalist organisation of the past. They were a left-wing movement partly financed from Moscow and its client states. They weren't even all on one side of the religious divide they so expertly exploited. Quite a few Protestants in the Provos too. 

(4) The clearest sign of their revolutionary intentions was their tactic of firing over the heads of the demonstrators into the ranks of the paras. That's straight out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Nothing stiffens up the support for a revolutionary movement like provoking the establishment into shooting a few of your own people. Cynical and effective. Bloody Sunday was a huge turning point. There was no way really to get the toothpaste back in the tube from then on.

----------


## Setanta

> What really gets to me is how the I.R.A. were able to fire at Para Troopers, then when the police comes on the scene the I.R.A. magically have no guns visable but then i am not sure if this is true or not but i have heard from all my older generations that the Priests actually hid the guns under their robes which makes them just as guilty as the scums they all should be brought to justice , i dont know if anyone else has heard this story or not but i believe it to be true and justice should be taken against the priests for playing their part in The Bloody Sunday, cause surely te police would have questioned the priests at the time and they'd have stuck up for the I.R.A. which would always happen anyway but still its no different to aiding and a betting a criminal, they still took the guns and should be the first persons to be brought to justice.


Im sorry but your story is untrue, this is an interesting thread where the majority of the people contributing dont have a clue and are basing their posts on either bigotry or second hand falsifies like the above. The ex military people here are talking from a general military point of view again with handed down stories, I can understand their points but they would be better proffered in a thread that was not so specifically orientated and based in a general discussion relating to an armed up rising theory.

Doire or Doire Cholmchille to give it its proper name, those that are determined to add the london to it on this thread are showing such a lack of Irish sympathy which only goes to show that they have a tainted and insular view on the topic already. 

The people of the city have lived too long with this hanging over them and the rest of the people of Northern Ireland paid a terrible price for what they paras did. Lets not forget the rest of the British forces that lost personnel as well because of this undisciplined act. It was a trigger that set the troubles on a path that would have never materialised without it.

Now that the truth has been made public and the British leader has apologised to the Irish people, lets hope it will close a door on this chapter. Hopefully its a new dawn for the people of Eire and a bridge builder in regards to the relationship between the two Isles.

----------


## scotsboy

> Im sorry but your story is untrue, this is an interesting thread where the majority of the people contributing dont have a clue and are basing their posts on either bigotry or second hand falsifies like the above. The ex military people here are talking from a general military point of view again with handed down stories, I can understand their points but they would be better proffered in a thread that was not so specifically orientated and based in a general discussion relating to an armed up rising theory.
> 
> Doire or Doire Cholmchille to give it its proper name, those that are determined to add the london to it on this thread are showing such a lack of Irish sympathy which only goes to show that they have a tainted and insular view on the topic already. 
> 
> The people of the city have lived too long with this hanging over them and the rest of the people of Northern Ireland paid a terrible price for what they paras did. Lets not forget the rest of the British forces that lost personnel as well because of this undisciplined act. It was a trigger that set the troubles on a path that would have never materialised without it.
> 
> *Now that the truth has been made public and the British leader has apologised to the Irish people, lets hope it will close a door on this chapter. Hopefully its a new dawn for the people of Eire and a bridge builder in regards to the relationship between the two Isles*.


........and what about the people it really affects, the people of NORTHERN IRELAND (to give it its proper name)?........and we are still waiting for information (never mind the truth) from Adams/McGuiness.

----------


## speedo215

> ........and what about the people it really affects, the people of NORTHERN IRELAND (to give it its proper name)?........and we are still waiting for information (never mind the truth) from Adams/McGuiness.


something i doubt we will ever get as adams has always denied being part of the IRA

----------


## ducati

I wonder what will happen if the CPS decide to prosecute any of the identified soldiers? I think the gov. may well find a reason to stop this. What will happen to the credibility of the report if prosecutions fail? If prosecuted, soldiers may call witnesses that weren't heard by the enquiry may be required to testify-new evidence-new can of worms?

----------


## Wickbhoy

As has been pointed out, lots of people on this thread seem to have extremely limited or biased knowledge of Ireland.

Lots of the posts have nothing to do with the topic. I suggest all these 'experts' start new threads regarding the troubles.

This thread is about the report into the murders and injuries committed on 'Bloody Sunday'.

Would make sense to keep to the topic.

----------


## The Pepsi Challenge

Not sure why Cameron is getting so much praise. Exactly what else could he say considering the findings of the report? If anything his lauding of the British Army and its role in the north of Ireland was totally inappropriate.

There has also a lot been made of the time and expense of the inquiry. Ken Clarke seemed to lead this line of criticism with his remark that Saville was a "disaster in terms of time and expense".

Clarke should be ashamed.

In 1972 he was a whip for the Conservative Party. At that time Clarke and his party- the then British Government - were involved in a truly shameful cover-up which aimed to besmirch the names of the innocent victims and protect cold blooded murderers from justice. These blatant lies were propogated for a generation and more.

So, yes, it has taken millions of pounds and many years to uncover the truth. But whose fault is that? Not the people of Derry or the families and friends of the murdered innocents. No, it is the fault of Ken Clarke and his Conservative colleagues who in 1972 deliberately failed justice just to protect the reputation and morale of the British army. 

Incidentally, there is no mention of this in today's Sun. I wonder why?

----------


## Setanta

> ........and what about the people it really affects, the people of NORTHERN IRELAND (to give it its proper name)?........and we are still waiting for information (never mind the truth) from Adams/McGuiness.


Calling it NI is just a geographical description, as your referring to the six counties, well its just a politically annexed part of Ulster, done so by a foreign power to safeguard their people and the land the stole from the indigenous population. 

Im confused by what you want from either of these two Irish leaders or is it a case of just picking away at a festering wound, surely its time to move on now?

Ill give you an example how these situations arise, thankfully in a much smaller scale.

I remember once hearing/seeing a van backfire, the occupants were shot dead by a patrol, news report that night, told of an ambush and that the terrorist were shot trying to escape.

These stories wernt rare, so many times I saw news reports that totally baffled us, because we had first hand experience of what really happened.

What Im trying to say is that to argue about the whole situation based on news/media reports can be so misleading

----------


## Tubthumper

> ...It was a trigger that set the troubles on a path that would have never materialised without it.


 I don't agree. McGuinness and co. would just have kept pushing until something similar happened somewhere else. A massacre of this type was exactly what they needed to polarise opinion and gain support for their cause... what was their cause again? Was it 'a fair deal for Catholics'? Or was it a straightforward 'Brits Out!' I can never remember why they were shooting at us.



> Now that the truth has been made public and the British leader has apologised to the Irish people, lets hope it will close a door on this chapter. Hopefully its a new dawn for the people of Eire and a bridge builder in regards to the relationship between the two Isles.


 There's a saying that truth is the first casualty in any conflict. I think this report presents _A_ truth... a convenient one.
Anyway, amen to all that.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I remember once hearing/seeing a van backfire, the occupants were shot dead by a patrol, news report that night, told of an ambush and that the terrorist were shot trying to escape.


What, you actually SAW the occupants murdered by a patrol?  :: 

Your bits about NI being stolen territory could just as easily be applied to any piece of land in any country in the world. It's history, get over it!

