More justification why its fine that a 12 year old was shot in the back even though the RUC thought it was manslaughter, the HET think the RUC investigation was correct and the MOD are not backing up the soldiers version.

If it goes back to court maybe it will be a bit more of a fair trial than one bloke in the 70s making a decision.


You said that the soldier involved should answer for his actions - answer is that he did just that, in court, and was acquitted.

You then inferred that that court case was unreliable and there should, in effect, be a retrial - i pointed out to you that, legally, that could only happen if there was new and compelling evidence that was not available to the prosecution at the time of the original trial. You haven’t presented any, or even suggested any such evidence exists.
 
I’m not making excuses, it’s a travesty that she was killed, but it doesn’t make it murder.
Ha Ha...You've just shut yourself in the empty room with the loony!
 
There you go then. Whats the issue?

That maybe the courts were bias?
I thought that was sort of the point of the Irish bumping their gums.
 
You said that the soldier involved should answer for his actions - answer is that he did just that, in court, and was acquitted.

You then inferred that that court case was unreliable and there should, in effect, be a retrial - i pointed out to you that, legally, that could only happen if there was new and compelling evidence that was not available to the prosecution at the time of the original trial. You haven’t presented any, or even suggested any such evidence exists.

In a Diplock court in the 1970s.

As I dont have access to police files its unlikely I know why the MOD wont back up the soldiers involved.

Normally if a 12 year old girl had been shot in the back twice in the UK by the old bill and the police force said that the shooter (plus his friends) were unlikely to be telling the truth and there was a trial with one judge (and no jury) made the decision that the shooter was telling the truth. The outrage on here would be immense, but because its a soldier, it different.
 
In a Diplock court in the 1970s.

As I dont have access to police files its unlikely I know why the MOD wont back up the soldiers involved.

Normally if a 12 year old girl had been shot in the back twice in the UK by the old bill and the police force said that the shooter (plus his friends) were unlikely to be telling the truth and there was a trial with one judge (and no jury) made the decision that the shooter was telling the truth. The outrage on here would be immense, but because its a soldier, it different.

I say again, and you don’t seem to be listening

It doesn’t matter

Legally the only possible justification for a new trial after an acquittal would be on the basis of new and compelling evidence. It’s the very basis of double jeopardy, or autrefois acquit. (And recalling even the new and compelling evidence bit only dates from 2003)
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
In a Diplock court in the 1970s.

As I dont have access to police files its unlikely I know why the MOD wont back up the soldiers involved.

Normally if a 12 year old girl had been shot in the back twice in the UK by the old bill and the police force said that the shooter (plus his friends) were unlikely to be telling the truth and there was a trial with one judge (and no jury) made the decision that the shooter was telling the truth. The outrage on here would be immense, but because its a soldier, it different.
Give it a rest you dull, unpleasant troll. You're nothing but a collection of attempts to offend.
 

Longlenny

War Hero
Book Reviewer
The judiciary should not be in the business of extending the hand of friendship to anyone, whether they are forces of the crown or not.
I see that you went to the Stacker school of comprehension. I did not say that I expected the hand of friendship from the Coroner. What I did say was that the locals of the area did not extend the hand of friendship to my colleagues or myself in 1972. Twat.
 
It wasnt the citizens, it was a small group of criminals, those at the top made a financial killing, those at the bottom, just killings.
Most Insurgent armies aren't picky about recruits and criminality goes hand in hand with any non-state actors as that thing you don't want to say (WAR), is an expensive business. The only reason PIRA had its hands semi-clean financially during the troubles was it could afford not to exploit its own people, as it had so much external funding (US, Irish Republic, Eurotrash groups and Libya).

Emcon Rule of War No.1: Shoot first and often, to make sure of the job.... The theory of Courageous restraint is a noble thing and might have saved that little innocent girl. But then again, it may have ended with the death of a soldier and in the exchange of fire a dead girl anyway. You or me, don't know if that outcome may have happened and why I choose to not label people as guilty and the other side innocent until its proven.
 
The only reason PIRA had its hands semi-clean financially during the troubles was it could afford not to exploit its own people, as it had so much external funding (US, Irish Republic, Eurotrash groups and Libya).
Wrong.

The application of forensic accounting police methods to PIRA funding streams from the late 1970s onwards revealed that the majority of PIRA's income was indeed domestic in origin: illegal shebeens, slot machines, protection rackets from drivers of black cabs were all nice little earners, but the the biggie (practiced by Proddie gangs and PIRA, under a pretty formal agreement as to whose turf was whose) was protection rackets on property developers: no backhanders = no workers showing up at the site. So the developers would ramp up their quotes to incorporate the overhead, which - by virtue of the fact that much of the building that went on in NI during The Troubles - was government-funded, meant that the Crown (or taxpayers, if you prefer) was indirectly/unknowingly funding the armed struggle against it.

