Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You're against this review then?
No. I'm against Leftard Common Purpose Judges though.
What exactly does it achieve and how? The problem starts with the circumstances under which troops are deployed and continues with the degree to which our political masters can be pressurised by special interest groups. Any decent soldier knows what murder is, the problem is to do with ROEs and political blame-dodging/opportunism.
How would the announced inquiry into investigation methods etc be like Widgery and Saville, which were inquiries into an event? Why do you think the problem is to do with ROE's?
Because the outcome of any enquiry is only as strong as the resolve of the powers that be to respect it. When it becomes expedient to set it aside, that's generally what happens.
Do you have any examples of which bits of LOAC you don't want to apply to those who don't observe it?
I agree it's contentious but I was referring to the specific ruling that the shots fired when the vehicle was approaching them were legitimate but not the shot when the vehicle had passed. It's excessively legalistic, hence the complete muddle that followed and the eventual outcome of the appeals.That may well be, but I suspect you've picked a bad example.
You're referring to the "Lee Clegg Affair" where the patrol were so confident of their behaviour under the Rules of Engagement that they immediately picked one of their number, declared "you're it", and stamped on his leg to add evidence to their claim that the vehicle had been a danger to them? The one where a soldier was convicted of an attempt to pervert the course of justice? Where the RUC officer gave evidence in court that contradicted the patrol's assertions? That patrol?
Soldier of misfortune
Lee Clegg, a paratrooper convicted of murdering a Belfast teenager, cou ld soon be free. Nick Cohen reports on a miscarriage of justice case that is li ke no otherwww.independent.co.uk
Wander down a road known for joyriding, on a joyrider deterrence patrol, in the dark, without any significant indication that there's any VCP, then see a joyrider head past. What a surprise.
From the linked article:
What had happened was that RUC Constable R W Gibson had gone on patrol on the night of the killings with 17 paratroopers. The constable knew that joyriding was endemic in his area of West Belfast. He could hear the screeching of tyres as he came on duty and read in the station incident book that there had been complaints about stolen cars earlier in the evening.
He briefed the commander of the Parachute Regiment patrol, Lieutenant Andrew Oliver, that the purpose of the late-night work was to deter joyriders. The courts heard that the officer did not tell this to his men. The first checkpoint the paratroopers made was a recognisable barrier of armoured vehicles. But after five uneventful minutes the vehicles were sent away and the patrol split up and walked down the road in staggered formation.
The paratroopers were now, in Army jargon, a "rolling vehicle checkpoint". In plain language this meant that when Peake drove the stolen car down the unlit road towards the outskirts of West Belfast, all he could see ahead were dark figures shouting and flashing torches.
Peake slowed down when he met the first group of soldiers, then revved up and sped off. The soldiers shouted at their comrades up ahead to stop him. This they did by pouring rounds into the car. The police were unable to prove who killed Peake. Ms Reilly was shot twice, and the courts found that one of the fatal bullets came from Clegg's gun.
I haven't had a LOAC brief for a few years but, IIRC there isn't "assumption of POW protection for combatants fighting in civvies" granted by LOAC.
Isn't that what LOAC says
