Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
This one was covered off before and the general consensus was an ND, covered up by the patrol who rustled up some imaginary gunman or two and the lie got out of hand.
You may be right, and that might have happened. But that is not beyond reasonable doubt, and was not proven in a court of law. The soldier was found not guilty, which means that unless compelling new evidence is found. he should be allowed to live his life as an innocent man.
 
You may be right, and that might have happened. But that is not beyond reasonable doubt, and was not proven in a court of law. The soldier was found not guilty, which means that unless compelling new evidence is found. he should be allowed to live his life as an innocent man.
All very Rumpole but I never suggested he was guilty of anything.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
All very Rumpole but I never suggested he was guilty of anything.
Nor did I say you had. I simply made the point that the balance of opinion on Arrse which you referred to doesn't outweigh the judgement of a Court presented with the available facts.
 
That makes fascinating reading and is a very balanced and well-argued judgement, as of course one would expect from a senior judge.

Reading it and seeing how the entire case rested on the 1972 statements that the soldiers were ordered to give without caution or legal advice one cannot but otherwise concur with the judge in his ruling. There was no way convictions could have been secured on such evidence (that's not to say that hundreds of similar convictions of terrorists in the 1970s weren't secured on a hell of a lot flimsier evidence, but it's 2021 we are dealing with, not the 1970s).

However, for those wishing to take this judgement as a vindication of the benign role of the state and its agents in NI during the 1970s the judgement gives short shrift to that notion.

"At that time, in fact until late 1973, an understanding was in place between the RUC and the Army whereby the RUC did not arrest and question, or even take witness statements from, soldiers involved in shootings such as this one. This appalling practice was designed, at least in part, to protect soldiers from being prosecuted and in very large measure it succeeded."

An appalling practice is indeed what it was, and the judge's ruling is a vindication of what the relatives have been saying all along; no proper investigations were carried out because the state, in the shape of the Army and the RUC, conspired to prevent them.

In conclusion the judge states

"The problem with investigating the killing of Mr McCann does not date back to 2010, it dates back to 1972. In large part that was because of the agreement between the RUC and Army which lasted until 1973 and which precluded the police from questioning soldiers. Many judges before me have condemned that practice. I join them in doing so."

This makes very uncomfortable reading indeed for those of us who believe the people of Northern Ireland, as British subjects living in the United Kingdom, no matter what their political beliefs, were and are entitled to the full rights and protection of the British legal system.
 
This one was covered off before and the general consensus was an ND, covered up by the patrol who rustled up some imaginary gunman or two and the lie got out of hand.
Its plausible. But what goes against that hypothetical is the absence of the civilian witnesses reporting any kind of angry response from his fellow soldiers. You would have expected a furious reaction, because that burst could have hit one of our own.

What is odd is if you thought a bad guy was about, you wouldn't fire a single burst, but surely let fly. I've the sense that something startled the soldier enough to react in an involuntary way.
 

anglo

LE
If these investigations include everyone, how come the IRA haven't
been investigated for war crimes, for

Troubles: The children killed in line of fire in Northern Ireland

Republicans have been accused of trying to cover up the deaths of IRA child soldiers - some 19 children between the ages of 12 and 16 - during the Troubles.
Six were shot dead by the Army during gun battles in Belfast and Londonderry. The youngest boy to die, Sean O'Riordan (14) from the Lower Falls area, was killed during an attack on soldiers. Locals said he had been active in the IRA and used as a sniper and for transporting guns for up to a year at the time. Two others were shot during clashes with loyalists.
They claim that there have been efforts to cover up the IRA's use of child soldiers as republicans seek to revise the history of the Troubles to make it appear as if the IRA was purely a defensive organisation.
The issue of child soldiers in the IRA has been kept quiet, though the republican movement does include most of those under-aged combatants on its 'roles of honour'.


No wonder people think the system is biased against the British Army
 
If there was any possibility of the terrorist groups taking part in that in good faith then it would make sense, but there isn't.

