101 1 min 9 yrs

And, in continued pandering to Irish Republicans, I see that the PSNI have announced a new FOUR YEAR investigation into Bloody Sunday.

The police are to launch a murder investigation into the deaths of 13 people shot dead by soldiers in Londonderry onBloody Sunday in 1972. The move comes after the PSNI and Public Prosecution Service reviewed the findings of the Saville inquiry, which said none of those killed was armed. The police investigation is expected to take at least four years and involve a team of 30 detectives.

Keep the MOPERY coming, PSNI.

Any investigation into the IRA commander who admitted to carrying a MACHINE GUN on that day? Nope? Thought not.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

101 thoughts on “NEW BLOODY SUNDAY INVESTIGATION

  1. Two things. Firstly on that day 14 innocent people were murdered. Do you or do you not believe that merits a police investigation?

    Secondly, where did Martin McGuinness or any other IRA volunteer admit to carrying a machine gun that day?

  2. The guilty soldiers will not be and should not be arrested. All those involved on either side up to the ceasefires should be given amnesty.
    As LU used to say: MOVE ON.

    “Pile the bodies high at Austerlitz and Waterloo.
    Shovel them under and let me work.
    I am the grass; I cover all.

    Two years, ten years, and the passengers ask the conductor:
    What place is this?
    Where are we now?

    I am the grass.
    Let me work.”

  3. Police investigations reopened for every murder or none. It also seems to me that this has been investigated and it is unlikely to achieve any news.

  4. I would agree in general with an amnesty but until it happens then this investigation and subsequent prosecutions should continue. I would say Noel that if they can put Gerry McGeough in prison for the attempted murder of a soldier, if they can drag a 60 year old man into the dock for allegedly killing the mass murderer Robert Nairac then they can at least investigate those people who executed civil rights protesters.

  5. “Police investigations reopened for every murder or none. It also seems to me that this has been investigated and it is unlikely to achieve any news.”

    They aren’t reopening the case, Mahons. Bloody Sunday has never, until now, been the subject of a police investigation.

  6. It wasn’t the police that did the shooting, not primarily anyway. It was the army.

  7. I think it will be interesting to see how the conclusions of the Saville enquiry stand up in an investigation where the burden of proof is more stringent than an enquiry.

  8. The difference is that the burden of proof is now on the soldiers. They need to provide reasonable doubt that the protesters they murdered had a weapon.

  9. I think this is a formality. Part of the legal process following the Saville enquiry. I can’t imagine there will be any actual criminal trials of any soldiers emerging as a result of this investigation.

  10. The difference is that the burden of proof is now on the soldiers.

    The burden of proof is not on the accused.

  11. Seamus – a fair techincal point that the case isn’t being reopend. It has in fact been investigated (see for example Saville). So how about this – police inquiry into ALL unsolved killings by any actors?

    They’ll all call for an investigation of the investigation.

  12. Ross, all the prosecution needs to do is prove they shot them. Then the burden of proof switches to the defence who need to prove that they had legitimate reason to do so.

  13. Saville was never, at any point, an investigation of wrong doing by the perpetrators. Saville was an investigation into alleged criminal behaviour of the people murdered that day.

  14. Seamus

    Not true. The army had legitimate powers to use weapons in public during that time. The prosecution will not just have to prove they shot the civilians but that they had criminal intent.

  15. Colm,

    They didn’t have legitimate right to use those weapons against civilians. The defence would need to show that those murdered weren’t civilians and were in fact armed at the time.

  16. The fact that the soldiers refused to show their faces at Saville, and indeed forced the inquiry to decamp to Britain, and even then they still refused to speak except from behind a screen, well, that tells you all you need to know about who is responsible for what. They practically screamed out their guilt with that display of moral cowardice.

  17. Seamus

    The defence in any trial do not need to prove anything. It is always the prosecution that has to prove the crime.

  18. “if they can drag a 60 year old man into the dock for allegedly killing the mass murderer Robert Nairac”

    If Nairic was a mass murderer, here’s hoping he killed very many IRA savages. Alas, despite exhaustive investigations, there’s no compelling evidence to say that.

  19. Ps – I am not personally defending the soldiers, just pointing out why I think a prosecution will be very difficult and I think will almost certainly never happen.

