British Soldier F gets away with murder.

[AnyName1]

I know little is taught in British schools about the north of Ireland, so wondered if people were aware of this shocking case.

villagemagazine.ie/the-guilt-of-an-unscrupulous-former-lord-chief-justice-in-the-soldier-f-cover-up-paratrooper-who-murdered-unarmed-civilians-on-bloody-sunday-has-been-protected-by-the-british-state-for-five-decades-an/

"Soldier F also known as ‘Dave’ will not now face criminal charges for the murder of innocent civilians in Derry on Bloody Sunday, 30 January 1972. This is because the statement he made after the Bloody Sunday massacre was not taken by the RUC, but rather by the Royal Military Police. These statements have been deemed inadmissable as evidence. Since this was standard procedure at the time, it probably means that no soldiers will be prosecuted for murder in Northern Ireland.

The policy of excluding the RUC from the investigation of killings caused by British solidiers came into existence after Brigadier Frank Kitson took over in Belfast.

Earlier this year Judge James O’Hara presided over the trial of two paratroopers accused of shooting Official IRA volunteer, Joe McCann. He was shot while he ran away from the soldiers. After the trial collapsed, the judge pointed out that:

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."

this thread demonstrates to me yet again how history is not taught in the UK. If it were we surely wouldn't get this level of ignorance over and over again.

The British troops firing on civilians in Northern Ireland were firing on their own fellow citizens. Not some other country and certainly not Ireland.

It was a civil war - in the UK.

@Nat6999

None of us were there & none of us saw what these soldiers saw that day, all we have is second hand stories, I would imagine that there were things going on all around these soldiers, noise, smoke, shouting. While nobody should condone the shooting of a child, the day that soldiers have to be worried about prosecution when they fire their weapons is the day that they won't have their minds fully on the job at hand & most likely more innocent people could be hurt or killed.

I was kind of hoping that the soldiers you see around the place in the UK - you know, posing outside palaces, out on manoeuvres - oh and the armed police you might see managing protests and at airports etc. Them. In London, Manchester, Liverpool, Cardiff, Glasgow, Blackpool ... wherever.

I was hoping they would already face consequences if they pulled the trigger for no good reason. But, well, I'm not British. You tell me. Do they just get to go around shooting people over there? Because they might be distracted from their jobs if they had to think first?

Really. Please think. Did you really mean that?

@NiceGerbil

OP I'm not even slightly surprised.

It is unimaginable that there would be a prosection.

Totally different situation but it's the same dynamic with my police force.

I can think of at least two people they have murdered and then lied about it, in the last few years.

Someone else mentioned Hillsborough.

Same dynamic.

Absolutely

@pallisers

this thread demonstrates to me yet again how history is not taught in the UK. If it were we surely wouldn't get this level of ignorance over and over again.

The British troops firing on civilians in Northern Ireland were firing on their own fellow citizens. Not some other country and certainly not Ireland.

It was a civil war - in the UK.

They'd rather spend time on the Tudors or Victorians than anything relevant to people alive today.

We need a costume drama.

'I was hoping they would already face consequences if they pulled the trigger for no good reason. But, well, I'm not British. You tell me. Do they just get to go around shooting people over there? Because they might be distracted from their jobs if they had to think first?

Really. Please think. Did you really mean that?'

I just said that the only comparator I have is my local police.

They aren't armed as a rule.

I can think of two cases which I remember where they killed and then lied about it.

They never get done.

That dynamic would be increased with the armed forces i have no doubt.

It's an absolute disgrace
I heard Johnny mercer on the radio basically suggesting that Daniel Hegarty wasn't innocently roaming the streets
He was 15
15 years old
Shot twice in the BACK of the head. Defenceless.
His murder was 'unjustified and unjustifiable'
Soldier F and soldier B are cowardly dirty rotten murdering bastards.
They have a lot to answer for... would the troubles have been so intense if it weren't for Bloody Sunday???
I just hope they can sleep at night

I would have thought events that happened in Victorian times would be relevant - 1845.

all RuggerHug@ either you make it sound as if he purposely went up to a child and shot them nothing is that black and white.

But to be fair I've met lots of British people who are interested, concerned, informed. It was on history curricula at one stage. The otherwise loathsome David Cameron did centre Northern Ireland for an afternoon or so, after the Bloody Sunday enquiry. Major, Blair, Brown all took it seriously. Johnson has no interest in any of the devolved nations, never mind a case that might lose him support on the far right, which conservatives are absorbing post-Brexit. So there's a deliberate suppression of the facts here.

@NiceGerbil

'I was hoping they would already face consequences if they pulled the trigger for no good reason. But, well, I'm not British. You tell me. Do they just get to go around shooting people over there? Because they might be distracted from their jobs if they had to think first?

Really. Please think. Did you really mean that?'

I just said that the only comparator I have is my local police.

They aren't armed as a rule.

I can think of two cases which I remember where they killed and then lied about it.

They never get done.

That dynamic would be increased with the armed forces i have no doubt.