Never forget that the IRA and their scummy Prod counterparts murdered thousands of innocent people in the province without the need for any assistance from the Paras.

----------


## scotsboy

> Calling it NI is just a geographical description, as your referring to the six counties, well its just a politically annexed part of Ulster, done so by a foreign power to safeguard their people and the land the stole from the indigenous population. 
> 
> Im confused by what you want from either of these two Irish leaders or is it a case of just picking away at a festering wound, surely its time to move on now?
> 
> Ill give you an example how these situations arise, thankfully in a much smaller scale.
> 
> I remember once hearing/seeing a van backfire, the occupants were shot dead by a patrol, news report that night, told of an ambush and that the terrorist were shot trying to escape.
> 
> These stories wernt rare, so many times I saw news reports that totally baffled us, because we had first hand experience of what really happened.
> ...


Setanta, McGuiness did not provide answers to the enquiry - why?

----------


## Setanta

> I don't agree. McGuinness and co. would just have kept pushing until something similar happened somewhere else. A massacre of this type was exactly what they needed to polarise opinion and gain support for their cause... what was their cause again? Was it 'a fair deal for Catholics'? Or was it a straightforward 'Brits Out!' I can never remember why they were shooting at us.
>  There's a saying that truth is the first casualty in any conflict. I think this report presents _A_ truth... a convenient one.
> Anyway, amen to all that.


Thats one of the major problems with sending an armed foreign force into another country, most of the soldiers havnt got a clue what they are getting into. Oh so want to go into the politics of the time but I think my fingers tips would get red raw  :Smile: .
Lets just say a good mixture of both. 
To be fair here at the time when the Civil Right marches were happening the need for severe arm conflict wasnt contemplated seriously but the fact that the authorities were turning a blind eye to the fact that Catholics were getting beaten up by Protestants on these marches was fuelling anger. Families were getting burnt out of their houses, people refused jobs because of where they were educated, single peeps getting three bedroom houses where families with 3,4,5 kids getting one bedroom flat or made to live with their parents.
If the government had taken the marches seriously and treated the leaders like human beings then so much would have been different.




> What, you actually SAW the occupants murdered by a patrol?


Yes I actually lived through the troubles



> Your bits about NI being stolen territory could just as easily be applied to any piece of land in any country in the world. It's history, get over it!
> 
> Never forget that the IRA and their scummy Prod counterparts murdered thousands of innocent people in the province without the need for any assistance from the Paras.


I agree with your first point but as long as people are displaced and very unfairly treated then they wont turn on their back and show their bellies. 

Yes a lot of innocent people got killed and there never can be an excuse for that.

----------


## Setanta

> Setanta, McGuiness did not provide answers to the enquiry - why?


Let me get this straight the enquiry was set up to see if the Paras had unlawfully killed innocent juveniles and adults, well I can put my hand on my heart and say that Martin wasn't a serving member of the Paras at the time  :Smile:

----------


## scotsboy

> Let me get this straight the enquiry was set up to see if the Paras had unlawfully killed innocent juveniles and adults, well I can put my hand on my heart and say that Martin wasn't a serving member of the Paras at the time


Glad you find it amusing - that really does not suprise me.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Let me get this straight the enquiry was set up to see if the Paras had unlawfully killed innocent juveniles and adults, well I can put my hand on my heart and say that Martin wasn't a serving member of the Paras at the time


More's the pity, we could have given him to 3 Para Mortars ..  :Grin: 

But you cant escape the fact that an integral claim to the Para's reactions were their claims that they were fired on. We have already heard that one of the protesters killed that day, Gerald Donaghey was carrying Nail Bombs when he was shot. What was he doing with those ??, taking them for a day out ??, Martin McGuinness was an IRA player and many claims were made about his actions that day. Including one that he was carrying a Thompson machine gun.

I would be genuinely interested to know what you think about his refusal to answer questions about his actions that day.

----------


## Crackeday

> As has been pointed out, lots of people on this thread seem to have extremely limited or biased knowledge of Ireland.
> 
> .


And you go calling the place "Ireland"? Now who has no knowledge. :: 
i think you will find it is Northern Ireland or Ulster (as some may call it)

----------


## ducati

> (I would be genuinely interested to know what you think about his refusal to answer questions about his actions that day.


Of course, if he were to be called in future as a witness for the defence or prosecution he will have to answer.

----------


## Crackeday

> Let me get this straight the enquiry was set up to see if the Paras had unlawfully killed innocent juveniles and adults, well I can put my hand on my heart and say that Martin was a serving member of the Pira at the time


You see what I've done there? (In a Rolf harris style) :Smile:

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> And you go calling the place "Ireland"? Now who has no knowledge.
> i think you will find it is Northern Ireland or Ulster (as some may call it)


Exactly, some people some to forget that the "cause" of a united Ireland was never fulfilled. Instead they were sold out by two who now sit in the very Government they spent years fighting after having brokered early release for their murdering mates by sucking up to Blair.

That the British Army marched proudly out in full view after having kept the peace for years must rankle with them a bit.

----------


## Setanta

> Glad you find it amusing - that really does not suprise me.


I think that if you had lived in it then that statement may have some relevance, secondly how the hell do you think the people survived all those years they humour became very dark.




> More's the pity, we could have given him to 3 Para Mortars .. 
> 
> But you cant escape the fact that an integral claim to the Para's reactions were their claims that they were fired on. We have already heard that one of the protesters killed that day, Gerald Donaghey was carrying Nail Bombs when he was shot. What was he doing with those ??, taking them for a day out ??, Martin McGuinness was an IRA player and many claims were made about his actions that day. Including one that he was carrying a Thompson machine gun.
> 
> I would be genuinely interested to know what you think about his refusal to answer questions about his actions that day.


Some of the best IRA guys were ex brits  :Wink:  

I think he should have spoke out because no matter what he  says there can be no justification of those murders.

Another thing imho I believe the para should never have been sent in there, they wernt trained for that?





> And you go calling the place "Ireland"? Now who has no knowledge.
> i think you will find it is Northern Ireland or Ulster (as some may call it)


He is correct in what he has said, see my answer below for clarification




> You see what I've done there? (In a Rolf harris style)


Yip funny and no disagreement from me  :Smile: 




> Exactly, some people some to forget that the "cause" of a united Ireland was never fulfilled. Instead they were sold out by two who now sit in the very Government they spent years fighting after having brokered early release for their murdering mates by sucking up to Blair.
> 
> That the British Army marched proudly out in full view after having kept the peace for years must rankle with them a bit.


Thats a very simplistic view and I didnt expect it having read your other posts. The British army "kept the peace" you reckon? I believe that one of the main reasons they were kept there so long was (maggies thinking) that it was a brilliant training ground, it beat all the theorising and play acting that is found in training.

----------


## scotsboy

Never assume Setanta.

----------


## rob murray

> More's the pity, we could have given him to 3 Para Mortars .. 
> 
> But you cant escape the fact that an integral claim to the Para's reactions were their claims that they were fired on. We have already heard that one of the protesters killed that day, Gerald Donaghey was carrying Nail Bombs when he was shot. What was he doing with those ??, taking them for a day out ??, Martin McGuinness was an IRA player and many claims were made about his actions that day. Including one that he was carrying a Thompson machine gun.
> 
> I would be genuinely interested to know what you think about his refusal to answer questions about his actions that day.


