Historical Accuracy

Hello all,
Just to explain -
In addition to my day job, one of my hobbies is writing fiction.
I have a story character who served as a soldier in Northern Ireland in 1986. He was reprimanded for seriously beating a young Republican lad who attacked him with a scaffold pole.

I wonder if any servicemen who were actually there at the time would mind helping out with filling in the details of what would have happened to this character as part of his reprimand.
Court Martial?
Civilian prosecution?
Discharge?
Prison?

All info gratefully received.

H
 
In my time he would have got some serious amount of beer bought for him in the NAAFI that evening.
hope that helps?
 
Possibly the scaffold pole was too long to wield as a weapon with ease. Perhaps it was a short length of pipe, not necessarily "Scaffold pole."
Depending on both sides of the story, it looks like a case of self-defence, M'lud. He attacked the soldier and the soldier defended himself. Not much of a story line I'm afraid.
Point to note as a writer of fiction. Is the incident you mention "Fiction, faction or fact?"
Probably a good idea to go back to the drawing board. :cool:
 
Possibly the scaffold pole was too long to wield as a weapon with ease. Perhaps it was a short length of pipe, not necessarily "Scaffold pole."
Depending on both sides of the story, it looks like a case of self-defence, M'lud. He attacked the soldier and the soldier defended himself. Not much of a story line I'm afraid.
Point to note as a writer of fiction. Is the incident you mention "Fiction, faction or fact?"
Probably a good idea to go back to the drawing board. :cool:
So there would be a trial?
Military or civilian?
In NI or on the mainland?
 
The soldier's rifle would have been attached by a chest harness and would make delivering a beating difficult. He's much more likely to have shown heroic restraint and walked away. But that doesn't help your Soldier=Thug lazy plot line I'm afraid.
 
The soldier's rifle would have been attached by a chest harness and would make delivering a beating difficult. He's much more likely to have shown heroic restraint and walked away. But that doesn't help your Soldier=Thug lazy plot line I'm afraid.
I haven't suggested that anyone was a thug.
But it's an interesting point - presumably soldiers were discouraged from acting in such a manner. What form did the discouragement take?
 
Specifically though...

Is he arrested? If so, by whom?
What would typical due process be?

That's what I after


With all due respect, if you are asking these basic and defamatory plotline questions for a novel, it may be prudent for you to reconsider your subject.....perhaps something to do with the Army Air Corps in NI.... I've set out a plot line for you and attached it....

8ef0628b4a84dc372b0384c957419a54.jpg
 
A few thoughts for your plot. Individual kids don't often attack army patrols due to the risk/reward factor being low, unless it was a set up with a photographer looking for the single picture to prove the army bloke was going over the top. If he was unjustly accused in this way then in he still has the [probably three] other men in the patrol as witnesses. So for your plot to proceed his mates have to hate him enough to be willing to go along with the story. As an FYI this is almost certainly why the copper pictured abusing the striking miner was not prosecuted, if you take a still photo at just the correct second you can make it say what you want.

A reprimand is your CO giving you a bollocking and possibly putting it on your record; otherwise we’re talking a trial civil or military. Trials are trials, witnesses evidence etc. A CO’s reprimand is a bit more arbitrary; so if your protagonist has a bad reputation, deserved or not he might get unfairly punished.

Queens regs are on line at
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440632/20150529-QR_Army_Amdt_31_Jul_2013.pdf
not much will have changed.
 
With all due respect, if you are asking these basic and defamatory plotline questions for a novel, it may be prudent for you to reconsider your subject.....perhaps something to do with the Army Air Corps in NI.... I've set out a plot line for you and attached it....

View attachment 331329
"See the big fast plane fly"
Not talking about an AAC Beaver then!
 
Hello all,
Just to explain -
In addition to my day job, one of my hobbies is writing fiction.
I have a story character who served as a soldier in Northern Ireland in 1986. He was reprimanded for seriously beating a young Republican lad who attacked him with a scaffold pole.

I wonder if any servicemen who were actually there at the time would mind helping out with filling in the details of what would have happened to this character as part of his reprimand.
Court Martial?
Civilian prosecution?
Discharge?
Prison?

All info gratefully received.

H
There’s an obvious lack of context here (and I really suspect there’s an agenda given your tone, the way you jumped straight to assumption of guilt and punishment, and your reply to @ordinaryforces).

All soldiers, just like all members of the public, are entitled by law to defend themselves when attacked, even by a republican with a scaffold pole. So, a few questions to consider; what was the situation (e.g. in a pub car park, on patrol, in a dark alley, long after his service), was the soldier injured during the attack and if so how severely, was there any immediate backup available, were there any mitigating circumstances (such as the attack being carried out in the middle of a riot)? In other words, was the “beating” justified under the circumstances (including the soldier’s fear, confusion, inexperience), was it excessive, was the attacker arrested, charged? (Just on that latter point, if anyone tries to attack me with a scaffold pole I’d like to think, if possible, I’d more than likely not let up on the assailant until he was utterly incapable of further violence, and sod any injuries he might suffer. I don’t know about you, but I somehow feel that that would be justified and the courts would likely be sympathetic (okay, maybe not so much the last bit.))

From there, there would be a great many possibilities, from a quick check on the circumstances of the event while the soldier recovers from his wounds in hospital all the way up to and including military and civilian courts and appropriate punishment. Without the context it’s impossible to say.

What I will say as someone who served there in the ‘80s is that unless it wasn’t possible, such as in the heat of a riot or him being alone, his fellow soldiers would have quickly intervened to help him and restrain the attacker -- even if robustly. The training was to diffuse and not enflame whenever possible (look up “courageous restraint”).

From your post you seem to have painted the soldier as the villain, despite the fact he was the one attacked, and with something that could have severely injured or killed him. That will, or at least should, colour any disciplinary outcome.
 

Latest Threads

Top