Army Veterans Facing murder charges over Bloody Sunday within two weeks

Queens Own Irish Hussars I thought. But I will check
While you're doing that, you might like to pull up the details of the first murder by Loyalist terrorists of a Security Forces member. Contrary to the myth posted on here upthread (which I have seen elsewhere, although I can't recall any detail), the victim was an officer of the RUC, according to the CAIN index.
 
But is it not the case that said letter was why they had to release they hyde park bomber without charge - because he had in effect been tricked into returning
Hence both the revelation these letters existed and the *belief they were get out of jail free cards

**And to be honest if that is the case its not a completely ill founded and unreasonable one
That was an admin screw up between PSNI, the Met and the Government. Somewhere along the line someone missed there was evidence and an outstanding case against him. He should never have received the letter.
 
Last edited:
Exactly; at no point has any of the soldiers been charged by the army itself. That means everything that happened WAS under orders... The instincts take over once rounds are flying and that is when tragedy takes over, from simply f**k up.

The legal minded on this site, jump on the rules and apply modern sensibilities, ignoring the fact that the commanding officer on the day said the soldiers did nothing wrong.. Either the whole establishment of the day should be charged, or nobody...
I’d wager that just about every soldier who served in NI understood that shooting unarmed civilians was wrong. Most acted on that understanding. A few did not.
 
He was initially convicted because as well as the rounds he fired into the side of the car (protecting the soldiers behind him) the judge believed he also fired into the back of the car (after it had passed the last soldier). The appeal judge didn't believe the evidence that it was Clegg's round that went through the back of the car and not someone else's was strong enough, so the conviction was over turned.
IIRC, not long before the Clegg incident a joyrider had driven through an RM VCP seriously injuring one of them. The NITAT Yellow Card debates at the time were whether the Marines should have shot. Consensus was that it would have been justifiable under the guidelines of the Yellow Card
I could be wrong but wasn’t the whole point that the shots were fired after the car was driven through a checkpoint?
 
I could be wrong but wasn’t the whole point that the shots were fired after the car was driven through a checkpoint?
Goes back to the Yellow Card paragraph of someone killing or seriously injuring someone and there being no other way to effect an arrest
 
Goes back to the Yellow Card paragraph of someone killing or seriously injuring someone and there being no other way to effect an arrest
I know of an incident in Belfast where a "joy-rider" drove straight at a Patrol commander and struck him causing serious injuries (later medically discharged). Another member of the patrol then fired two rounds through the rear window of the car striking the driver in the head and killing him. instantly. Legal opinion was that there was no case to answer, he'd used potentially lethal force to attempt to kill or seriously injure a soldier and there was no other option but to fire.
 
I know of an incident in Belfast where a "joy-rider" drove straight at a Patrol commander and struck him causing serious injuries (later medically discharged). Another member of the patrol then fired two rounds through the rear window of the car striking the driver in the head and killing him. instantly. Legal opinion was that there was no case to answer, he'd used potentially lethal force to attempt to kill or seriously injure a soldier and there was no other option but to fire.
Though not inconsistent with @Stonker's post above. HQNI direction was not to open fire at joyriders, though the law might allow it in some circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong but wasn’t the whole point that the shots were fired after the car was driven through a checkpoint?
Two of them were, two of them weren't.
 
I know of an incident in Belfast where a "joy-rider" drove straight at a Patrol commander and struck him causing serious injuries (later medically discharged). Another member of the patrol then fired two rounds through the rear window of the car striking the driver in the head and killing him. instantly. Legal opinion was that there was no case to answer, he'd used potentially lethal force to attempt to kill or seriously injure a soldier and there was no other option but to fire.
But that was a vanishingly rare instance. In most cases, the joyriders would pass through the VCP without causing injury, only coming under fire from the rear, after they were clear, leaving the soldiers who fired open to prosecution if any of those in the vehicle were injured or killed.

It's not rocket science, FFS.
 
As someone who`s spent most of their Army career in NI, with my first tour being in 1973, I have watched this thread with interest

The Yellow card went though different versions and amendments, and as time in NI progressed then it became more restrictive, I believe that the earlier Yellow Cards would have been drawn up by those who had a few years earlier been overseeing the withdrawal from Empire - Aden.

Indeed the Parachute Regiments most recently history (lesson learnt and all that) at that time would have been the Aden Campaign

Seems for a lot of posters on here hindsight is a marvellous thing, I have nothing further to say on this thread other than I will be watching how the prosecution of this soldier progresses.

Archie
 
But that was a vanishingly rare instance. In most cases, the joyriders would pass through the VCP without causing injury, only coming under fire from the rear, after they were clear, leaving the soldiers who fired open to prosecution if any of those in the vehicle were injured or killed.

It's not rocket science, FFS.
I agree, I was merely posting an example of an incident where the RoE were followed and applied properly.
 
It certainly is an 'interesting turn of phrase'. I searched for that bit of footage last night and had trouble finding it. Previously, it was always easy to locate and I confess I thought it was removed because it contradicts decades of anti-British propaganda. It confirms that the Paras were under fire and suggests very strongly that, were practicable, fire orders were issued and supervised responsibly by an officer at the scene. Cleansing the Internet of such inconvenient truths is not something easily accomplished at the push of a button. The preferred method (if it be a method at all) is to submerge the offending truth under other much-preferred and much-repeated narratives. And then God help you if you dare dispute them!