Its not a claim that Mcguiness was carrying a thompson machine gun it is as of yesterday, an undisputable accepted fact. Heres a cynical view... the march was a civil rights march...these marches were at the centre of civil rights non violent strategic thinking...ok marches attracted the usual hooligan element, but they were part of a politcial  non violent movement. Who gains when the civil rights non violence movement is destroyed ( as it was the day after bloody sunday )...those who wish to use violence to progress their view. Civil rights = civil rights : Para militarism ( In NI ) = nationalism / united Ireland, two entirely different agendas. Lets not forget that NI, as part of the UK, was freely allowed to practise a political agenda  based on discrimination and political disenfranchisement and that also is an undisputable fact. Had this mess been sorted or never allowed to happen, then history would have been hopefully re written. Mcguiness will never be called to account as the peace process would fold ditto Adams..so who won then ? We know who lost...the genuine civil rights campaigners.

----------


## rob murray

> I think that if you had lived in it then that statement may have some relevance, secondly how the hell do you think the people survived all those years they humour became very dark.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the best IRA guys were ex brits  
> 
> I think he should have spoke out because no matter what he says there can be no justification of those murders.
> 
> Another thing imho I believe the para should never have been sent in there, they wernt trained for that?
> ...


They wouldnt have been there to uphold UK law and protect people and property, would they be any chance ? Or maybe prevent an all out blood bath...or civil war...or war between the north and south...think Bosnia eh !

----------


## Anfield

> Incidentally, there is no mention of this in today's Sun. I wonder why?


I also note that there is little mention of the original report by Lord John Widgery which was denounced by all parties as a whitewash.
If his initial report had been truthful and unhampered by the Government, then the families of 14 people would not have to have waited 30 odd years for the truth to emerge and saved the UK tax payer £200 million. 
Widgery Report

Some of the main differences between Widgerys report & Savilles include the following:


Why were they there
Widgery Stated that there was no truth that the Para’s were brought to Derry to flush out “_IRA gunmen” or to send in a punitive force to give Bogside residents a “rough handling” and discourage them from supporting the IRA_. (2:21-2)
Savilles report however quoted Major General Ford as saying that _"he had come to the conclusion that selected ringleaders should be shot"_ (2:13)


Did they follow orders?
Widgery stated that _"In the events which took place on 30 January the soldiers were entitled to regard themselves as acting individually and thus entitled to fire under the terms of Rule 13 without waiting for orders … the soldiers' training certainly required them to act individually in such circumstances and no breach of discipline was thereby involved."_(3:95)
Whereas Saville maintains that“_In this belief soldiers reacted by losing their self-control and firing themselves, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training and failing to satisfy themselves that they had identified targets posing a threat of causing death or serious injury … our overall conclusion is that there was a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline among the soldiers of Support Company."_ (5:4)
Who Shot First

Widgery argued that "_To those who seek to apportion responsibility for the events of 30 January the question 'Who fired first?' is vital. I am entirely satisfied that the first firing in the [Rossville Flats] courtyard was directed at the soldiers."_ (2:54)

Saville on the other hand disagreed stating quite firmly that _"Despite the contrary evidence given by soldiers, we have concluded that none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers. No one threw or threatened to throw a nail or petrol bomb at the soldiers on Bloody Sunday._" (3:76)

False Statements

Widgery was overwhelmed by the “_truthfulness of the Paras "Those accustomed to listening to witnesses could not fail to be impressed by the demeanour of the soldiers of 1 Para. They gave their evidence with confidence and without hesitation or prevarication and withstood a rigorous cross-examination without contradicting themselves or each other. With one or two exceptions I accept that they were telling the truth as they remembered it."_ (3:97)
Saville disagrred stating "I_n the course of the report we have considered in detail the accounts of the soldiers whose firing caused the casualties, in the light of much other evidence. We have concluded, for the reasons we give, that apart from Private T many of these soldiers have knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing._" (3:82)
Did the CO of the Paras (Colenel Wilford exceed his powers

Widgery thought not saying _"It is understandable that these circumstances have given rise to suspicion that the CO 1 Para [Colonel Wilford] exceeded his orders, but I do not accept this conclusion in the face of the sworn evidence of the three officers concerned."_ (2:30)
Saville once again disagreed with Widgery by saying _"Colonel Wilford either deliberately disobeyed Brigadier MacLellan's order or failed for no good reason to appreciate the clear limits on what he had been authorised to do. He was disturbed by the delay in responding to his request to mount an arrest operation and had concluded that, by reason of the delay, the only way to effect a significant number of arrests was to deploy Support Company in vehicles into the Bogside."_ (3:19)

Savilles summary was best summed up by The Telegraph who published that the report
“blamed the 10 minutes of chaos on 20 individual paratroopers who “lost their self-control” and shot civilians in the back as they tried to flee. It said they acted after “a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline” and that many had since “knowingly put forward false accounts in order to justify their firing”. Telegraph


It also noted that Major General Ford, the most senior army officer in N. Ireland at the time and the person who pre-empted the “shoot to kill” policy in Ireland is conspicuous by his absence in offering apologies to the bereaved.

It seems that the finger of blame is pointed at a minor officer (Wilford) and he alone will inevitably take all the flak.

As to whether anyone will face criminal charges I would suggest that the decision has already been taken, and that no one will face criminal charges.

They say what goes around comes around, and it is ironic that Cameron has had to apologise to the people of Derry for an incident which took place under another Tory PM, Ted Heath all those years ago.

----------


## Setanta

> They wouldnt have been there to uphold UK law and protect people and property, would they be any chance ? Or maybe prevent an all out blood bath...or civil war...or war between the north and south...think Bosnia eh !



Yes you are correct they were sent there to impose British law and to protect the property of the majority and to uphold their privileged position, where jerrymandering made sure that democracy wouldnt rule. Under the rules that were imposed at the setting up of the  6 counties Britiain was/is responsible for the majority of the voting public, funny thing is that the demographic is changing and the majority may well emerge from the other side in the near future......now there is a new quandary arising.

As far as the civil war is concerned, Im not to clear on it or what may have emerged. If Britain washed their hands then what would the Unionist do, they have no Queen or country to use as an excuse.Problem they would have is the loss of their privileges but at present times they are starting to live with that. The nationalists (and a lot of other interested nations) have always wanted the UN in there to keep the peace, which would have meant a lot of soldiers lives saved and a complete different path for the struggle to take.  Pure hypotheses there and off topic......sorry about that

----------


## Bazeye

I hope Cameron's not apologising on my behalf.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Thats a very simplistic view and I didnt expect it having read your other posts. The British army "kept the peace" you reckon? I believe that one of the main reasons they were kept there so long was (maggies thinking) that it was a brilliant training ground, it beat all the theorising and play acting that is found in training.


I think you'll find the British Army did keep the peace, after all they went in at the request of the Catholic community only to be turned on. As for it being a "valuable training ground" I struggle to think for what, invading Mogadishu ??, Most soldiers I spoke to who had been there (including my uncle who married a local Catholic girl) advocated pulling out and taking a "Darwinism" approach in letting the two groups sort themselves out. Cant have been much fun being piggy in the middle between that lot.