And of course I wouldn't deny that armed soldiers and police will sometimes shoot in self-defence, will sometimes misjudge a threat - but we know that wasn't the case with Bloody Sunday.

This is extraordinarily like the technicality that prevented prosecutions at Hillsborough - you're right.

I saw it on the news last night and felt so sorry for the friends and relatives of those killed. who are, naturally, outraged and bitter. Life is not fair.

However it was a war, unnecessary killings from both sides (the like of which I hope never to see again), and the IRA were pardoned.

Soldiers should not be punished for following orders. I wouldn't want to be in there shoes.

'And of course I wouldn't deny that armed soldiers and police will sometimes shoot in self-defence, will sometimes misjudge a threat - but we know that wasn't the case with Bloody Sunday.'

The two police related murders I mentioned were not in self defence.

You seem a bit naive TBH

Yep, so wrong

My dad was there on Bloody Sunday as a soldier & he spoke of it when this story first broke, not something he often does. He says it was way over due that they pay. They were a law unto themselves according to him, regular soldiers hated working them, so this isn't a case of it's war, you shouldn't prosecute soldiers. They broke their own rules & were brutal. So definitely wrong they get away with it due to a technicality

Soldiers should not be punished for following orders

Yes, they should if the orders are immoral.
Thankfully, lots of people don't agree with you, which is why they still prosecute SS guards in their 90s and why there are war crimes legislations.

@NiceGerbil

'And of course I wouldn't deny that armed soldiers and police will sometimes shoot in self-defence, will sometimes misjudge a threat - but we know that wasn't the case with Bloody Sunday.'

The two police related murders I mentioned were not in self defence.

You seem a bit naive TBH

I think you've misunderstood me there. I'm saying that shooting in self-defence is obviously reasonable. So Met police killing the London Bridge terrorist when he seemed to be reaching for a detonator. Horrible but nobody is going to prosecute them.

I'm not suggesting that's what happened in Derry or in the case you mention. I think some of the posters here imagine Bloody Sunday as a pitched gun battle between the IRA and British soldiers, from their comments. They can't seem to grasp that this was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians. I agree with you - if we accept this from the army, I presume we accept it from armed police too, so I'm not surprised you've heard of such cases

I'm not taking about the London bridge bloke.

@Pixxie7

all RuggerHug@ either you make it sound as if he purposely went up to a child and shot them nothing is that black and white.

It was soldier B who killed a child - also now off the hook. And yes, ballistic evidence suggests that's roughly what happened, which is why the case was reopened a few years ago.

If by not black and white, you mean that the child killed was at fault, that's shameful. A court has already examined that evidence.

If you just mean soldier B may have had his reasons ... let him stand trial and tell the court what happened. That's what a court case is for.

Yes I misunderstand bell.

@NiceGerbil

I'm not taking about the London bridge bloke.

I know. I'm really not sure why you're calling me naive and I don't want to derail the thread. I don't think the Bloody Sunday soldiers or the police you mention were acting in self defence. Obviously if they had been - as on London Bridge - it would make a difference. Soldier F and B should be prosecuted. Presume same applies to police you mention. Sorry if I've misunderstood you on some point. Off to bed but will see if I can make more sense of it on the morning.

Belleager No I don't mean that but think about when a soldier is in a situation where they are on patrol, if they need to be defending themselves & hesitate because they are worried about being prosecuted, those seconds they hesitate could lead to them being shot & killed. Look at when the London Bridge & Fishmonger's Hall attacks took place, the police marksmen took out their targets without hesitation, even though some of them had dummy suicide bomb vests on, had they hesitated more people may have been killed.

@NiceGerbil

Yes I misunderstand bell.

Oh sorry - crossed over. No worries. This thread could raise your blood pressure. ..

@Nat6999

Belleager No I don't mean that but think about when a soldier is in a situation where they are on patrol, if they need to be defending themselves & hesitate because they are worried about being prosecuted, those seconds they hesitate could lead to them being shot & killed. Look at when the London Bridge & Fishmonger's Hall attacks took place, the police marksmen took out their targets without hesitation, even though some of them had dummy suicide bomb vests on, had they hesitated more people may have been killed.

Sure but - genuine question - do you know that the British government has already accepted that that didn't happen on Bloody Sunday? That there were no grounds to fear such a threat?

@Nat6999

Belleager No I don't mean that but think about when a soldier is in a situation where they are on patrol, if they need to be defending themselves & hesitate because they are worried about being prosecuted, those seconds they hesitate could lead to them being shot & killed. Look at when the London Bridge & Fishmonger's Hall attacks took place, the police marksmen took out their targets without hesitation, even though some of them had dummy suicide bomb vests on, had they hesitated more people may have been killed.

Here's David Cameron @Nat6999. I appreciate your perspective but I really don't think you mean this kind of situation:

Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying.

The report refers to one person who was shot while crawling away from the soldiers. Another was shot in all probability when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground.

The report refers to the father who was hit and injured by army gunfire after going to attend to his son.

For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says that the immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of support company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries.

Crucially, that, and I quote, none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury or indeed was doing anything else that could, on any view, justified in shooting

Well, it was a long time ago now.