Prosecution of para after 50 years

[om15]

Prosecution of a member of the Parachute Regiment has been announced today, this for the "murder" of civilians in a protest in NI fifty years ago. If there was evidence that this person did commit murder at the time surely he should have been charged at the time.
Do we think that it is impossible for this person to receive a fair trial after such a period, or do we agree that he should be charged if the prosecution has the evidence.

[Boac]

There is no statute of limitations, I believe, on murder. He had best plead Cognative impairment.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Rumour has it the trial might last five years, it should be struck down on these grounds alone - cruel and unusual punishment..
For me, it's not that he's on trial, it's that the IRA got off scot free and no one's still chasing their murderers. This is not justice.
After the Iraq trials tragic farce, it's quite clear the UK Government hates Service personnel.
How's that recruiting going again?

[AtomKraft]

If this guy has to face a trial, then so should all those who fired in anger.

[4mastacker]

I suspect a lot of people would be very happy if the government showed some balls and ripped up the 'get-out-of-jail' letters that allows thugs and murderers from the terrorist side to roam free and then put them on trial, including the surviving leaders of that despicable organisation.

Justice is a two way street........unless the person involved is/was a British serviceman.

[Boac]

Indeed - I would support that. Was that Bliar?

[Pontius Navigator]

Yes it was.

May I commend a film The Foreigner. The principal baddie bore a remarkable similarity to a senior Provo. One of Pierce Bosnan's better performances.

[Undried Plum]

It is vital, yes vital, that all British servicemen understand and remember that their licence to carry firearms does not at all equate to a licence to kill.

In the atrocity known as "Bloody Sunday" British servicemen murdered a dozen or so civilians. Murder. Yes, murder. Carried out by murderers.

We prosecute, probably justly, servicemen who stood on the watchtowers of ghastly places of murder such as Belsen and Treblinkla et al, for the crime of being there. So we must prosecute murderers who shot unarmed British civilians by SLRs.

[Boac]

UP - do you also support revoking the Bliar 'get out of jail' card for IRA criminals? They also blew up unarmed British civilians.

[Undried Plum]

Tough question. Fair question.


TB Liar did a deal whereby the IRA murderers got off with it. In exchange, he obtained peace.

His deal, which was actually started by the bloke wot failed his arithmetic exam when trying to get a job as a bus conductor, ended the IRA terrorism campaign.

We must never, ever, allow our squaddies to become terrorists.

[om15]

The Establishment are supporting the accused with full legal and pastoral care, I think that there may well be unease in the Army about what may be disclosed in this trial, I have sympathy with UP's point of view, but wonder who on earth thought it appropriate to place the Parachute Regiment in such a sensitive situation in the first place. The first obvious question is what orders were given to soldier F, is it possible to establish this after such a long time?
I also wonder, given the sentiments being expressed, whether soldier F will be given a fair trial in Northern Ireland, no doubt traditional protests will be forthcoming, could be rather a large and volatile can of worms this trial.

[4mastacker]

I still recall the warnings given during live armed guard training that should a live armed guard actually fire off a live round, then that guard would have to account for and justify their actions, perhaps several years afterwards. In the quiet and orderly scene of a court of law, they would have to have a total recall of every one of their own actions and those of others and the sequences, during every millisecond that passed leading up to, during and after the event.

To expect someone to give that level of recall 47 years of the event is perhaps expecting too much for any trial to be fair.

[om15]

With this highly emotive case in Northern Ireland it will be difficult to ensure that the Jury are unbiased or not under threat of any kind, would this trial meet the conditions for a Diplock Trial? these were discontinued in 2007, however it is still possible to have a trial without a Jury in NI in cases of terrorism, murder and so on where witness/jury intimidation could take place.
The prosecution must feel that they have some pretty cast iron evidence to proceed with this, if this evidence was available at the time then presumably some cover up or closing of ranks must have taken place, this will be fully exploited by the defence no doubt.

[Pontius Navigator]

IIRC rules of engagement in GB were different from NI. In GB they were green cards and underwent several editions and changes. One GB rule allowed you to fire if the target was posing a danger to those you were required to protect. A man running toward you or away but into the camp was fair game. Running away was no-no and I think why Clegg was convicted.

There was an earlier incident at Ternhill barracks when 2 paras opened fire on an intruder running away. I am not sure in what direction he was running.

We also had to shout out a warning along the lines of AIR FORCE ARMED GUARD HALT etc etc. In Cyprus or challenge was rather simpler I recall HALT, STAMATUR, DUR repeated three times. If they ran bravely away we could not fire. Lost count the number of Choats that couldn't understand the challenge.

[Alisoncc]

Petition to give immunity to soldiers who fought in NI.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/243947

Alison

[Mrs Ex-Ascot]

Petition to give immunity to soldiers who fought in NI.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/243947

Alison

Done

[4mastacker]

Signed

[4mastacker]

IIRC rules of engagement in GB were different from NI. In GB they were green cards and underwent several editions and changes. One GB rule allowed you to fire if the target was posing a danger to those you were required to protect. A man running toward you or away but into the camp was fair game. Running away was no-no and I think why Clegg was convicted. ............................

PN,

IIRC, that rule stated you could only open fire if, in your sight, some one had attacked, fired on or was about to fire on property or a person it was your duty to protect and there was no other way of stopping them. That last bit was the "put-you-in-jail" clause.

In the Clegg case, he was convicted on the grounds that the danger has passed i.e he fired on the car after it had passed him. If it was still being driven at another soldier after it passed him, he might have been cleared.

Such are the fine lines that armed guards have to be aware of when carrying their duties.

[OFSO]

Signed. Thanks for the link, Alison. I see that ghastly unconscionable wretch Corbyn has vomited forth his foul opinion on the matter from his hideous traitorous
lips.

[Pontius Navigator]

4ma, agree, wasn't sure I could remember as well as you did, nor the Go Directly to Jail phrase.

That, and the point about Clegg, is make sure there is a threat to someone in the direction they are running. Also make sure someone hears your challenge.

ARMY HALT OR I FIRE ARMYHATORIFIRE[ ARNYHALTORIFIRE

I do not think the guards at Ternhill complied with any.ROE.