What I would like to know is will the Republicans now cough up the men responsible for Warrenpoint now say ??, or the guys who shot my colleague ?? .. in fact, silly me, of course they wont. One law for us and another for them. Republicans killed 60% of the people killed in the Troubles, they owe a lot of people a lot of Justice but it will never happen.

----------


## Tubthumper

We could spend years wringing our hands, wondering why did the wicked Unionists behave as they did to the saintly, downtrodden Republicans (or vice-versa) why did X behave this way 40 years ago, why did Y situation 60 years ago lead to W being shot and P being blown to bits by a car bomb.
The question is this: Do we want to have our lives defined by or merely shaped by history? 
It's done. Leave it be, learn and move on. Nothing to see here.

----------


## rob murray

> Yes you are correct they were sent there to impose British law and to protect the property of the majority and to uphold their privileged position, where jerrymandering made sure that democracy wouldnt rule. Under the rules that were imposed at the setting up of the 6 counties Britiain was/is responsible for the majority of the voting public, funny thing is that the demographic is changing and the majority may well emerge from the other side in the near future......now there is a new quandary arising.
> 
> As far as the civil war is concerned, Im not to clear on it or what may have emerged. If Britain washed their hands then what would the Unionist do, they have no Queen or country to use as an excuse.Problem they would have is the loss of their privileges but at present times they are starting to live with that. The nationalists (and a lot of other interested nations) have always wanted the UN in there to keep the peace, which would have meant a lot of soldiers lives saved and a complete different path for the struggle to take. Pure hypotheses there and off topic......sorry about that


I dont agree that the troops were specifically sent in to "protect the property of the majority and to uphold their privileged position", though I totally agree that a section of NI had priviliged protected positions delivered through Conservative and Unionist politicians and policies. All citizens of NI are British, law and order had demonstrably broken down vis a vis violent attacks on civil rights activists, and all British citizens and property had to be protected regardless. The key issue, the catalyst if you like, was the desire for equality for all in NI, hence civil rights, to me this is the key ,the starting point that was hijacked. The UN could never have been deployed, as that would have meant a major embarrasment for the UK, exposing UK complicity in depriving NI of equality of rights. Even if they were involved, all citizens of NI are still British, NI is part of the UK, headed by the Queen..whether people liked it or not. Of course those who didnt like it, pursued another agenda.....rectifying the 1922 "sell out" by Michel Collins...hence the unification of Ireland...this thinking was totally marginilised but the aftermath of Bloody Sunday let the genie back out the bottle

----------


## The Drunken Duck

Last post on the subject from me and I thought I would point out something positive from that time  .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Willetts

----------


## glaikit

I thought the families of those who had lost loved ones were amazingly dignified.  
That's a ray of sunshine in a dark world and perhaps an indication that NI can move on and build a better future for their people, whether that's as part of the UK, or as a united Ireland.

----------


## bekisman

Been "away" for a while, feet now firmly on the ground.

This thread makes interesting reading, partly because I was involved in NI for over 4 years 1971> and partly because of the Nationalists/Unionist arguments still apparent even after King Billy's victory over James II at the Battle of the Boyne all those years ago in 1690 - is it really over three hundred years and folks are still at each other's throats?

Clarification; The names of the city, county and district of Derry or Londonderry in Northern Ireland are the subject of a naming dispute between nationalists and unionists. Generally, although not always, one will find nationalists calling them _Derry_, and unionists referring to them as _Londonderry_. Legally, the city and county are called Londonderry, while the district is called Derry.

I suppose if I was Catholic and both my parents were Irish I'd look at all this in a different light.. but I'm not. 

Of course the enquiry (final one, no doubt?) lead by *Lord Mark Saville,* his Team: *Michael Mansfeld*; A republican, vegetarian and socialist. "As well as representing those wrongly convicted of the IRA's Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings, Mansfield has represented: the Price sisters - you know the IRA ones that killed a man in an explosion et el; _'who has since declared: I've never had a sleepless night over anything I've done as an IRA volunteer. Bombs are weapons of war"_ Price, now a 55-year-old mother of two children, has become a vocal supporter of the Real IRA and has opposed the peace process." Oh yes he also represented Brian Keenan; quartermaster of the Belfast Brigade joined the IRA in 1970 or 1971, and was a former member of the Army Council of the Provisional Irish Republican Army" so no bias there then. 'spect Hitler would get a caution if he was still around....*5
*Sir Louis Blom Cooper*, bit of a coincidence really but (above) Mansfield's representation seems juxtaposition with Blom Cooper's reference to The 1997 book _'The Birmingham Six and Other Cases_ considered recent miscarriages of justice'. It prompted an unsuccessful libel action in the Irish courts from Gerry Hunter and Hugh Callaghan. 
*Edwin Glasgow QC* and* Mr Justice Christopher Clarke* 

'A FORMER Liverpool councillor was chased out of Londonderry after he concluded that the Official IRA fired the first shot on Bloody Sunday. 'Martin McGuinness had admitted to Infliction that he had personally fired the shot (from a Thompson machine gun on single shot) from the Rossville flats in Bogside that had precipitated the Bloody Sunday episode." *1 + *1a + *1b

Jerry Adams not a member of IRA? hmm, now, let me think, I wonder who was Chief of Staff PIRA from 3rd December 1977 until 18th Feb 1978? ..

However, it's common knowledge that Martin McGuinness was Chief of Staff of the Provisional Irish Republican Army 1978 - 1982..And now - bang (sic) right up to date (17th June 2010); breaking news: 'The sub-machinegun allegedly carried by Martin McGuinness on Bloody Sunday may have been used to murder two policemen days before, evidence in the Saville Inquiry report suggests. Mr McGuinness faced growing calls last night to explain whether he had any role in the shooting of Sgt Peter Gilgunn and Pc David Montgomery in an IRA ambush in Londonderry on Jan 27, 1972.' * 2

The IRA has officially claimed a Bloody Sunday victim as one of its fallen volunteers - contradicting the idea that all 13 men shot dead by British paratroops were uninvolved civilians. A book of republican dead, Tirghra - Irish for 'Love of Country' a 368-page tribute given to every IRA member to die in Northern Ireland's Troubles, also includes several men, shot dead by loyalists, who at the time of their murders were claimed by their families to be ordinary Catholics. The book, meant to be seen only by the relatives of the IRA dead, Among those honoured as the IRA's fallen is Gerard Donaghy, described in the book as a 'fian', a member of the junior IRA in Derry. Donaghy was 17 when he was shot dead in Derry by the Parachute Regiment on 30 January, 1972. *3

Stephen Pollard, a solicitor representing the soldiers' who appeared before the Saville Inquiry tells BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale that Lord Saville does not have justification for his findings and accuses him of cherry-picking the evidence. He says that Lord Saville's conclusions are not sustained by proper analysis of the evidence. "There is just as much evidence for the opposite conclusion," he says. *4

Now, all of us have our opinions, and really, being pragmatic, that's ALL we do have. And unless ALL Terrorist organisations PIRA, Official IRA, Continuity IRA, Real IRA, INLA, IPLO, UDA, UVF, LVF, RHC, UR comes forward as in South Africa during The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) - then reconciliation will not readily occur. and I don't see much chance of that happening..