NORAID, by comparison, and despite its high profile, was a drop in the Republican money ocean.
 
Wrong.

The application of forensic accounting police methods to PIRA funding streams from the late 1970s onwards revealed that the majority of PIRA's income was indeed domestic in origin: illegal shebeens, slot machines, protection rackets from drivers of black cabs were all nice little earners, but the the biggie (practiced by Proddie gangs and PIRA, under a pretty formal agreement as to whose turf was whose) was protection rackets on property developers: no backhanders = no workers showing up at the site. So the developers would ramp up their quotes to incorporate the overhead, which - by virtue of the fact that much of the building that went on in NI during The Troubles - was government-funded, meant that the Crown (or taxpayers, if you prefer) was indirectly/unknowingly funding the armed struggle against it.

NORAID, by comparison, and despite its high profile, was a drop in the Republican money ocean.
Foreign currency is what you need to fuel a war.
 
Wrong.

The application of forensic accounting police methods to PIRA funding streams from the late 1970s onwards revealed that the majority of PIRA's income was indeed domestic in origin: illegal shebeens, slot machines, protection rackets from drivers of black cabs were all nice little earners, but the the biggie (practiced by Proddie gangs and PIRA, under a pretty formal agreement as to whose turf was whose) was protection rackets on property developers: no backhanders = no workers showing up at the site. So the developers would ramp up their quotes to incorporate the overhead, which - by virtue of the fact that much of the building that went on in NI during The Troubles - was government-funded, meant that the Crown (or taxpayers, if you prefer) was indirectly/unknowingly funding the armed struggle against it.

NORAID, by comparison, and despite its high profile, was a drop in the Republican money ocean.
Agreed, nearly a decade ago the Real Ira income was estimated at 32 million a year. They have criminality sewn Real IRA 'is ninth richest terror group in the world'
 
Wrong.

The application of forensic accounting police methods to PIRA funding streams from the late 1970s onwards revealed that the majority of PIRA's income was indeed domestic in origin: illegal shebeens, slot machines, protection rackets from drivers of black cabs were all nice little earners, but the the biggie (practiced by Proddie gangs and PIRA, under a pretty formal agreement as to whose turf was whose) was protection rackets on property developers: no backhanders = no workers showing up at the site. So the developers would ramp up their quotes to incorporate the overhead, which - by virtue of the fact that much of the building that went on in NI during The Troubles - was government-funded, meant that the Crown (or taxpayers, if you prefer) was indirectly/unknowingly funding the armed struggle against it.

NORAID, by comparison, and despite its high profile, was a drop in the Republican money ocean.

To add.............. post my military career and on a tour of the Creggan, a 'figure' was pointed out to me who was a UVF drug dealer. PIRA and all other splitters tolerated such presences as they also provided a financial return.

NORAID income was directed to PIRA welfare, though there were issues raised at the numerous Ard Feis that it should be used for the purchase of armaments and the facilitating of 'operations'. Another American, organisation, more discreet, met the financial cost of their armour, even allowing for the military gifts from Libya.

PIRA also undertook proxy killings/skills training for elements such as the Basques and FARC which contributed to the coffers. They even opened a 'consular' office of sorts in Cuba.
 
Agreed, nearly a decade ago the Real Ira income was estimated at 32 million a year. They have criminality sewn Real IRA 'is ninth richest terror group in the world'
IRA funding outside Ulster was entirely driven by foreign donations. Following the Anglo-Irish agreement the funding streams started to dry up and the IRA started to run more criminal operations, but I can't think of any insurgency group that didn't run illegal activities, or tax the criminal world.
 
Have you considered enrolling in a remedial English course? Concentrate on spelling, punctuation and grammar.

Don't worry - the internet's quaking in its boots, you'll be sure to win soon.
Harsh… don’t you know that someone has exchanged his apostrophe key for one which says “is it ok to shoot a 12yr old twice in the back?”.
 

Arte_et_Marte

ADC
Moderator
He was subject to the justice system.

You appear to be under the delusion you are right.
Here it is in a nutshell.

Lee Cleg was found guilty.
Lee Clegg appealed and was released after new evidence came to light.

The lad that shot the lass in the back was found not guilty.
@stacker1 wants to know, if new evidence comes to light, why can't he have a second trial?

Both of those statements are part of the judicial system and, although he is arguing for the sake of it, I see Stackers point.
 

Latest Threads

Top