The Ballymurphy Massacre - victims "entirely innocent"

catsmate · 11th May 2021, 10:32 AM

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.

Darat · 11th May 2021, 12:34 PM

The BBC played some of the reports of the time, and it really brought home the lies the army and politicians. “IRA snipers” indeed.

Archie Gemmill Goal · 11th May 2021, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by catsmate

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.

How dare anyone harass OUR TROOPS(TM) with such awful slander.

rjh01 · 11th May 2021, 03:48 PM

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 · 12th May 2021, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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.

Yea it is as dumb as prosecuting nazis.

catsmate · 12th May 2021, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yea it is as dumb as prosecuting nazis.

Which is still happening.

Originally Posted by rjh01

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.

And the criminal side of things? Shooting someone fourteen times, in the back, while they're lying on the back might be considered wrong.

Carrot Flower King · 12th May 2021, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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.

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?

catsmate · 12th May 2021, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

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?

Because it's inconvenient for BoJo and the nationalist nuts.

Carrot Flower King · 12th May 2021, 10:17 AM

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...

Matthew Best · 12th May 2021, 02:06 PM

Look, he said sorry OK?

Captain_Swoop · 12th May 2021, 04:10 PM

The prime minister has "apologised unreservedly" for the "events that took place in Ballymurphy" in 1971, Downing Street has said.

A spokesperson said during a phone call with NI's first and deputy first ministers on Wednesday, Boris Johnson said what happened was "tragic".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57093548

RolandRat · 12th May 2021, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

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?

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.

Carrot Flower King · 13th May 2021, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by RolandRat

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.

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...

Darat · 13th May 2021, 03:01 AM

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

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...

I’ve heard on a radio phone in that the soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted as they were only following orders….

Captain_Swoop · 13th May 2021, 03:28 AM

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.

catsmate · 13th May 2021, 03:45 AM

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Oh, bless, Johnson has apologised.

In private. To third parties.

FFS even Cameron did better.

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

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...

Well the Conservatives need to pander to their right-wing members and hangers-on...

rjh01 · 13th May 2021, 04:39 AM

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...imitations.asp

Carrot Flower King · 13th May 2021, 05:05 AM

Justice being seen to be done?

Carrot Flower King · 13th May 2021, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I’ve heard on a radio phone in that the soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted as they were only following orders….

I'm sure I heard of that sort of defence being used before somewhere...If only I could remember what happened...

Captain_Swoop · 13th May 2021, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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...imitations.asp

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.

Captain_Swoop · 13th May 2021, 05:08 AM

There is no statute of limitations on murder.

catsmate · 13th May 2021, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

What concrete benefit does it give anyone to prosecute elderly people for crimes they may have committed when they were in their 20s?

Justice. Equality of all before the law. Responsibility
Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum

Originally Posted by rjh01

The only answer I can think of is that it makes certain people feel better.

You appear to lack imagination.

Originally Posted by rjh01

Like were they following orders?

Ah the Nuremberg defense. Following an illegal order is not a complete defense.

Originally Posted by rjh01

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.

Well, duh.

Originally Posted by rjh01

Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...imitations.asp

And? One of the numerous flaws with the US legal system.

Carrot Flower King · 13th May 2021, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...imitations.asp

Meanwhile back here in the UK...

What's that? We don't have one!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limita...United_Kingdom

ponderingturtle · 18th May 2021, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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...imitations.asp

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

rjh01 · 19th May 2021, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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

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.

ponderingturtle · 19th May 2021, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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.

And really isn't society to blame, so we'll arrest them instead.

Captain_Swoop · 19th May 2021, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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.

Why aren't the murderers responsible?

Nessie · 19th May 2021, 12:34 PM

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.

rjh01 · 19th May 2021, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why aren't the murderers responsible?

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?

RolandRat · 19th May 2021, 11:46 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed murder.

Well yes. That is a standard prerequisite to being found guilty.

catsmate · 20th May 2021, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Nessie

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.

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?

catsmate · 20th May 2021, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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?

I'm glad to see you support an investigation and prosecution.

Captain_Swoop · 20th May 2021, 02:30 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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?

Isn't that what a trial is for?

The Don · 20th May 2021, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

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?

Originally Posted by catsmate

I'm glad to see you support an investigation and prosecution.

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Isn't that what a trial is for?

It would be very interesting to see a Joint Enterprise prosecution brought against the soldiers and their superiors in this case.

rjh01 · 20th May 2021, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Isn't that what a trial is for?

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.

Captain_Swoop · 20th May 2021, 05:08 AM

The victims are dead

Darat · 20th May 2021, 05:49 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

Some type of investigation should come first. ..snip..

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!

11th May 2021, 10:32 AM	#1
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,120	The Ballymurphy Massacre - victims "entirely innocent" 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.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

11th May 2021, 12:34 PM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,162	The BBC played some of the reports of the time, and it really brought home the lies the army and politicians. “IRA snipers” indeed.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

11th May 2021, 03:48 PM	#4
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,639	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.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

12th May 2021, 05:15 AM	#5
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,956	Originally Posted by rjh01 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. Yea it is as dumb as prosecuting nazis.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

12th May 2021, 05:47 AM	#6
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,120	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Yea it is as dumb as prosecuting nazis. Which is still happening. Originally Posted by rjh01 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. And the criminal side of things? Shooting someone fourteen times, in the back, while they're lying on the back might be considered wrong.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. Last edited by catsmate; 12th May 2021 at 05:48 AM.

11th May 2021, 12:56 PM	#3
Archie Gemmill Goal Banned Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 8,324	Originally Posted by catsmate 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. How dare anyone harass OUR TROOPS(TM) with such awful slander.

12th May 2021, 08:29 AM	#7
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,612	Originally Posted by rjh01 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. 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?

12th May 2021, 08:33 AM	#8
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,120	Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King 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? Because it's inconvenient for BoJo and the nationalist nuts.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

12th May 2021, 10:17 AM	#9
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,612	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...

12th May 2021, 02:06 PM	#10
Matthew Best Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 9,807	Look, he said sorry OK?

12th May 2021, 04:10 PM	#11
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	The prime minister has "apologised unreservedly" for the "events that took place in Ballymurphy" in 1971, Downing Street has said. A spokesperson said during a phone call with NI's first and deputy first ministers on Wednesday, Boris Johnson said what happened was "tragic". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-57093548

12th May 2021, 04:35 PM	#12
RolandRat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Essex UK Posts: 1,602	Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King 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? 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.

13th May 2021, 02:37 AM	#13
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,612	Originally Posted by RolandRat 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.* 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...

13th May 2021, 03:01 AM	#14
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 108,162	Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King 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... I’ve heard on a radio phone in that the soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted as they were only following orders….
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

13th May 2021, 03:28 AM	#15
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	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.

13th May 2021, 03:45 AM	#16
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,120	Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King Oh, bless, Johnson has apologised. In private. To third parties. FFS even Cameron did better. Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King 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... Well the Conservatives need to pander to their right-wing members and hangers-on...
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

13th May 2021, 04:39 AM	#17
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,639	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...imitations.asp
	__________________ This signature is for rent. Last edited by rjh01; 13th May 2021 at 04:58 AM.

13th May 2021, 05:05 AM	#18
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,612	Justice being seen to be done?

13th May 2021, 05:07 AM	#19
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,612	Originally Posted by Darat I’ve heard on a radio phone in that the soldiers shouldn’t be prosecuted as they were only following orders…. I'm sure I heard of that sort of defence being used before somewhere...If only I could remember what happened...

13th May 2021, 05:07 AM	#20
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by rjh01 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...imitations.asp 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.

13th May 2021, 05:08 AM	#21
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	There is no statute of limitations on murder.

13th May 2021, 05:24 AM	#22
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,120	Originally Posted by rjh01 What concrete benefit does it give anyone to prosecute elderly people for crimes they may have committed when they were in their 20s? Justice. Equality of all before the law. Responsibility Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum Originally Posted by rjh01 The only answer I can think of is that it makes certain people feel better. You appear to lack imagination. Originally Posted by rjh01 Like were they following orders? Ah the Nuremberg defense. Following an illegal order is not a complete defense. Originally Posted by rjh01 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. Well, duh. Originally Posted by rjh01 Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...imitations.asp And? One of the numerous flaws with the US legal system.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

13th May 2021, 08:44 AM	#23
Carrot Flower King Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2020 Location: Northumberland, UK Posts: 3,612	Originally Posted by rjh01 Edit. See also statute of limitations https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...imitations.asp Meanwhile back here in the UK... What's that? We don't have one! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limita...United_Kingdom

18th May 2021, 09:01 AM	#24
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,956	Originally Posted by rjh01 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...imitations.asp So what year specifically should Nazi war crimes trials have stopped and we said it is time to let bygones be bygones?
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th May 2021, 05:15 AM	#25
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,639	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So what year specifically should Nazi war crimes trials have stopped and we said it is time to let bygones be bygones? 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.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

19th May 2021, 07:18 AM	#26
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,956	Originally Posted by rjh01 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. And really isn't society to blame, so we'll arrest them instead.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th May 2021, 07:45 AM	#27
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by rjh01 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. Why aren't the murderers responsible?

19th May 2021, 12:34 PM	#28
Nessie Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 14,420	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.
	__________________ Audiophile/biker/sceptic

19th May 2021, 11:38 PM	#29
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,639	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Why aren't the murderers responsible? 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?
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

19th May 2021, 11:46 PM	#30
RolandRat Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: Essex UK Posts: 1,602	Originally Posted by rjh01 Prove beyond reasonable doubt that they committed murder. Well yes. That is a standard prerequisite to being found guilty.

20th May 2021, 01:30 AM	#31
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 28,120	Originally Posted by Nessie 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. 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?
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

20th May 2021, 02:30 AM	#33
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by rjh01 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? Isn't that what a trial is for?

20th May 2021, 04:02 AM	#34
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 36,381	Originally Posted by rjh01 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? Originally Posted by catsmate I'm glad to see you support an investigation and prosecution. Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Isn't that what a trial is for? It would be very interesting to see a Joint Enterprise prosecution brought against the soldiers and their superiors in this case.

20th May 2021, 04:43 AM	#35
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 27,639	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Isn't that what a trial is for? 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.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

20th May 2021, 05:08 AM	#36
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	The victims are dead