Who shot first? well without the terrorist full input, we'll never know, but hints are given above.. all this pish of confusion from which direction the shots came from, is of entertainment value only, by those unaccustomed to actually being shot at - having had such delights; usually not a bloody clue!.. I am not being supercilious but as setanta mentioned Black Humour was ingrained in the province.. 

Often I would experience 'bumping' into a well-known PIRA man, he would know me, I would know him, we would stop for a few minutes and exchange pleasantries, before continuing on our individual ways, knowing that in another situation a bullet in the back would also suffice as 'greeting'..

Apart from one fian, mentioned above, all those shot on 30th January 1972 were not terrorists, but simply republicans.. squaddies shot at? think you see hostile intent? what's a boy to do?
The sooner the whole Bloody mess is buried and forgotten the better, 
and can only recommend to the original poster to close the thread
*Is iomdha la sa g-cill orainn.* 

*1 Paul Mahon said he received threats from paramilitaries after a document he had worked on stated the Army returned fire in response to a shot from the Bogside. He told the Inquiry said that after details of the document appeared in a Belfast newspaper in January 2000 he was told by Brendan Kearney that he had been threatened. Mr Mahon said in his statement to the Inquiry that his sources had identified the gunman who had fired the shot at the Army as a former para·military.

*1a [5 December, 2000] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1055872.stm
*1b The Saville inquiry had heard more details about the claim that Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness fired the first shot on Bloody Sunday. According to a security service document shown to the inquiry on Tuesday, Martin McGuinness "seemed to have it on his conscience that he fired the first shot" on 30 January 1972. The claim was contained in a service officer's written account of a conversation with an agent known as Infliction - a document shown at the public hearings in the Guildhall in Derry. It said: "He (Mr McGuinness) fired the first shot and nobody knows this. "This seems to be on McGuinness's conscience. He has spoken to Infliction about it several times." The material was shown as the Saville Tribunal began considering government bids to censor security service and Ministry of Defence material - including the Infliction notes and a tape recording of the debriefing.  a communication about Infliction's alleged claims dated April 1984. It states: "Martin McGuinness had admitted to Infliction that he had personally fired the shot (from a Thompson machine gun on single shot) from the Rossville flats in Bogside that had precipitated the Bloody Sunday episode." The other 19 lines on the page have been blacked out. The Northern Ireland education minister subsequently denied the claims outside the tribunal. Observer B is alleged to have witnessed IRA auxiliaries drilling at the Rossville Flats in the days leading up to Bloody Sunday and to have been told afterwards that the IRA opened fire first.  
*2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7833636/Martin-McGuinness-sub-machinegun-may-have-been-used-to-kill-two-policemen.html 
*3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/ma...orthernireland 

*4 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/10320609.stm 
*5 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mansfield

----------


## Anfield

> "..Of course the enquiry (final one, no doubt?) lead by *Lord Mark Saville,* his Team: *Michael Mansfeld*; A republican, vegetarian and socialist. "As well as representing those wrongly convicted of the IRA's Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings,


So you are basically dismissing the findings of the Saville Report because one of his team (Michael Mansfield) is a  "republican, vegetarian and  socialist. "

In other words the report dared to criticise the army.

No further comment needed.

----------


## bekisman

> So you are basically dismissing the findings of the Saville Report because one of his team (Michael Mansfield) is a "republican, vegetarian and socialist. "
> 
> In other words the report dared to criticise the army.
> 
> No further comment needed.


Don't talk such rubbish Anfield. 

OK I know you are a vegetarian and a socialist - not quite sure if you're a republican as well? that does not mean I dismiss any comments you may say, does it?

Additionally you are a pacifist, and I am afraid your pathetic comment _"in other words the report dared to criticise the army"_ is totally without foundation. I am well aware of your postings as agent provocateur, and your - dare I say - hatred of our military forces.. 

I simply gave my own opinions, and, as I posted; _"I suppose if I were Catholic and both my parents were Irish I'd look at all this in a different light.. but I'm not."._. should have sufficed - but obviously not..

My final paragraph was 

The sooner the whole Bloody mess is buried and forgotten the better, 
and can only recommend to the original poster to close the thread
*Is iomdha la sa g-cill orainn.* 
It is a pity you do not follow your own final line: _"no further comment needed"_

----------


## Anfield

> ".. I am well aware of your postings as agent provocateur, and your - dare I say - hatred of our military forces..


You call my postings as "agent provocateur" and "hatred of military forces"
May I remind you that I am one of the more vocal people on here who want UK troops out of the Middle East/Afghanistan without further bloodshed.  If you deem to call that "hatred of armed forces" may I ask what you call people who want them to remain on the killing fields suffering fatality after fatality?




> The sooner the whole Bloody mess is buried and forgotten the better, 
> and can only recommend to *the original poster to close the thread*




i.e. Do it the military way, close thread and sweep everything under the carpet and pretend it never happened in the first place

----------


## Tubthumper

> i.e. Do it the military way, close thread and sweep everything under the carpet and pretend it never happened in the first place


Or we could do it the terrorist way; engineer a confrontation, provoke a reaction, scream blue murder at the outrage, milk it for all its worth, use it as a justification for murder after murder. :: 
Do you, Anfield, condone what the IRA did during the troubles?

----------


## ducati

delayed reaction

'ere whats wrong with being veggie?  ::

----------


## Anfield

> Or we could do it the terrorist way; engineer a confrontation, provoke a reaction, scream blue murder at the outrage, milk it for all its worth, use it as a justification for murder after murder.
> Do you, Anfield, condone what the IRA did during the troubles?


Of course I do not condone what the IRA/PIRA/INLA did during troubles, nor do I condone what the Taleban are doing in Afghanistan.
However I _understand_ why.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Of course I do not condone what the IRA/PIRA/INLA did during troubles, nor do I condone what the Taleban are doing in Afghanistan.
> However I _understand_ why.


Great.

Can you help me understand why anyone would see shooting a Muslim Cpl and his one year old kid at a petrol station as a positive step towards their aim of a united Ireland ??

Because for the life of me, I cant.

----------


## Anfield

> Great.
> 
> Can you help me understand why anyone would see shooting a Muslim Cpl and his one year old kid at a petrol station as a positive step towards their aim of a united Ireland ??
> 
> Because for the life of me, I cant.


As an ex-soldier you should know that extreme acts of violence and murder are undertaken by all sides during conflicts.  

The Saville report showed that 13 people were unlawfully killed by members of the British Army. 

Where these deaths helpful in defusing the situation in N Ireland or where they, as many people suggest, the catalyst to the savagery to come.

As an example of how desensitised  people become in war take a look at the following link which show how Israeli soldiers glorifying the deaths of children
Palestine

This would never happen if it was British soldiers doing the killing would it?

----------


## DeHaviLand

> Of course I do not condone what the IRA/PIRA/INLA did during troubles, nor do I condone what the Taleban are doing in Afghanistan.
> However I _understand_ why.


Heres a different question for you Anfield; Would you condemn the IRA/PIRA/INLA for their atrocities in Ulster?

----------


## Anfield

> Heres a different question for you Anfield; Would you condemn the IRA/PIRA/INLA for their atrocities in Ulster?


Yes,  I also condemm all the other killings carried out in N/Ireland by loyalist gangs and the British Army,  or don't these count

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> As an ex-soldier you should know that extreme acts of violence and murder are undertaken by all sides during conflicts.  
> 
> The Saville report showed that 13 people were unlawfully killed by members of the British Army. 
> 
> Where these deaths helpful in defusing the situation in N Ireland or where they, as many people suggest, the catalyst to the savagery to come.
> 
> As an example of how desensitised  people become in war take a look at the following link which show how Israeli soldiers glorifying the deaths of children
> Palestine
> 
> This would never happen if it was British soldiers doing the killing would it?


Eh ??

YOU said you understood why the IRA did what they did. Therefore I asked you why they shot a man and his child at a Petrol Station in Germany. What I got was another question. Did you do English at school ??, did you not understand a simple question ??, or are you not able to answer because you were talking out of your backside .. again.

And I was not a soldier, I was an airman. That aside I don't appreciate being patronised by someone who hasn't been near a war on the effects of one, I have been there and know full well the effects, unlike you. What the hell do you know about how de-sensitised people get in a conflict ??, come back when you can talk from your own experience and not have to rely on an Internet link and/or what someone else thinks.

In fact, Why don't you stay away from subjects like the military because every time you open your mouth about it you make yourself look a bigger neep than the last time you gaped your yapper on the subject. I suggest you read my signature and inwardly digest for the next time you feel like you can talk with confidence on conflict.

Oh .. one other thing. The deaths were called "unjustifiable" in the report, not "unlawful", get it right.

----------


## DeHaviLand

> Yes, I also condemm all the other killings carried out in N/Ireland by loyalist gangs and the British Army, or don't these count


So, you would condemn the British Servicemen for the lawful killing of terrorists? That says an awful lot about you!

----------


## glaikit

I don't think NI is a black and white situation.  Having had the audacity to discuss this with Irish friends from both sides of the divide, over the years, I've learned to keep my mouth shut and not make assumptions or level accusations at any side.  It's really, really complicated and I respect the views of everyone on here, especially those who have had direct contact with the situation but I'll keep my views to myself cos it ain't my country  ::

----------


## John Little

Somewhere in the great beyond  there is a deep deep chuckle and a cosmic knee is slapped at the humour of it all.


I do not want to get into this argument but the joke is a deep one.

After Oliver Cromwell finished with Ireland in the 1650s there were fewer than half a million Irish left.

He then indulged in ethnic cleansing, displacing Irish landholders into the west giving them a month to get out.  Their option was simple 'To hell or Connaught'.
Most chose Connaught.

Denuded Irish farmland was then parcelled out to Cromwell's soldiers as in the manner of Roman Legionaries being given a piece of land, a few pieces of gold and a cow when they quit the service.

These military settlers married Irish women and had children.
Cromwell hoped to make Ireland Protestant.

But a secret service report to James II in 1685 revealed that the opposite had happened; the children of the marriages had learned Gaelic and Catholicism at their mothers' knees.....

The great hidden secret of Ireland.

Most are probably descended from English soldiers...


small mention of it here but it may  be found elsewhere...
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...7183417AAyjrcn

----------


## glaikit

It's no really that funny though is it John?

----------


## John Little

It's the enormous, just incredible irony of it that gets me.

A bit like the arabs and the israelis really.  Research into their DNA is showing that they are essentially the same people.

In the end both sides in these bitter debates and conflicts are so closely related that you could not squeeze a hair between them.

If you didn't laugh you'd cry.

What the hell is it all for?

Do you ever feel that we are all just pawns in some damned great game?

----------


## glaikit

Yes.  A big chess board in the sky and half the time the players are blazin'.  Maybe that explains it all

----------


## Tubthumper

And some of the pieces are missing. Also they've lost the rules.

----------


## glaikit

Aye, that's why the board ends up upside doon on the floor half the time

----------


## Anfield

> So, you would condemn the British Servicemen for the lawful killing of terrorists? That says an awful lot about you!


As I said above I condemn the killing of all people who were killed in N Ireland, whether by Republican, Loyalists or the British Army.
  The fact that you condone the above says more about you than me.




> And I was not a soldier, I was an airman. That aside I don't appreciate being patronised by someone who hasn't been near a war on the effects of one, I have been there and know full well the effects, unlike you. What the hell do you know about how de-sensitised people get in a conflict


  So, you were an airman and  you glorified the killing of 13 Derry people by drooling over the vile sectarian song as follows:



> Altogether Beks .. 
> 
> "We got one .. We got two .. "


 


> YOU said you understood why the IRA did what they did. Therefore I asked you why they shot a man and his child at a Petrol Station in Germany. What I got was another question. Did you do English at school ??, did you not understand a simple question ??, or are you not able to answer because you were talking out of your backside .. again.


  Resorting to personal abuse shows that you have thrown towel in.

----------


## DeHaviLand

> As I said above I condemn the killing of all people who were killed in N Ireland, whether by Republican, Loyalists or the British Army.
> The fact that you condone the above says more about you than me.


I think that the killing of IRA terrorists who were themselves intent on killing British Soldiers, or policemen (such as at Loughgall and Gibraltar) is more than justifiable. If that tells you much about my sense of justice, then so be it.

----------


## Tubthumper

What is it about Northern Ireland that always causes a stooshie?
Calm down, it is OVER!

----------


## Anfield

> I think that the killing of IRA terrorists who were themselves intent on killing British Soldiers, or policemen (such as at Loughgall and Gibraltar) is more than justifiable. If that tells you much about my sense of justice, then so be it.


So, following your logic, the republicans paramilitaries killing loyalist paramilitaries and british soldiers  were  justified?

What about the "collateral damage" i.e. the ordinary everyday people who got caught up in all of this bloodshed.

Sorry but I do not agree with your definition of justice

----------


## DeHaviLand

> So, following your logic, the republicans paramilitaries killing loyalist paramilitaries and british soldiers were justified?
> 
> What about the "collateral damage" i.e. the ordinary everyday people who got caught up in all of this bloodshed.
> 
> Sorry but I do not agree with your definition of justice


 
there is absolutely no logic in the part of your sentence that comes after "following your logic". I'm finding it difficult to understand whether you have reading and comprehension difficulties, are deliberately obtuse and obstructive, or just plain thick. ::

----------


## Anfield

> there is absolutely no logic in the part of your sentence that comes after "following your logic". I'm finding it difficult to understand whether you have reading and comprehension difficulties, are deliberately obtuse and obstructive, or just plain thick.


So once again a military apologist loses an argument and resorts to personal abuse and name calling.

----------


## bekisman

> So once again a military apologist loses an argument and resorts to personal abuse and name calling.


 
Oh come on Anfield - I'm an ex-Squaddie - but I certainly ain't thick, and don't follow your 'logic'.. 

Coincidentally I'd just like to mention you're doing your usual trick of 'going off topic' again - 'Bloody Sunday' remember? - I'm off wibbling.. ::

----------


## Anfield

> there is absolutely no logic in the part of your sentence that comes after "following your logic". I'm finding it difficult to understand whether you have reading and comprehension difficulties, are deliberately obtuse and obstructive, or just plain thick.





> Oh come on Anfield - I'm an ex-Squaddie - but I certainly ain't thick, and don't follow your 'logic'..