All that will happen is the Govt, Police and Army will cooperate fully, provide witnesses, documentation and evidence from previous enquiries while the terror groups will only admit to the things they want to. The media will be full of stories from it of the terrible things the security forces did and anyone looking at the media coverage will believe that the Troubles only happened because the security forces were doing terrible things.

Meanwhile PSF will be pissing themselves laughing because we have just done their job for them.

Yup.

Say nothing.
 
But what goes against that hypothetical is the absence of the civilian witnesses reporting any kind of angry response from his fellow soldiers
Could be they either thought they were in contact or the reaction of the civilians to the casualty might have taken over any reaction as they were too busy for recriminations
 
Good effort at spreading the whataboutery to a wider catchment but Post #1823 still refers, so off you pop to rant at someone else, troll.

Maybe you should look up the definition of whataboutery.
 
You can't prove intent to kill the girl, because even the original investigation was clear on that point.
You can't prove a sniper did NOT exist, because the IRA are unreliable and who knows what it was.
You can't prove negligent discharge (threat to his buddies). Because even the witnesses on the day, did not detect any arguments amongst the section and trust me a neg always initiates angry exchanges.

But you insist on calling something you can't prove as a 'crime', because the HET/MOD and the rest of the politically correct brigade were willing to treat the case as another 'How does your emotions judge the case' and killing a bairn is almost certainly a crime in heaven.

No one said he intending to kill the girl.



Were the RUC of 1972 "politically correct"?
 

Arte_et_Marte

ADC
Moderator
Are they proud Irish just celebrating their history or are they aggressively anti English?
They are very favourable to English visitors, so aggressive is too harsh a word. They are anti British Army though.
Because I wasn't from the village, I was known as a "blow in." In Ireland this can be used affectionately, but in West Cork, depending on who you are talking to, it's an insult.
 
Could be they either thought they were in contact or the reaction of the civilians to the casualty might have taken over any reaction as they were too busy for recriminations
Probability terms your probably right and my sense is the section reached the road which would have increased anxiety and the whole section was spooked by something enough to trigger anti-ambush drills and the probability was the girl or witnesses, were seen as some form of dicker after the contact and accounts for the surly attitudes.

However, probability is not an absolute and the men are innocent in my book on this and most of the cases by the laws of the time. Today, the men would be expected to take fire and likely die to protect the moral principle but the costs are heavy for the families of men who die because they're were slow to react in a war.
 

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
Are they proud Irish just celebrating their history or are they aggressively anti English?
In 2016 a bunch of us went to Dublin on a '1916 uprising' tour. Some of the boozers we went in were not the sort a tourist would use & we were met with glares, we explained what we were doing & they were all keen to gives us local knowledge of what happened that area, made it all the more enjoyable & informative.
 
In 2016 a bunch of us went to Dublin on a '1916 uprising' tour. Some of the boozers we went in were not the sort a tourist would use & we were met with glares, we explained what we were doing & they were all keen to gives us local knowledge of what happened that area, made it all the more enjoyable & informative.
That would have been this boozer:

1620328182478.png
 
Not like the type of people to ignore soldiers killing people in the UK under questionable circumstances then? Not like the sort of people who blame it on Sinn Fein then go quiet when they realise just how few soldiers have been charged? Not like the sort of people who said no women were shot on bloody Sunday (alluding that those shot were the age and sex of the IRA) then when it was pointed out that a woman was shot, the narrative changes to women could be in the IRA as well. Not like those who are adamant that the court must have been right in the 70s, but are silent on whether Lee Cleggs original verdict was correct.

What's sad about it, is that if the police had shot a load of people in mainland Britain under the same circumstances I reckon the majority on here would be screaming that they are held to account. But when it's soldiers, it's utterly unthinkable that it might be possible that they did something wrong.
Well I tell you what, When Ireland finds the bugger who threatened my Dad and his mother in 1916 and apologises for their behaviour to my family; when the Irish Government apologises for allowing SF to represent a proscribed organisation and turning a tacit blind eye to shooting Squaddies on U.K. territory and the illicit activities on English soil, I shall give a flying wotsit. Respect to those who were there, It wasn’t as if I wasn’t prepared to go.
 

Latest Threads

Top