Army Veterans Facing murder charges over Bloody Sunday within two weeks

Why the **** would veterans care about MOD approval?

If they have murdered someone why should they get amnesty?
I was thinkimg of the sometimes spurious use of the OSA. As for the notion of an amnisty, I don't like it, but I do believe we need to bring the 'troubles' to,a,conclusion for all concerned.
 
I was thinkimg of the sometimes spurious use of the OSA. As for the notion of an amnisty, I don't like it, but I do believe we need to bring the 'troubles' to,a,conclusion for all concerned.
The OSA doesnt mean you cant give evidence in a murder case.

If your kid was killed by a soldier, would you like to be told to forget about it?
 
I recall reading Prof. Keith Simpson's book in the 1980s where he stated that the autopsies done on the Bloody Sunday deceased revealed all bar one had gun shot residue on their hands, the one who didn't was killed by a ricochet.
NB - I am recalling this from 30 odd years ago so my memory may have confused some of the facts.
 
 
Interesting read. Are we now saying none of the deceased handled/fired a weapon and all residue is due from cross contamination or is fragmentary trace evidence from the Paras weapons? That in itself would be an unbelievable turn of events in my eyes.
No we are not. the bloke who made the original claim is and explains why.
 
None of the people shot were found to have been using any weapons whatsoever at the time of being shot.

Like pretty much everything else put forward by the Army and the MoD to the Widgery Tribunal it was absolute bullshit.

I know it is hard to accept, and no doubt the downturned thumbs are accumulating in the right hand corner as you read this, but the case made by the hundreds of civilian witnesses, the world's press, neutral observers, doctors, lawyers, clergymen and even police and Army witnesses from the start is the correct version.

The absurd Army version, that was full of holes from start to finish, from the first lies, yes lies, stated by senior officers in interviews with the media in the immediate aftermath, to the ridiculous statements made under oath by soldier witnesses, bears little or no relationship with verifiable facts.

Down thumb away.
 
None of the people shot were found to have been using any weapons whatsoever at the time of being shot.

Like pretty much everything else put forward by the Army and the MoD to the Widgery Tribunal it was absolute bullshit.

I know it is hard to accept, and no doubt the downturned thumbs are accumulating in the right hand corner as you read this, but the case made by the hundreds of civilian witnesses, the world's press, neutral observers, doctors, lawyers, clergymen and even police and Army witnesses from the start is the correct version.

The absurd Army version, that was full of holes from start to finish, from the first lies, yes lies, stated by senior officers in interviews with the media in the immediate aftermath, to the ridiculous statements made under oath by soldier witnesses, bears little or no relationship with verifiable facts.

Down thumb away.
Mostly agree with your post but my memory is that the army acknowledged on Sunday night that it had fecked up.
By Monday politicians and the bbc had got involved and then the cover up began.
I have said before it should have been properly investigated at the time but 47 years later the real culprits are dead and the pawns will become scapegoats. The trials will add little, those who hate will continue to hate.
 
None of the people shot were found to have been using any weapons whatsoever at the time of being shot.

Like pretty much everything else put forward by the Army and the MoD to the Widgery Tribunal it was absolute bullshit.

I know it is hard to accept, and no doubt the downturned thumbs are accumulating in the right hand corner as you read this, but the case made by the hundreds of civilian witnesses, the world's press, neutral observers, doctors, lawyers, clergymen and even police and Army witnesses from the start is the correct version.

The absurd Army version, that was full of holes from start to finish, from the first lies, yes lies, stated by senior officers in interviews with the media in the immediate aftermath, to the ridiculous statements made under oath by soldier witnesses, bears little or no relationship with verifiable facts.

Down thumb away.
Our officers would never lie, they live by their values and standards.
 
TBH I as an NCO did not socialise with them.
But as you will one day find out they are generally far superior to the useless, self serving and incompetent tossers who are most English managers.
Haha, very true. UK institutions do seem to be managed by quite few idle, duplicitous, self-serving tosspots.
I think the difference between civilian and military promotion is that civilians are always advanced one step beyond what they are comfortably capable of, whereas in the military you have to show yourself capable of performing at a higher level before you are officially elevated to it.
 
Haha, very true. UK institutions do seem to be managed by quite few idle, duplicitous, self-serving tosspots.
I think the difference between civilian and military promotion is that civilians are always advanced one step beyond what they are comfortably capable of, whereas in the military you have to show yourself capable of performing at a higher level before you are officially elevated to it.
I also see more racism, sexism and low key bullying per 3 months in civie street than in 12.5 years in the army.
This cross references to @amazing__lobster in another thread, in the army of my time such events were dealt with by the blokes themselves. in civie street the tosser's are protected.
 
I recall reading Prof. Keith Simpson's book in the 1980s where he stated that the autopsies done on the Bloody Sunday deceased revealed all bar one had gun shot residue on their hands, the one who didn't was killed by a ricochet.
NB - I am recalling this from 30 odd years ago so my memory may have confused some of the facts.
I can remember being told in the late 80s, early 90s by some retired VSO types that they reckoned a good few bodies where "planted" south of the border following Bloody Sunday...
 
I think the difference between civilian and military promotion is that civilians are always advanced one step beyond what they are comfortably capable of, whereas in the military you have to show yourself capable of performing at a higher level before you are officially elevated to it.
How come we have so many incompetent ******* who can't do their job properly then?
 
Our officers would never lie, they live by their values and standards.
Actually I don't believe there was much lying on the part of the officers, Loden Jackson, Wilford etc. They simply repeated what they believed to have been true based on the accounts of the people who did the shooting, all of whom were liars. If the officers are at fault it is because they persisted in believing those lies out of misplaced loyalty to their men, regimental pride or a simple inability to accept what had happened, long after it was obvious that they were lies.
 

Latest Threads

Top