My post was:
"..So, following your logic, the republicans paramilitaries killing  loyalist paramilitaries and british soldiers  were  justified?.."

Hands up time I made a spelling mistake.
Simply remove plural "s" from end of "republicans" 

Does that help?

----------


## DeHaviLand

Anfield, may I suggest that if you're going to get involved in a battle of wits, you really shouldn't be going unarmed  ::

----------


## picturegifts

> Anfield, may I suggest that if you're going to get involved in a battle of wits, you really shouldn't be going unarmed


See post 103

----------


## DeHaviLand

Well, if he cant see the obvious difference between this statement




> I think that the killing of IRA terrorists who were themselves intent on killing British Soldiers, or policemen (such as at Loughgall and Gibraltar) is more than justifiable. If that tells you much about my sense of justice, then so be it.


and this one




> So, following your logic, the republicans paramilitaries killing loyalist paramilitaries and british soldiers were justified?
> 
> What about the "collateral damage" i.e. the ordinary everyday people who got caught up in all of this bloodshed.
> 
> Sorry but I do not agree with your definition of justice


what other conclusion can I logically come to?

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> Anfield, may I suggest that if you're going to get involved in a battle of wits, you really shouldn't be going unarmed


I would leave him be, not worth it. Anfield has demonstrated on previous occasions a willingness to throw insult and insinuations about mil folks and then cry like a spanked stepchild when he gets back what he dishes out. I have been on the receiving end of his impotent little attacks. Like I really care though, he has a talent for repeatedly demonstrating that he doesn't have a clue what he is on about. Ask him about the UN ops in Afghan.

You only have to read back to see he got the verdict of the Inquiry wrong in a previous post that he was throwing his assumptions around in. Then his response when he gets challenged on his self proclaimed knowledge of understanding the IRA is quite frankly amusing. Ignore the question, lecture about conflict (having never been near one) so you can throw an insinuation about Brit troops out there. And be sure to involve the Israeli's for added measure. 

I am done with arguing with idiots like him on matter such as this, they just love the attention. Bloody Sunday is gone, heck I was about a year old or so when it happened. Its not even history to me, I don't remember it. And my experiences mean I care not a jot about it to be honest. All this Inquiry was was a £200,000,000 waste of cash to get to a verdict that was never in doubt anyway.

----------


## Anfield

> I think that the killing of IRA terrorists who were themselves intent on killing British Soldiers, or policemen (such as at Loughgall and Gibraltar) is more than justifiable. If that tells you much about my sense of justice, then so be it.





> So, following your logic, the republicans paramilitaries killing loyalist paramilitaries and british soldiers  were  justified?
> 
> What about the "collateral damage" i.e. the ordinary everyday people who got caught up in all of this bloodshed.
> 
> Sorry but I do not agree with your definition of justice





> Well, if he cant see the obvious difference between this statement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this one
> 
> 
> 
> what other conclusion can I logically come to?


I am,  as you state above " a bit thick"  so perhaps you could enlighten me as to what the difference is between your statement and mine

----------


## DeHaviLand

The difference is that the killings of IRA terrorists in the instances i mentioned, were legal and justifiable. No terrorist, whether Loyalist or Republican, can claim the same.

----------


## Anfield

> The difference is that the killings of IRA terrorists in the instances i mentioned, were legal and justifiable. No terrorist, whether Loyalist or Republican, can claim the same.


Can you inform us all about when the statute for the above form of murder was introduced and passed into our law books

----------


## DeHaviLand

> Can you inform us all about when the statute for the above form of murder was introduced and passed into our law books


no you clown, I'm taking the Drunken Duck solution to your idiocy. It is not my job to educate you, especially when you have already proven that you're an unwilling pupil.

----------


## Anfield

> Can you inform us all about when the statute for  the above form of murder was introduced and passed into our law  books





> no you clown, I'm taking the Drunken Duck solution to your idiocy. It is not my job to educate you, especially when you have already proven that you're an unwilling pupil.


In other words:
You can not answer.

----------


## ducati

I know it was a long time ago, and we are now way off topic (inevitable really). But I too have to confess ignorance of the law that allows British Police and Military personnel to operate around the world assassinating Terrorists. I know this is something that goes on, but recently we have been criticising Israel for the same behaviour.

----------


## The Drunken Duck

> I know it was a long time ago, and we are now way off topic (inevitable really). But I too have to confess ignorance of the law that allows British Police and Military personnel to operate around the world assassinating Terrorists. I know this is something that goes on, but recently we have been criticising Israel for the same behaviour.


There was no such law, the Police and the Forces operated within Rules of Engagement that had to be carried on the person at all times. Whatever action you took had to be justified afterwards. Step outside them and the Government would throw you to the Wolves, stay within them .. jobs a good 'un. The Rules were pretty straight forward from the ones I had to go by during Armed Guard duty, these are what I can remember .. 

Firearms are to be used as a last resort, and only if there is an imminent danger to life and there is no other way to prevent the danger. 

A warning of "Army/Navy Air Force* (as appropriate) to be given before opening fire (this can be ignored if to do so would endanger life), for instance if you see a guy with his gun against your mates head cocking the weapon you can just shoot him. A warning at that point could only endanger your mate's life.

Fire only aimed shots. 

Fire no more rounds that are necessary.

High profile cases such as Lee Clegg's highlight these rules. Clegg opened fire at a speeding car approaching a checkpoint, it did not stop (a warning is pointless, how would they hear it ?? .. the Para in the road pointing a rifle at you is a BIG clue he wants you to stop) and the car was in a position to endanger both his life and the RUC Officer in its path. He opened fire with aimed shots and killed a joyrider (who put herself in that situation, I consider it a Darwin Award attempt) now at that point he was within the law, he had followed the rules. Where he broke the law was in firing a shot at the car after it had veered to one side and gone past him. Firing a round into the car from behind was NOT legal, the car had gone and was no possible danger. That, and fabricating evidence by making an injury sustained when the car glanced him as it past worse were what got him sent down. 

Now there are the Guardian reading fraternity who, despite never having held a loaded weapon in their life claim to be experts on such situations and step forward with opinions that are based on nothing, they will shout and scream that we "murdered" the IRA guys killed in such incidents as Loughall and Gibraltar. And maybe at Loughall the IRA were suckered into a position where the ROE allowed the SAS to open fire at them. Maybe those rules were pushed to limits of flexibility at Gibraltar. Personally I have no problem with that, these people knew what they were doing and as the SAS say "Don't play Big Boys Games if you cant hack Big Boys Rules" these people would happily have put a bomb under my window and joked about it later. So I don't mourn their loss for one second, rather them than me.

----------


## rob murray

> There was no such law, the Police and the Forces operated within Rules of Engagement that had to be carried on the person at all times. Whatever action you took had to be justified afterwards. Step outside them and the Government would throw you to the Wolves, stay within them .. jobs a good 'un. The Rules were pretty straight forward from the ones I had to go by during Armed Guard duty, these are what I can remember .. 
> 
> Firearms are to be used as a last resort, and only if there is an imminent danger to life and there is no other way to prevent the danger. 
> 
> A warning of "Army/Navy Air Force* (as appropriate) to be given before opening fire (this can be ignored if to do so would endanger life), for instance if you see a guy with his gun against your mates head cocking the weapon you can just shoot him. A warning at that point could only endanger your mate's life.
> 
> Fire only aimed shots. 
> 
> Fire no more rounds that are necessary.
> ...


