• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Ballymurphy Massacre - victims "entirely innocent"

catsmate

No longer the 1
catsmate
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Messages
34,767
Well it's only taken fifty years to cut through the mess of British lies, delays and obfuscations but today Mrs Justice Siobhan Keegan, sitting as coroner, delivered her findings in relation to the deaths of the ten victims.
Those killed by the British Army, Joan Connolly, Joseph Corr, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, John McKerr, Fr Hugh Mullan, Joseph Murray, Noel Phillips, Frank Quinn and Daniel Teggart, were killed "without justification"

No one has ever been charged or convicted in connection with any of their deaths and given planned legislation during the current upsurge in English nationalism, no-one is ever likely to be punished.


More.
RTE.
Guardian.
 
The BBC played some of the reports of the time, and it really brought home the lies the army and politicians. “IRA snipers” indeed.
 
catsmate said:
Well it's only taken fifty years to cut through the mess of British lies, delays and obfuscations but today Mrs Justice Siobhan Keegan, sitting as coroner, delivered her findings in relation to the deaths of the ten victims.
Those killed by the British Army, Joan Connolly, Joseph Corr, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, John McKerr, Fr Hugh Mullan, Joseph Murray, Noel Phillips, Frank Quinn and Daniel Teggart, were killed "without justification"

No one has ever been charged or convicted in connection with any of their deaths and given planned legislation during the current upsurge in English nationalism, no-one is ever likely to be punished.


More.
RTE.
Guardian.
Click to expand...

How dare anyone harass OUR TROOPS(TM) with such awful slander. :rolleyes:
 
It was 50 years ago. It should be the government who should be offering compensation, not the individuals. They would be in their 70s now.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Yea it is as dumb as prosecuting nazis.
Click to expand...
Which is still happening.

rjh01 said:
It was 50 years ago. It should be the government who should be offering compensation, not the individuals. They would be in their 70s now.
Click to expand...
And the criminal side of things? Shooting someone fourteen times, in the back, while they're lying on the back might be considered wrong.
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
It was 50 years ago. It should be the government who should be offering compensation, not the individuals. They would be in their 70s now.
Click to expand...

And which other murders shall we not prosecute because it was a long time ago? When does that long time begin? And why should state employees/agents not be held account for their criminal actions?
 
Carrot Flower King said:
And which other murders shall we not prosecute because it was a long time ago? When does that long time begin? And why should state employees/agents not be held account for their criminal actions?
Click to expand...
Because it's inconvenient for BoJo and the nationalist nuts.
 
Oh, bless, Johnson has apologised.

That makes everything better now doesn't it? And means there is no need for any nasty prosecutions, raking over all those things which no-one needs to bother their pretty little heads about.

Or any need for the CPS to **** up those prosecutions in such an obviously stupid manner that an uncharitable person might think looked deliberate.

No, no need now there is an apology...
 
Carrot Flower King said:
And which other murders shall we not prosecute because it was a long time ago? When does that long time begin? And why should state employees/agents not be held account for their criminal actions?
Click to expand...

Yeah, completely agree. If the person who committed the crime is still alive then they most definitely should be prosecuted.

What the comment you were responding to seemed to be saying, is if you can get away with it until you are elderly then you should get a free pass. Just no.
 
RolandRat said:
Yeah, completely agree. If the person who committed the crime is still alive then they most definitely should be prosecuted.

What the comment you were responding to seemed to be saying, is if you can get away with it until you are elderly then you should get a free pass. Just no.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I read it.

Unless we are having some Johnny Mercer-like special pleading for the military to be judged in a manner no other public employee (retired nurse here) would ever be judged. In which case the Parachute Regiment will have some RoE documents which show that they were ordered to shoot random, unarmed citizens of the UK...
 
Carrot Flower King said:
That is exactly how I read it.

Unless we are having some Johnny Mercer-like special pleading for the military to be judged in a manner no other public employee (retired nurse here) would ever be judged. In which case the Parachute Regiment will have some RoE documents which show that they were ordered to shoot random, unarmed citizens of the UK...
Click to expand...

I’ve heard on a radio phone in that the soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted as they were only following orders….
 
They let off a Royal Marine sergeant that shot and killed a wounded prisoner of war, there's no way they are going to let anyone prosecute hero Paras for killing a few Micks fifty years ago.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
Oh, bless, Johnson has apologised.
Click to expand...
In private. To third parties. :rolleyes:
FFS even Cameron did better.

Carrot Flower King said:
That makes everything better now doesn't it? And means there is no need for any nasty prosecutions, raking over all those things which no-one needs to bother their pretty little heads about.

Or any need for the CPS to **** up those prosecutions in such an obviously stupid manner that an uncharitable person might think looked deliberate.

No, no need now there is an apology...
Click to expand...
Well the Conservatives need to pander to their right-wing members and hangers-on...
 
What concrete benefit does it give anyone to prosecute elderly people for crimes they may have committed when they were in their 20s? The only answer I can think of is that it makes certain people feel better.
Worse, a lot of the evidence would be lost. Like were they following orders? Unless it was in writing and that writing was kept, it would be very hard to prove or disprove.