  20. And the crime is that they murdered someone. If Person A shoots Person B and that is shown by the prosecution then it is the defence’s job to show that Person A had legitimate grounds to do so. Thus they would need to prove that their victims weren’t civilian.

  21. Seamus

    Unless the victims were police officers or members of the British Army , then by default of course they were civilians.

  22. “The fact that the soldiers refused to show their faces at Saville … They practically screamed out their guilt with that display of moral cowardice.”

    What a prat.

    They didn’t want themselves identified for the rather obvious reason that no-one wants IRA savages doorstepping their wives and children.

  23. Pete,

    Dublin and Monaghan Bombings – 33 civilians killed
    Miami Showband Massacre – 3 civilians killed
    Reavey and O’Dowd Murders – 6 civilians killed

    Those were just three of the extra-curricular activities that Robert Nairac was believed to be involved in. There are believed to be many more. So mass murderer seems fair.

  24. The recession may be hitting the pockets of the legal profession. A new ‘Bloody Sunday’ investigation will go some way to improving their income. Btw, I suspect that lawyers will be involved in driving this sudden ‘need’ for a new investigation.

  25. Colm, not in the context of the Troubles. Civilian wouldn’t, for example, include IRA volunteers or other combatants.

  26. //They didn’t want themselves identified for the rather obvious reason //

    Oh, don’t make me cringe with such a feeble excuse years after the IRA were on ceasefire. There are countless former RUC men, UDR and prison officers meeting those “IRA savages” on the street and in the shop every day in Northern Ireland. But those men have what the Paras best didn’t have: moral and physical courage to get on with their lives and do the right thing.

    Those ex-paras are the lowest of the low, you can tell that simply by listening to their evidence, and they showed their mettle by hinding behind English skirts like the wee cowards they are when finally called to account for their sins in Ireland. A disgrace to any nation.

  27. Seamus –

    “Those were just three of the extra-curricular activities that Robert Nairac was believed to be involved in.”

    Believed, by republican headbangers, without any evidence.

  28. Many things are believed without evidence in Northern Ireland, like Gerry Adams’ membership of the IRA.

  29. Oh, don’t make me cringe with such a feeble excuse years after the IRA were on ceasefire.

    I bet you said that after Denis Donaldson went into hiding.

  30. Noel Cunningham –

    Your bitter words betray the lingering hatred which wholly justifies their decision to protect their families.

    Among the 3000 innocents butchered by the IRA were many who were obliterated in their cars or abducted and murdered with a bullet to the head. Some aren’t stupid enough to believe it won’t happen again.

    As I said, your bitter words are their justification.

  31. Pete, the IRA (and other Republicans) only killed 736 innocents. A bit short of your 3,000.

  32. //I bet you said that after Denis Donaldson went into hiding//

    A totally different case. DD had fingered several IRA men for arrest, and they were still around and very angry after spending years in the Maze after being shopped by a man they trusted. As everbody knows and was saying at the time, the IRA declared a ceasefire with the BA and Loyalist groups, not with itself. “housekeeping” or something similar was the term at the time.

    Don’t tell me even you think those soliders would have been harmed?
    They are the best living propaganda coup the IRA ever had.

    They knew they were in no danger. There was no excuse for their cowardice, especially when you consider the thousands of former security personnel looking their former mortal enemies in the eye every day in NI and not even feeling afraid.

  33. //As I said, your bitter words are their justification.//

    Imagine, they went out that fateful day to show the world (according to their own statements) that they were “not Aunt Sallies”, but then later showed the world that that is exactly what they are.

  34. Noel Cunningham –

    You’re too bitter and hateful to think clearly or debate honestly on the matter.

  35. Quite a lot of those rioters were on camera. I assume they’ll face prosecution too.

  36. No one was murdered. They were killed. Difference

    If the state says it wasn’t murder then it wasn’t murder. We must all be good little sheeple and believe the state.

  37. David, you said he admitted it. Where did he admit it? He has strenuously denied the accusations made against him.

  38. Well I think one would have to look at the law at the time in regard to soldiers and use of their weapons. it might not have been murder, it may have been manslaughter or criminal negligence. It certainly wasn’t justified, but it may not fit the legal definition of murder. And each soldier may have different culpability. For instance, the first to shoot may be more culpable than one who shot after because he had a reasonable (though erroneous) belief that there was justified grounds. Given the passage of time it would be an extremely difficult prosecution.

  39. In the US no guardsman was convicted for the Kent State shootings which killed 4 and wounded 9 in Ohio when students were protesting the Vietnam War. Some of the guardsman were indicted by a grand jury, but the case got tossed.

  40. I’m of the view that we need to draw a line under the past and move on. Unionist and British reaction to this investigation is a natural desire to defend their soldiers and their USA similar reaction on our side when it comes to the IRA.

    But it seems to me that either we have to co e to some kind of general and consistent position about the past or we will just end up demanding justice for our own side and not for the other side. Nobody will serve a day in prison for the Bloody Sunday murders. I believe the British Army intended the murders and the order came from a lot higher up than the people who did the shooting.

    The purpose of these investigation not the past is in my opinion to keep the truth from coming out. Neither the British state nor the Republican Movement want the truth told about some of the contreversial incidents of the past. So everybody has to be kept from talking by the threat of prosecution. That’s what’s going on and it is in reality a con.

    By falling into our traditional party lines we generate heat but no light around these questions. By holding out the prospect of justice ( which will never come) to victims those in power plan to keep the truth from ever coming out.

    A general amnesty would free everyone to tell the truth. Who wants that?

  41. Seamus

    You are right, he did not ADMIT it. Just like he has not admitted being a senior IRA godfather for decades. I was wrong 😉

  42. “The fact that the soldiers refused to show their faces at Saville, and indeed forced the inquiry to decamp to Britain, and even then they still refused to speak except from behind a screen, well, that tells you all you need to know about who is responsible for what. They practically screamed out their guilt with that display of moral cowardice.”

    The British Army (which incidentally has a fair number of Irishmen in its ranks) is a proud and disciplined force which only acts under orders from the government of the day -regardless of political colour.
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/chron.htm
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10283900

    There are two things I cannot believe.

    1) The soldiers of the British Parachute Regiment were under orders from their government to open fire on innocent protestors.
    2) There was a deliberate decision by the soldiers themselves to shoot at innocent protestors.

    It is not beyond the bounds of possibility (and acting on that old principle “you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs”) that there was deliberate provocation on the part of some to ensure that shooting would break out.

    There could have been armed men amongst the protestors ready to shoot, either in the direction of the soldiers or even up in the air: the main aim would be to convince the soldiers that they were under attack.

    One has to ask,
    “WHO had most to gain and WHO had most to lose from deliberately provoking the shooting?”

    To believe that the British government would order it, takes us into Allan’s shadowy world of conspiracy theory. Not to say it COULDN’T have been the plan, but imv stoopid, and full of risk of exposure.

    To believe that the soldiers themselves also decided to kill people deliberately is also stoopid. What had they to gain, except almost certain death and consequent betrayal? Had they deliberately decided to shoot civilians without provocation, the likelihood that a member/members of the conspiracy blowing the whistle is very high.

    If indeed it was the soldiers who opened fire first (which I don’t believe), then the reason is panic.
    That either military communication broke down, or that the soldiers were under orders to return fire if fired upon.

    Even then, Army officers would be aware that the likelihood of innocents being hit was high, so they would have thoroughly briefed their men on reasons and safeguards before returning fire.
    So we return again to WHO had most to gain from the death of protestors at the hands of British soldiers -the “army of occupation”?

    Noel shows another facet of his bigotry and prejudice in accusing good British soldiers of cowardice and deliberately killing civilians.

    I for one stick up for the professionalism and discipline of our soldiers. It might be ‘politically convenient’ to allow the blame to rest on soldiers used to acting under orders; but if I compare ‘our’ army with the men who believed in punishment beatings, kneecapping, shooting soldiers in the back, and planting bombs which killed civilians both in Northern Ireland AND the mainland;
    well, you can see where my sympathies lie.
    We need to move on. There are good people on both sides of the divide. There are also people with innocent blood on their hands. Hashing over the events of 40 years ago is not going to solve anything. The dead remain dead, the guilty remain guilty. But we’re not going to get impartial justice after all this time.

    As I said before, “Who had most to gain from the death of innocent protestors?”

  43. //similar reaction on our side when it comes to the IRA.//

    Speak for yourself. On the one hand, the historian’s interest would like to see an amnesty leading to full disclosure by everyone.
    But even with the most copper-fastened amnesty, it would not happen. We saw how the soldiers behaved at Saville, and you can’t expect much better from the others.

    All sides were vicious and did unforgiveable things. All sides were caught up in a mess that they couldn’t understand or control.
    It’s going to be difficult or impossible for the victims and their families, but the rest of us will have to consign it all to history and hope for the best.

  44. I’m sure this or a similar thought has occurred to others. Consider the following scenario.

    1. Fourteen unarmed civilians are shot dead by the Army in Leicester Square during a civil-rights protest.

    2. The Met fails to launch an immediate investigation into mass murder by state forces on the streets of our capital city.

    3. The suspected murderers walk free.

    Bizarre? Yes. Unlikely? Absolutely. Yet because the Bloody Sunday atrocity was perpetrated in Paddyland there are those who believe that everything is hunky-dory.

    I don’t think so.

  45. machine gun Marty started it, and refuses to give evidence. I want a FULL inquiry into what he has done, and if he refuses to co-operate, he should be held in custody until he does…

  46. Richard Clinton –

    If I were demonstrating in Leicester Square and terrorists were running around behind me with automatic weapons, I’d be getting of there quick.

    Henry94 –

    “I’m of the view that we need to draw a line under the past and move on.”

    It’s a seductive and tempting line, but it implies an equivalence where none exists. There’s no more reason to draw a line under IRA terror now than there was for fascist terror in 1945.

  47. in these times of austerity, this is just what we need…funny isn’t it that cathlicks cannot ‘move on’, when it suits them.

    dinosaurs, move on and get with the programme.

  48. oh and seamus; your weasel words count for nothing as you vote and support ira terrorists, responsible for thousands of murders.

    Maybe reflect on that and your immoral and hypocritical position.

  49. Pete,

    “If I were demonstrating in Leicester Square and terrorists were running around behind me with automatic weapons, I’d be getting of there quick.”

    Which is irrelevant to my hypothetical shooting of unarmed civilians in the centre of London.

  50. Richard Clinton –

    Of course it’s not. It’s your analogy which is misguided. There’s no equivalence between Londonderry then and a hypothetical civil rights demonstration in London now.

    Let me be clear: if a bunch of (say) muslims or Trots demonstrated in London for civil rights and their fellows were sneaking about with automatic weapons, I’d certainly hope that the Police/Army were out there intent on taking them down.

  51. ‘machine gun Marty started it, and refuses to give evidence.’

    As do you. You claimed a while back to have evidence against McGuinness, yet you refused to make it public.

    ‘funny isn’t it that cathlicks* cannot ‘move on’, when it suits them.’

    Who mentioned Catholics?

    *there’s that spelling thing again, LU

  52. Pete, in your hypothetical ‘muslim or Trots’ civil rights march, would it still be right for the army to gun down 14 innocent protestors, regardless of whether or not ‘their fellows were sneaking about with automatic weapons’?

  53. pretty difficult seimi when the self confessed terrorist refuses to answer questions…a sure sign of guilt.

    catholicks who vote for machine gun marty and the rest of the ira have no moral ground to crawl on…

    I do not believe that all 14 were innocent.

  54. Seimi,

    Thank you for rebuffing Pete’s comment.

    The facts of the Londonderry shootings are the corpses of 14 UK citizens who were deprived of life by their own army.

    The allegation of fellows “sneaking about with automatic weapons” remains precisely that.

  55. Evidence does refute your assertion that it is only allegations of fellows sneaking about with automatic weapons.

    go figure.

  56. ‘pretty difficult seimi when the self confessed terrorist refuses to answer questions…a sure sign of guilt.’

    So you DO have evidence? And you won’t present it to the authorities? Surely this new investigation is the perfect arena in which to present proof that Martin McGuinness was more involved in the events on Bloody Sunday than he has said?

    ‘catholicks* who vote for machine gun marty and the rest of the ira have no moral ground to crawl on…’

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic.

    ‘I do not believe that all 14 were innocent.’

    That is your opinion, and as entitled as you are to it, it dosn’t mean anything.

    *Do you have a problem with spelling? Dyslexia maybe? Or are you being purposely disrespectful to Catholics by spelling the word wrong?

  57. Seimi, whether I do have evidence, or not, is none of your business, nor should it concern you and your ilk as you continue to vote for ira murderers.

    catholicks* who vote for machine gun marty and the rest of the ira have no moral ground to crawl on…’

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic.

    It has EVERYTHING to do with the topic.

  58. //The allegation of fellows “sneaking about with automatic weapons” remains precisely that//

    It’s amazing how completely tribalism eclipses “libertarianism” when it has to.

    A copper beats a protestor at an Occupy demo and he’s (the copper mind) a terrorist, but here we have people in the UK protesting against a policy of mass internment without trial and exercising their ancient right to bear arms – well, they’re Paddies so give them the works!

  59. Pete

    There’s no more reason to draw a line under IRA terror now than there was for fascist terror in 1945.

    What is happening now is the worst of both worlds. No British soldier will serve a day in prison for Bloody Sunday. Likewise no IRA member will serve a day for anything that has not already been through the system. The British government and Sinn Fein have a shared interest in preventing the truth from emerging and by keeping everybody checked by the possibility of charges they are doing just that.

    Nobody involved writes a book about what happened, nobody admits anything and eventually all the secrets go to the grave. Immunity would allow truth. You wouldn’t need a truth commission just the natural need for people to explain themselves and tell their stories. That is what would really worry the powers that be and that is why it will never be allowed.

    We are being played here.

  60. ‘Seimi, whether I do have evidence, or not, is none of your business, nor should it concern you and your ilk as you continue to vote for ira murderers.’

    But surely, if you have evidence, it is your duty to present it to the appropriate authorities? And please don’t use a term like ‘your ilk’ when referring to me. Also, I don’t, and have never, voted for the IRA, because you can’t.

  61. Seimi –

    There are acts which are right, wrong, understandable, mistakes, right – ‘but’, wrong – ‘but’. You takes your choice. In the round, yes of course it’s “wrong” for the Army to shoot dead 14 unarmed and innocent civilians, but since I wasn’t on duty in Londonderry that day with armed terrorists looking to shoot me, I don’t know how wrong.

    Don’t worry, I won’t reciprocate by asking if it was right for republican psychopaths to murder, torture, maim and injure thousands of innocents. I’ve never met a republican who couldn’t just flat out say it was wrong.

  62. I’d have thought that after Saville found that the killing of the protesters was “unjustified and unjustifiable” that those staunch adherents to law & order on ATW would support a criminal investigation?

    Police investigations reopened for every murder or none.

    I think that that, to a degree, is already happening with the Historical Enquires Team Mahons although that in itself is controversial:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-17619308

    Among the 3000 innocents butchered by the IRA

  63. Richard Clinton –

    “The facts of the Londonderry shootings are the corpses of 14 UK citizens who were deprived of life by their own army.”

    Righto, they’re UK citizens all of a sudden and the British army was their own. If only that had been accepted all round a few decades ago, eh?

  64. ‘Don’t worry, I won’t reciprocate by asking if it was right for republican psychopaths to murder, torture, maim and injure thousands of innocents. I’ve never met a republican who couldn’t just flat out say it was wrong.’

    It was wrong.

  65. ‘Righto, they’re UK citizens all of a sudden and the British army was their own. If only that had been accepted all round a few decades ago, eh?’

    Well, isn’t that what was hammered into them for generations? Are you saying now that they WEREN’T UK citizens and the British Army WASN’T their army? That’s handy.

  66. Apologies for the bad editing above

    Among the 3000 innocents butchered by the IRA

    Hyperbolic much Pete Moore?

    I don’t know if you were deliberately trying to misinfor with such a grossly exagerated figure but maybe you should apply your;

    You’re too bitter and hateful to think clearly or debate honestly on the matter

    retort to Noel a little closer to home.

    There were three protagonists in the conflict, Republicans, loyalists and state forces and all did some horrifically inhuman things. I generally agree with Henry and think that a line should be drawn but as someone who didn’t lose anyone on Bloody Sunday that’s easy for me to say.

  67. Seimi –

    “Are you saying now that they WEREN’T UK citizens and the British Army WASN’T their army?”

    Everyone born in NI is a Subject of the Crown.

  68. Pete –

    ‘Everyone born in NI is a Subject of the Crown.’

    So in that case, why did you disagree with

    “The facts of the Londonderry shootings are the corpses of 14 UK citizens who were deprived of life by their own army.”?

  69. Seimi –

    I didn’t disagree. I was grimly amused that decades of cant about republicans being Irish is so easily overturned when it sounds better to talk of the British Army shooting at their own, fellow “UK citizens”.

    I’ve been telling NI republicans for donkey’s years that they’re Subjects of the Crown. At last they begin to agree.

  70. Everyone born in NI is a Subject of the Crown

    I’ve seen that argument before. My nationality and passport would tend to disagree.

  71. The point is, Pete, Republicans do believe themselves to be Irish. Successive British governments and Unionist governments told them they were British citizens and Subjects of the Crown. Yet, these same authorities, and the army of the authorities, gunned down 14 unarmed people, whilst also saying they were British citizens and Crown Subjects. I don’t think that’s ‘grimly amusing’ at all. I think that the British government does and did see people in NI as ‘less’ Crown Subjects than say, people in London, or Finchley even.

  72. Pete,

    “Righto, they’re UK citizens all of a sudden and the British army was their own. If only that had been accepted all round a few decades ago, eh?”

    The intervening decades are immaterial. The fact remains that UK citizens were murdered in cold blood by the Army.

    Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, the mass-murder remains a fact and it must be dealt with. Let’s hope it is, and that the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on the guilty paratroopers—and the criminals who gave the orders.

  73. The fact is that they were both. The are Irish, including many now are Irish citizens but also subjected to the British Crown.

    “Likewise no IRA member will serve a day for anything that has not already been through the system.”

    The problem is that that isn’t true. The Government from time to time do try and drag Republicans through the courts for incidents during the Troubles (Gerry McGeough for example). And until they stop that then those soldiers should be investigated and prosecuted.

  74. This is an interesting anaysis on the UTV website;

    This is a ploy to keep the Derry yans on board after the loss of support for SF when Marty shook the Queen’s hand after all she presented the same soilders with medals. Must think people are simple

  75. I’d suggest this has been in the pipeline for far longer than the handshake.

  76. Seamus,

    “Likewise no IRA member will serve a day for anything that has not already been through the system.”

    The problem is that that isn’t true

    I might add that apples should not be confused with satsumas. The IRA were criminals, terrorists, acting on nobody’s behalf. The Army, on the other hand, is part of our armed forces, designed to protect the state and its citizens.

    When a UK army acts illegally against UK civilians it is answerable to the state. If the state fails to prosecute—by arresting and prosecuting those guilty of criminal acts—then the state is in grave error and must be called to account—even if that action comes decades after the crime was committed.

  77. Paul,

    Thanks for the link. Dr Lundy reinforces my conviction that matters would have been very different had the shootings taken place in London. Failure to call mass-murdering soldiers to account would have seen the fall of at least one government.

  78. I agree with Richard,the IRA are accountable to no one,they are a terrorist organization,whilst the BA are supposed to abide by the laws of the land and kill its own citizens

  79. Martin,

    “the BA are supposed to abide by the laws of the land and kill its own citizens”

    I do hope you simply forgot to type the “not” there 🙂

    Me, I meant to round off my last comment with:

    “Those soldiers were not called to account—in effect putting us on a par with Syria or any other rogue state.”

  80. “whilst the BA are supposed to abide by the laws of the land and (not) kill its own citizens”

    Which is, by and large, what it did.

    No other forces on the planet could possibly have acted with such humanity, restraint and fortitude, in the face of barbarism and evil, as the RUC and the British Army.

  81. Pete Moore, on July 5th, 2012 at 10:17 pm Said:
    Noel Cunningham –
    Your bitter words betray the lingering hatred which wholly justifies their decision to protect their families.
    Among the 3000 innocents butchered by the IRA were many who were obliterated in their cars or abducted and murdered with a bullet to the head. Some aren’t stupid enough to believe it won’t happen again.
    As I said, your bitter words are their justification.

    Pete for your info the IRA did not butcher 3000 innocents. A total of 3529 people were killed during the troubles of these 1842 were civilians. Rebublicans killed 727civilians,The brits/police killed 187 civilians and the loyalists killed 868 civilians. If you are going to throw out random numbers try at least to get in the right ballpark.

  82. Yeah, the humanity, restraint and fortitude that they showed in Ballymurphy in August 1971 was incredible.

  83. And yet my point still stands

    I’d be interested to hear how you square that with the shooting of eleven unarmed civillians.

  84. Pete,

    “No other forces on the planet could possibly have acted with such humanity, restraint and fortitude, in the face of barbarism and evil, as the RUC and the British Army.”

    Really? Do please enlighten us on the “barbarism and evil” that our brave paratroopers faced in Londonderry on 20 January 1972.

  85. Paul McMahon –

    I don’t deny events like the Ballymurphy Massacre. No-one can deny them. They are facts of history along with numerous other events which shouldn’t have happened, even down to someone getting a kicking in a cell. Yet when I say –

    No other forces on the planet could possibly have acted with such humanity, restraint and fortitude, in the face of barbarism and evil, as the RUC and the British Army.

    – I mean it.

    Which other forces, in those same circumstances and across the years, would have been more restrained across the decades? The Soviet Red Army? The Sri Lankan Army? Chinese police? Italian carabinieri?

    It was wasn’t just IRA barbarism which they had to face. Evil acts and severe provocations came from across the republican movement as well as loyalist terrorists, who were just as wicked. Put into the same position as the RUC and the British Army, few if any other forces on the planet could have been so restrained. Most would have often acted with great brutality, on the orders of their controlling government, and many would have killed thousands of civilians.

  86. Pete,

    “Which other forces, in those same circumstances and across the years, would have been more restrained across the decades?”

    You’re dodging the question. I asked about 30 January 1972.

  87. I don’t deny events like the Ballymurphy Massacre. No-one can deny them

    That’s an interesting admission Pete. Would you support a retrospective criminal investigation into the killings?

  88. Maybe. Generally I’m not in favour of British soldiers shooting civilians whether it’s at Peterloo or in NI. However, balance is required.

    Let’s re-wind a few years, re-intern all the terrorists who were freed, and then discuss it.

  89. Let’s re-wind a few years, re-intern all the terrorists who were freed, and then discuss it

    It’s also interesting how you would only support a criminal investigation into the massacre of eleven innocents with a pre – set qualification. Peculiarperspective on law & order.

  90. Paul McMahon –

    “It’s also interesting how you would only support a criminal investigation into the massacre of eleven innocents with a pre – set qualification.”

    Not so.

    Whether or not the acts of British soldiers warrant investigation ought to depend only on those acts and the evidence uncovered. However, there can be no justice without equity.

    People like me complained in vain when civilisation surrendered to barbarism and the cell doors were flung open to free hundreds of butchers. Justice was cast aside at the behest of wicked men and the politics of cynicism won out. People like me protested these acts and we were told that to suck it up, that lines must be drawn.

    Well those lines were drawn. I repeat, there can be no justice without equity, and people like me didn’t draw those lines and talk about how we must move on. Well I won’t accept that the same cynical interests should win out again if it’s convenient to only investigate British soldiers.

    Sure, let’s have that investigation, but let’s first undo those lines, let’s not move on from the past (which, afterall, is the suggestion here) and let’s hold the IRA’s feet to the fire over unsolved crimes as well. We can move on or not move on, but we can’t be choosy about where we move on and where we look back.

  91. Whether or not the acts of British soldiers warrant investigation ought to depend only on those acts and the evidence uncovered. However, there can be no justice without equity

    Apples and oranges Pete, the freeing of prisoners was a political decision taken by the majority of the electorate in referendum but for me the big difference betwenn Ballymurphy and the qualification that you place is that in all of the cases of prisoners being freed there was an actual criminal investigation , not the case with Ballymurphy, (or Bloody Sunday for that matter).

    You want justice with equity? How about there’s a criminal investigation into the killings and anyone convicted spends a maximum two years inside? Isn’t that equitable treatment with the qualification that you mention?

    Danny Teggart was shot dead by the Paras in Ballymurphy, he was a neighbour of ours and family friend. The Teggart family have no interest in convictions but they do want the truth of what happened that day to be officially acknoweleged.

  92. Paul McMahon –

    Many bereaved want answers, yes? I sincerely hope the Teggart family can find satisfaction and peace.

  93. Many bereaved want answers, yes?

    That’s true Pete. Unfortunately it tends to be those bereaved by the state that have to shout the longest & the loudest to be recognised.

Comments are closed.