Well put, the IRA were at war with the UK and war is a dirty business, things happen, the SAS quote above says it all, Back on topic though, bloody sunday was a civil rights march..not an outbreak or esaclation of war. The "war" as defined by the IRA, followed bloody sunday...I keep coming back to this basic point...there was a proven inequality of rights at play in NI, and people denied basic rights have the right to protest about this which is what the non violent civil rights movement stood for. The IRA were known as "I Ran Away" due to their in ability to defend outragous attacks on a section of the NI populace. Indeed the IRA had to start from scratch in 69 /70 as by the late 60's they had become a non active, marxist talking shop. New entrants ( macguiness / Adams et all ) moved the agenda toward a violent struggle and bloody sunday played right into their hands...hence strategically they had all to gain from the events.

----------


## bekisman

> I know it was a long time ago, and we are now way off topic (inevitable really). But I too have to confess ignorance of the law that allows British Police and Military personnel to operate around the world assassinating Terrorists. I know this is something that goes on, but recently we have been criticising Israel for the same behaviour.


_"allows British Police and Military personnel to operate around the world assassinating Terrorists"_ no, surely not! and if that's true then it's absolutely wrong and is most certainly against the law. We must make sure that we do not sink to the level of the terrorist, two wrongs do NOT make a right..
Descending to their level makes us equally bad. My own opinion is that we must put them over our knee and give them a good spanking and then - I know it's difficult - put them on the naughty step - says I with a burst eardrum* from a bomb blast in Belfast 1971 and still-vivid memories of collection bits of dead (kids?) after a terrorist bomb blast, I say (kids?) 'cos see it's difficult after co-op mix has ripped bodies to shreds, a lot of it is like darkened cork, but the smell stays with you for ever and ever and ever.......



* not too bad, I got near £3,000 for that one - trouble is I can still breath through it; a good party trick mind...

----------


## ducati

Well if you're both going to take the P I will shut up  :Frown:

----------


## Amy-Winehouse

> Can you inform us all about when the statute for the above form of murder was introduced and passed into our law books


Were the Gibralter trio not 3 of the most murderous scum bags ever to walk the streets of Ulster, wanted for numerous murders & bombings across the U.K ??

I may be wrong , but werent they preparing to amount another raid of terror when they were riddanced off the face of the planet ?

----------


## ducati

> Were the Gibralter trio not 3 of the most murderous scum bags ever to walk the streets of Ulster, wanted for numerous murders & bombings across the U.K ??
> 
> I may be wrong , but werent they preparing to amount another raid of terror when they were riddanced off the face of the planet ?


Absolutely, and frankly if they had been arrested, tried and convicted they would have been let out by Major's peace bribe. However, I don't think the Army were appointed judge, jury and executioners.

----------


## Anfield

> Now there are the Guardian reading fraternity who, despite never having held a loaded weapon in their life claim to be experts on such situations and step forward with opinions that are based on nothing, they will shout and scream that we "murdered" the IRA guys killed in such incidents as Loughall and Gibraltar.


DD, this was a very good post until you mentioned "Guardian reading etc"
What is it with you military guys that you suspect that anyone who disagrees with your views reads the Guardian?  




> Well put, the IRA were at war with the UK and war is a dirty business, things happen, the SAS quote above says it all, Back on topic though, bloody Sunday was a civil rights march..not an outbreak or escalation of war. The "war" as defined by the IRA, followed bloody Sunday...I keep coming back to this basic point...there was a proven inequality of rights at play in NI, and people denied basic rights have the right to protest about this which is what the non violent civil rights movement stood for. The IRA were known as "I Ran Away" due to their in ability to defend outrageous attacks on a section of the NI populace. Indeed the IRA had to start from scratch in 69 /70 as by the late 60's they had become a non active, marxist talking shop. New entrants ( macguiness / Adams et all ) moved the agenda toward a violent struggle and bloody sunday played right into their hands...hence strategically they had all to gain from the events.



You make some very salient points:
(1)    Bloody Sunday was a Civil rights march and Saville exposed the myth that the initial firing came from the protesters
(2)    The IRA and Loyalist groups treated the troubles as a war, and as such human decency, went out of the window, as chronicled by DD in #28.  This particular episode shows how low the participants in this war would sink.
(3)    The inequality of Catholics in N/Ireland is often overlooked when people look to ascertain what escalated the troubles from a civil rights issue into a full blown war.
(4)    You mention  the move away from a talking shop into a military struggle initiated by Adams/McGuiness,  but you overlook the role played by politicians south of the border e.g. Charles Haughey & Neil Blaney who helped arm Republicans




> Well if you're both going to take the P I will shut up [IMG]file:///E:/DOCUME%7E1/KEVINL%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]


Rule 23 (xvii)  of  Rules of Engagement states that if you can not win an argument  on merit then revert to personal abuse or levity and  hope  that thread will be closed by moderators for going off topic 




> Were the Gibralter trio not 3 of the most murderous scum bags ever to walk the streets of Ulster, wanted for numerous murders & bombings across the U.K ??
> I may be wrong , but werent they preparing to amount another raid of terror when they were riddanced off the face of the planet ?



To the best of my knowledge, and I am sure it will be corrected, but the 3 unarmed people you refer to were  shot at point blank range  a minimum of 29 times. No proof of any bomb making equipment was ever found that was linked to them.  However a car full of explosives was later found

----------


## ss.sv650

> Can you inform us all about when the statute for the above form of murder was introduced and passed into our law books


the common law defence, section 3 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (the statutory defence) provides that: 
"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

i think you will find that this is the one most used in mil/police shootings and is usually upheld

----------


## Amy-Winehouse

> To the best of my knowledge, and I am sure it will be corrected, but the 3 unarmed people you refer to were shot at point blank range a minimum of 29 times. No proof of any bomb making equipment was ever found that was linked to them. However a car full of explosives was later found


So why were the SAS following them in Gibralter ? Id say they were up to no good, going by their track record- scumbags . Would you try & defend them had they blown up your city instead of Manchester or Warrington ?

----------


## Anfield

> the common law defence, section 3 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (the statutory defence) provides that: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."
> 
>  i think you will find that this is the one most used in mil/police shootings and is usually upheld


I have looked at this statute and can not find any examples of anyone using "section 3. 1 criminal law act 1967"  as a defence, nevermind an as an appeal in a "shoot to kill" court case.
Could you provide details of the cases which used the said statute that are "usually upheld"

----------


## Nacho

seems to me like it was always the IRA that appeal the killing of their own, but have no regard for their targets/innocents victims

if a few members, and they were members, were killed, maybe fairly, maybe not, so what ?!  

they were fighting a war, innocent people get killed in war, if they were innocent , then the IRA can chalk their lives off against all the innocents that were killed during their campaign.

Omagh and Enniskillen lost all support i had for the IRA back in the day when i was growing up and getting into politics.

at the end of the day, the British soldiers shot innocents and they should be condemned for that, but then the IRA weren't exactly playing queensbury either .... and still aren't !!

----------