I suggest it would be much better to blame the Government. They failed in their duty. If the soldiers committed a crime the Government failed to prosecute the soldiers.

Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-limitations.asp
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
What concrete benefit does it give anyone to prosecute elderly people for crimes they may have committed when they were in their 20s? The only answer I can think of is that it makes certain people feel better.
Worse, a lot of the evidence would be lost. Like were they following orders? Unless it was in writing and that writing was kept, it would be very hard to prove or disprove.

I suggest it would be much better to blame the Government. They failed in their duty. If the soldiers committed a crime the Government failed to prosecute the soldiers.

Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-limitations.asp
Click to expand...

So if I murder someone I get let off when I get to retirement age?
What should the cut off age be?

By your reasoning Harold Shipman would never have been put on trial.
 
rjh01 said:
What concrete benefit does it give anyone to prosecute elderly people for crimes they may have committed when they were in their 20s?
Click to expand...
Justice. Equality of all before the law. Responsibility
Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum

rjh01 said:
The only answer I can think of is that it makes certain people feel better.
Click to expand...
You appear to lack imagination.

rjh01 said:
Like were they following orders?
Click to expand...
Ah the Nuremberg defense. Following an illegal order is not a complete defense.

rjh01 said:
I suggest it would be much better to blame the Government. They failed in their duty. If the soldiers committed a crime the Government failed to prosecute the soldiers.
Click to expand...
Well, duh. :rolleyes:

rjh01 said:
Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-limitations.asp
Click to expand...
And? One of the numerous flaws with the US legal system.
 
rjh01 said:
What concrete benefit does it give anyone to prosecute elderly people for crimes they may have committed when they were in their 20s? The only answer I can think of is that it makes certain people feel better.
Worse, a lot of the evidence would be lost. Like were they following orders? Unless it was in writing and that writing was kept, it would be very hard to prove or disprove.

I suggest it would be much better to blame the Government. They failed in their duty. If the soldiers committed a crime the Government failed to prosecute the soldiers.

Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/statute-of-limitations.asp
Click to expand...

So what year specifically should Nazi war crimes trials have stopped and we said it is time to let bygones be bygones?
 
ponderingturtle said:
So what year specifically should Nazi war crimes trials have stopped and we said it is time to let bygones be bygones?
Click to expand...

That is another subject altogether. One difference between the two subjects is that it was known and acknowledged in 1945 that war crimes had taken place during WW2. But in this case, the Government covered up the murders. Hence I believe it is the Government that should be held responsible.
 
rjh01 said:
That is another subject altogether. One difference between the two subjects is that it was known and acknowledged in 1945 that war crimes had taken place during WW2. But in this case, the Government covered up the murders. Hence I believe it is the Government that should be held responsible.
Click to expand...

And really isn't society to blame, so we'll arrest them instead.
 
rjh01 said:
That is another subject altogether. One difference between the two subjects is that it was known and acknowledged in 1945 that war crimes had taken place during WW2. But in this case, the Government covered up the murders. Hence I believe it is the Government that should be held responsible.
Click to expand...

Why aren't the murderers responsible?
 
The rights and wrongs of putting elderly soldiers on trial, has to be looked at through the lens of who else has been put on trial and how best to move on from the Troubles, without reigniting the Troubles. It is a political decision, not a legal one.
 
Nessie said:
The rights and wrongs of putting elderly soldiers on trial, has to be looked at through the lens of who else has been put on trial and how best to move on from the Troubles, without reigniting the Troubles. It is a political decision, not a legal one.
Click to expand...
In a word, bollocks.

It's a legal decision that has political dimension. If the politicians want to override the legal process let them do so, and do so publicly with reasons.

It's not a matter of "putting elderly soldiers on trial", it's a matter of simple justice, and acceptance of past actions.

As for "how best to move on from the Troubles", how about telling the truth about what happened?
:rolleyes:
 
rjh01 said:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed murder. If you cannot do that, then they are not murderers. Can you even prove which soldiers fired the bullets?
Click to expand...
I'm glad to see you support an investigation and prosecution.
 
rjh01 said:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed murder. If you cannot do that, then they are not murderers. Can you even prove which soldiers fired the bullets?
Click to expand...

Isn't that what a trial is for?
 
rjh01 said:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed murder. If you cannot do that, then they are not murderers. Can you even prove which soldiers fired the bullets?
Click to expand...

catsmate said:
I'm glad to see you support an investigation and prosecution.
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
Isn't that what a trial is for?
Click to expand...

It would be very interesting to see a Joint Enterprise prosecution brought against the soldiers and their superiors in this case.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Isn't that what a trial is for?
Click to expand...

Some type of investigation should come first. Not sure what evidence they could come up with. Eye-witness accounts would be very unreliable. Some of the witnesses might be dead or not wanting to talk about it. Some of them might be overseas. Documentation is likely to have been lost. The soldiers themselves should say nothing. That does not leave much to prove guilt.

This alone will be very expensive. Much better to spend the money on the victims.
 
rjh01 said:
Some type of investigation should come first. ..snip..
Click to expand...

I think you need to do some background research into this incident you are saying what should be done without seemingly knowing what has been done - often they are the same!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom