Pigs are Flying The IRA Finally admit it was THEY who caused a death!

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Abdiel, Feb 25, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So are they going to turn over the cnuts that ordered/made/planted it too?
  2. Signs not too optimistic saying sorry halfheartedly will suffice or so they think.
  3. It wouldn't really make a difference, they wouldn't go to jail for it.
  4. No, but they'd have to drink in bars where people knew them to be child murdering arrseholes... even fellow republican terrorist scum would think a little less of them.




  6. Us, if anyone.
  7. If the cnuts have stopped killing and maiming innocents then I'll chalk that up as a win to us (ie the British Armed Forces). If they want to leave UK and join EIRE then they can... just like the Jocks gaining independence. If enough of the locals want it then why not.

    This cnuts 'cause' was defiled and sullied the moment innocent blood was spilled.
  8. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Maybe the Norn Irish government could hold an enquiry, calling the Deputy
    Leader and his cronies. Lawyers could make a fortune. Army & police could give evidence anonymously and with full immunity. Couple of hundred million should cover it.

    What chances ?
    • Like Like x 2
  9. I very much doubt it, all sorts of "accidents" happened in the name of the cause.
  10. We did. Check out the flag over Stormont. Note how many gallant Volunteers are now safely playing politics.

  11. “Section 40 [Terrorism Act 2000] of the Act gives an even wider definition of 'terrorist'. By section 40(1) a terrorist means a person who has committed various offences created by the Act and in addition by s.40(1)(b) who "is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". S.40 (2) provides:-

    "The reference in subsection (1) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1."

    Thus once a terrorist always a terrorist whether or not the person in question has renounced his past or circumstances have changed (for example where the acts of terrorism occurred in a country whose government, perhaps because dictatorial and oppressive, has since been overthrown). Indeed, the terrorist may have become a respected and respectable member or even leader of the new government of that country. Nevertheless, he is still a terrorist within the meaning of the 2000 Act.”

    Per Collins J: CC v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another [2011] EWHC 3316 (Admin) at para 5​

    Contrast the position of Mr McGuinness with that of a young man who wants to go to University:

    R v (T) (1) Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department (Secretary of State for Justice an interested Party [2012] EWHC 147 the claimant was an 11 year old boy when he received a warning (a private procedure, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1999 from Greater Manchester Police for the theft of two bicycles. His subsequent conduct was apparently exemplary. By Section 113B Police Act 1997, Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates must contain all convictions, cautions and warnings. The claimant, now 20 years old wanted to apply for a sports studies course at University. His ECRC contained details of his warning. His argument that this was a disproportionate requirement, the effect of which was to deny him the opportunity of higher education failed.

    Thus, as a matter of English law, if you are a terrorist, you may obtain a post within an executive branch of a devolved government. If, on the other hand, you are a naughty boy aged 11, you will bear the mark of Cain for life and be lucky to get a job as a cleaner! You will not be allowed access to children in school, let alone Higher Education, but someone English law recognises as a terrorist like McGuinness has held the education portfolio with responsibility for educating them!

    Put in another way, crime pays if it is really big and hurts lots of people. Crime does not pay if you are weak, powerless and either do not carry a gun or have the ability to get others to carry them on your behalf!
  12. That is something of a legal distortion of the way the procedure works in relation to ECRB disclosures.

    First, the authority, employer or organisation seeking the disclosure must have a sufficient reason for doing so - this is usually to the effect that the person on whom the check is being made is likely to be working with children and/or vulnerable adults in a position of trust which may be unsupervised.

    Second, whilst warnings, cautions, convictions and fines must be disclosed, intelligence which did not lead to any of these is left to the discretion of a local Chief Constable as to whether it is disclosed. The legal criterion that must be fulfilled is whether the intelligence gathered could reflect upon the applicant's suitability for the position sought.

    Finally, even in the event a person seeking ECRB disclosure prior to taking up a position requiring it does have a record, the fact that this record exists does not bind the organisation to rejecting the applicant. Factors such as age, circumstances, subsequent development are all taken into account. It is unlikely ever to reflect well upon a person's character if they have a prior criminal history of whatever degree, but it is not, as you imply, an automatic bar to taking up the position sought.

    As for Higher Education - I speak whereof I know. The decision over whether to reject an applicant for an HE place requiring ECRB is taken by admissions tutors, who are permitted to consider all of the circumstances of the case. They are not bound, as a matter of course, to reject somebody on the basis of what information is turned up by an ECRB check. I have known people to be admitted to relevant courses of study regardless of their somewhat erratic behaviour as children.

    That said, the ECRB system is rather excessive, and is yet another one of New Labour's "we must never allow this to happen again" approaches to criminal behaviour, whereby the government erects a vast, coercive apparatus to vet and control its subjects under the dubious notion that a very small minority might, potentially, be paedophiles or a Harold Shipman in waiting.

    As for McGuinness, don't get me started!

  13. Unfortunately-the catholics are out breeding the prods-and its all about numbers and time.