But, even so, I was wrong to think some evil conspiracy had hidden this 'interesting' piece of footage away from public consciousness. My common sense should have told me so, but common sense is not something frequently observed with regard to Bloody Sunday. With that in mind, what does this footage tell us about what happened on that day and how to judge it? For me, it suggests the men of 1 Para were more disciplined and their leadership more professional and honourable than their detractors would prefer us to assume. Had they truly been what they've been misrepresented as, I believe there would have been a lot more than 13 non-combatants illegally shot dead in Derry. I have no doubt the Paras were under fire and engaging gunmen of the IRA. I have equally no doubt their officers, including Colonel Wilford, did not enter the Bogside with the intention of authorising their soldiers to fire upon and murder innocent civilians.

Nothing I've heard since has persuaded me to change my view on the above. Unfortunately, and this is the hell of it, none of this excuses in the slightest the actions of individual soldiers responsible for the deaths painstakingly investigated by Lord Saville over a period of twelve years and at the cost of 195 million pounds. Justice must and should be done and it is repugnant to impose any limitations whatsoever of time and price and investigative terms of reference upon its necessary course. The unfinished business arising from the pain and grief of those for whom justice has been so long denied demands that this is so! Unfortunately, with regard to the Troubles, we do not live in an ideal world where the demands of justice and closure absolute and comprehensively applied can possibly be met. If there were such a world, there would hardly be a need for justice of any kind at all, however blind and limited and selectively imperfect it might be.

It has been said, and it will no doubt be forcefully repeated over the course and aftermath of this trail if it proceeds, that the families of victims are, nevertheless, entitled to their day in court. Of course they are. Their pain and grief is real and their outrage entirely understandable and valid, But in pursuing this ideal, we are confronted by its immediate and ominous constraints and limitations. This current rendering of justice will be perceived quite rightly as being applied exclusively to the victims of Bloody Sunday while the sufferings of others have been and will continue to be contemptuously and pragmatically ignored.

One may cite at length the niceties of law and the legal possibility that justice may yet be brought to bear upon members of the IRA and other paramilitary groups who have committed heinous crimes--should, that is, sufficient evidence be brought to light. It may be contended, therefore, that there are no grounds for complaint against the zealous prosecution of an alleged perpetrator of the Bloody Sunday massacre. This argument, however, is fatuous in the extreme. Under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, convicted murderers were released and their commanders rewarded by positions in the very institutions that they sought to overthrow by a sadistic and prolonged campaign of terror. As for those terrorists who yet may face the just distress of being charged for their misdeeds, some have already received letters of reassurance that their suspected villainy shall never be officially exposed nor shall they suffer the indignity of standing in the dock to defend themselves against the indefensible.

As for any remaining terrorists and thugs who may be liable, potentially, to prosecution, the possibility is so remote as to be almost negligible. There is, after all, the delicate matter of gathering sufficient evidence to ensure the charges stick. With regard to that, I return to the proposition that this is not an ideal world and justice is limited accordingly. We may rest assured, if 'assured' is the appropriate term, that twelve years of painstaking inquiry and another 195 million pounds of taxpayers' money will not be spent to bring or, in some cases, return these killers to the dock and let the families of their victims have their day in court once and for all.

The surrealism of it all is breathtaking: near four-decades-long of orchestrated bombings, shootings, arson; sadistic backstreet thuggery and gruesome slaughters sanctioned at the highest level by the terrorist command. And, after 47 years, who shall we see standing bleak and solitary in the dock to make amends? Soldier 'F'! This trial, if it proceeds, will speedily convert a British court of law into a global theatre of the absurd, witnessed by the unbelieving world and worthy of a satirising novel by the likes of Charles Dickens. And yet my sense of justice tells me that, all absurdity and show aside, the families of those victims are entitled to their day in court and someone should be standing in the dock to face them. But if a principle of justice is at stake here, and it very clearly is, then the British Government must straightway set in train a process to ensure that justice shall be sought for all the other families and extended families who've lost loved ones due to politically motivated violence in Ulster. And for that comprehensive brand of justice to be done and seen to be done, the government is going to need a bigger court and, by God, a bigger dock than the one they have so tidily reserved with all expenses paid for Soldier 'F'!

The crimes of Bloody Sunday are no longer a matter of dispute and the families' collective call for justice is as emotive as it is compelling. But so too is the plight of all the other families and victims not just of Bloody Sunday but throughout all of Northern Ireland's murderous and bloodied days of terror. They too are crying out within their hearts for justice, they too would like their day in court to witness the accused arraigned and standing in the dock! And if they are denied it, they will perceive this trial of Soldier 'F' as an unfair abrogation of their right to justice and, in the case of murdered members of the security forces, a cynical devaluation and betrayal of their service, sacrifice and trust.

We should not put a price on justice. But there are times in this ugly, stinking world of ours, when we must compromise because we have no other choice. There comes a time, perhaps, when we are forced by harsh societal realities to recognise that the cost of Justice is too high for us to bear because the price that we must pay for it is Peace. With the arrival of the Good Friday Agreement, I thought that time had come. Apparently I was wrong about that too.
One of the best posts I have read on ARRSE for ages.
There's a few on here would do well to read it and then read it again.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top