I'm very sure that is what we will hear in due course.
I suspect it would only be revealed should there be a 'trial of the facts' - something that might be pursued by the family of the victim. My gut says that is unlikely to happen - although the family might request and be granted access to the new evidence if they intended to pursue a civil action.

The totality of the case serves to illustrate the breadth of the tragedy of Op Banner on everyone involved. Frankly, if the UK government(s), individually over time, and collectively in the 'mother of parliaments', held the same level of courage, integrity, and honour as the young men they send into battle, and the same level of care for their citizens, all of the outstanding issues could be resolved either by opening the files or accepting corporate responsibility. The current situation where justice is denied and blame assigned to individuals is nothing short of hypocrisy that will do little to enhance the UK's attempt to reinvent itself as 'being back in business'.
 
I suspect it would only be revealed should there be a 'trial of the facts' - something that might be pursued by the family of the victim. My gut says that is unlikely to happen - although the family might request and be granted access to the new evidence if they intended to pursue a civil action.

The totality of the case serves to illustrate the breadth of the tragedy of Op Banner on everyone involved. Frankly, if the UK government(s), individually over time, and collectively in the 'mother of parliaments', held the same level of courage, integrity, and honour as the young men they send into battle, and the same level of care for their citizens, all of the outstanding issues could be resolved either by opening the files or accepting corporate responsibility. The current situation where justice is denied and blame assigned to individuals is nothing short of hypocrisy that will do little to enhance the UK's attempt to reinvent itself as 'being back in business'.
And of course the elected representatives in the Mother of all Parliaments can at least crawl back under the blanket of 'Parliamentary privilege'
Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for Members of both Houses to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House. Parliamentary privilege includes freedom of speech and the right of both Houses to regulate their own affairs.
 
And of course the elected representatives in the Mother of all Parliaments can at least crawl back under the blanket of 'Parliamentary privilege'
Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for Members of both Houses to allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside of the House. Parliamentary privilege includes freedom of speech and the right of both Houses to regulate their own affairs.
So no excuse then.
 
Correct


May he rest in peace

Time passed and age shouldn’t be a factor to avoid justice and a fair investigation, but these things dangling over you for years can’t be pleasant and are certainly not good for your general health


GBNEWS did a great summation of the duplicity of Blair over this

 
because he had allready been exonerated by HM govt so should not have gone to trial.Only done on insistens of SF memberes or the NI govt
Where had he been "exonerated"? He'd certainly been interviewed. I think it is clear that the original investigation was poor (no ballistic evidence collected for example; so they didn't know who fired the fatal shots).
On the evidence presented at this recent trial (and quoted in the media) his decision to open fire seems poor, if not unlawful (and certainly would have been under the ROE I served under 4 years later)
While we can debate the public interest in pursuing an old man over events that happened many years ago, the family of John Pat Cunningham probably have a different perspective.
 
Where had he been "exonerated"? He'd certainly been interviewed. I think it is clear that the original investigation was poor (no ballistic evidence collected for example; so they didn't know who fired the fatal shots).
On the evidence presented at this recent trial (and quoted in the media) his decision to open fire seems poor, if not unlawful (and certainly would have been under the ROE I served under 4 years later)
While we can debate the public interest in pursuing an old man over events that happened many years ago, the family of John Pat Cunningham probably have a different perspective.
Not probably, defiantly a very different perspective and one that I rather think will keep burning. Watch for them to switch target.
 
I suspect it would only be revealed should there be a 'trial of the facts' - something that might be pursued by the family of the victim. My gut says that is unlikely to happen - although the family might request and be granted access to the new evidence if they intended to pursue a civil action.

The totality of the case serves to illustrate the breadth of the tragedy of Op Banner on everyone involved. Frankly, if the UK government(s), individually over time, and collectively in the 'mother of parliaments', held the same level of courage, integrity, and honour as the young men they send into battle, and the same level of care for their citizens, all of the outstanding issues could be resolved either by opening the files or accepting corporate responsibility. The current situation where justice is denied and blame assigned to individuals is nothing short of hypocrisy that will do little to enhance the UK's attempt to reinvent itself as 'being back in business'.

Just to be clear, what I mean by I expect we will hear that given is the reason itself (not in the public interest) from the powers that be rather than we will hear what the evidence actually was or wasn't.
 
Not probably, defiantly a very different perspective and one that I rather think will keep burning. Watch for them to switch target.
I think the Cunningham family have been exploited as much as Dennis was harassed, they are both victims of a political agenda, and neither has achieved a satisfactory conclusion. A sad situation all round.
 
Last edited:
Just to be clear, what I mean by I expect we will hear that given is the reason itself (not in the public interest) from the powers that be rather than we will hear what the evidence actually was or wasn't.
I understood that. If kicking into the long grass was an Olympic sport, the UK would be undisputed champions.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I understood that. If kicking into the long grass was an Olympic sport, the UK would be undisputed champions.
We are. We're also the longest lasting parliamentary democracy (I think). Perhaps these two things are related?
 
We are. We're also the longest lasting parliamentary democracy (I think). Perhaps these two things are related?
Highly debatable as that claim would depend on an acceptance of a range of definitions - democracy perhaps the most contentious. My own view that a democracy requires a parliament (or another so-called assembly) that is representative of all of the people through a direct franchise would exclude a fair chunk of the evolution of the UK Parliament because, at best, it can only claim to have been a 'representative assembly' for much of its existence. Bottom line is that the 'representatives' were far short of representing the whole population - thus, representative, but not democratic.
 
Highly debatable as that claim would depend on an acceptance of a range of definitions - democracy perhaps the most contentious. My own view that a democracy requires a parliament (or another so-called assembly) that is representative of all of the people through a direct franchise would exclude a fair chunk of the evolution of the UK Parliament because, at best, it can only claim to have been a 'representative assembly' for much of its existence. Bottom line is that the 'representatives' were far short of representing the whole population - thus, representative, but not democratic.
Even today the governing party does not represent the majority of the population, we would need to move to proportional representation to achieve that.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Even today the governing party does not represent the majority of the population, we would need to move to proportional representation to achieve that.
Highly debatable as that claim would depend on an acceptance of a range of definitions - democracy perhaps the most contentious. My own view that a democracy requires a parliament (or another so-called assembly) that is representative of all of the people through a direct franchise would exclude a fair chunk of the evolution of the UK Parliament because, at best, it can only claim to have been a 'representative assembly' for much of its existence. Bottom line is that the 'representatives' were far short of representing the whole population - thus, representative, but not democratic.
Oh bore off the pair of you!

Fcuking Libdems....
 
Of course it will not require the Irish Government to admit that it was ever part of a dirty nasty game. I note the Boss has been advised to rest regarding her Belfast visit. I would an' all. After all Partition was never what Britain wanted in the first place
 
Even today the governing party does not represent the majority of the population, we would need to move to proportional representation to achieve that.

PR doesnt always result in that either, it fact it can be worse.
 
Of course it will not require the Irish Government to admit that it was ever part of a dirty nasty game. I note the Boss has been advised to rest regarding her Belfast visit. I would an' all. After all Partition was never what Britain wanted in the first place
And has said She is disappointed She will no longer be able to visit Northern Ireland...That's not a statement one hears often...
 
And has said She is disappointed She will no longer be able to visit Northern Ireland...That's not a statement one hears often...
The Palace statement did say that "The Queen sends her warmest good wishes to the people of Northern Ireland and looks forward to visiting in the future."
 

Latest Threads

Top