PSNI rejects British Army version of 1988 shooting

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, so we are assuming guilt. That's fine. What's the sentence?

Whatever they consider life - 20-25 years?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

More than happy to condemn his killing, it would be good to find out what happened.

He shot a civilian with a gun, killed him and then lied about it thereafter. I think that about sums it up.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

on a side note, one of my "In Laws" often jokes about how they would take pot shots at the British Army border checkpoints, just for a laugh. they were only kids firing pellet guns at them, but they would sneak up there at night and see if they could shoot one in the face before scurrying back home.

he then goes on to complain about how the British Army treated everyone like scum....:rolleyes:

On a further side note - The actions of your in laws as kids does not justify the death of Aidan McAnespie.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

Whatever they consider life - 20-25 years?

He shot a civilian with a gun, killed him and then lied about it thereafter. I think that about sums it up.

On a further side note - The actions of your in laws as kids does not justify the death of Aidan McAnespie.

whether he meant to kill him or not, he is likely to have lied about it, a negligent discharge is a very serious offence. Lets face it though, he isn't going to prison, the GFA has made that null and void surely, or does that not apply to British Soldiers.

I wasn't trying to use that as justification, as I said, it was an aside. My wife has often said how intimidating ir was crossing the border, but if you are 18 and not sure if the next car that pulls up is going to have three guys with guns in it, I can imagine your nerves must be pretty much on edge all the time.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fratton Fred wrote: »

whether he meant to kill him or not, he is likely to have lied about it, a negligent discharge is a very serious offence. Lets face it though, he isn't going to prison, the GFA has made that null and void surely, or does that not apply to British Soldiers.

You're right there. I think the closure would be important to the communities though.

Maybe there could be civil action, does the GFA stop that as well?

stovelid

I would be of the opinion that the lad was murdered and it's desperate that it went unpunished. As did the murder of people by the British Army. As did the murder of people by the IRA.

There will never be any significant progress made in NI unless the whole cottage industry of tribunals and inquiries is brought to a halt.

Obviously you feel for the parents and relatives, but all an - often politically motivated - inquiry usually does is establish an often rhetorical fact at great expense and division.

Diogenes

dlofnep wrote: »

Whatever they consider life - 20-25 years?

What about all those terrorist murderers walking free and easy around Belfast? Why should this murder be punished and not the thousand of others.

He shot a civilian with a gun, killed him and then lied about it thereafter. I think that about sums it up.

So have hundreds of unionist and IRA terrorists, why does this soldier deserve the punishment that they escaped thanks to the GFA?

dlofnep

How about stick to the issue at hand and stop attempting to turn this into an IRA discussion. The topic at hand is a British soldier who shot a civilian dead, and then lied about it - claiming it was an accident. He deserves to be punished for his crime. I think you'll find IRA members spent years in prison, but they were released (keyword here being "released") as part of the GFA agreement - What did this soldier spend? Absolutely nothing - Because he lied, and the British Government as always turned a blind eye. They were very quick to imprison nationalists - But never their own soldiers.

The problem here is their inability to even address the issue. Letting a civilian death by a "mandated" soldier go unscathed. So less of the red herrings.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

How about stick to the issue at hand and stop attempting to turn this into an IRA discussion.

The problem here is their inability to even address the issue. Letting a civilian death by a "mandated" soldier go unscathed. So less of the red herrings.

It's not a red herring really. It's impossible to exonerate one instance of murder and to demand justice for another.

The reference to soldiers not doing time is only valid if every terrorist that ever committed an atrocity was jailed for it.

It sticks in the craw that a solider has got away with murder. But if NI citizens from both communities are expected to accept the release of prisoners under the GFA without serving time for equally heinous atrocities, then sadly, we have to draw the same line under the atrocities committed by the security forces.

We can't tell people in the protestant community to suck it up when Sean Kelly gets out, yet expect an expensive, publicly funded inquiry into the wrongdoings of loyalists and Brits.

dlofnep

It is a red herring. It's trying to deflect the debate outside the scope of the topic. I don't feel the need to discuss or explain why a soldier who murdered a civilian and lied about it needs to be brought to justice.

The fact that you are using Nationalist/Loyalist paramilitary releases doesn't change one thing. They were convicted - This soldier was not and the truth was covered up. There is the problem.

So instead of debating the issue at hand, you have attempted to use the good old "But the IRA did this.." nonsense. It has nothing to do with this said topic. You might be content with the fact that a mandated army murdered a civilian and then covered it up, but I am not.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

It is a red herring. It's trying to deflect the debate outside the scope of the topic. I don't feel the need to discuss or explain why a soldier who murdered a civilian and lied about it needs to be brought to justice.

The fact that you are using Nationalist/Loyalist paramilitary releases doesn't change one thing. They were convicted - This soldier was not and the truth was covered up. There is the problem.

So instead of debating the issue at hand, you have attempted to use the good old "But the IRA did this.." nonsense. It has nothing to do with this said topic. You might be content with the fact that a mandated army murdered a civilian and then covered it up, but I am not.

so if he is convicted, sentenced and then sent him back to wherever it was he has spent the last 20 years, you will be happy with that?

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so if he is convicted, sentenced and then sent him back to wherever it was he has spent the last 20 years, you will be happy with that?

No, I would not. He should serve time for his multiple crimes. He is a mandated soldier and should pay the consequences for his actions. What do you think Fred - Do you think he should serve time for the murder of a civilian and the blatant lieing in regards to the incident?

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

You might be content with the fact that a mandated army murdered a civilian and then covered it up, but I am not.

I'm not content at all. The GFA and the post-trouble settlement unfortunately demands that we suspend incredulity and try to put the past to rest.

If one side of the community can't accept this, it rubbishes their right to enjoy the freedom afforded to people on 'their side' that did intolerable and completely illegal things during the troubles.

No single group from the families of IRA bomb, loyalist and British Army victims has parity over the other. Every group have had to endure the fact that the killers of their loved ones are strolling around unpunished (or at least partially punished).

What makes Republicans any different?

dlofnep

stovelid wrote: »

I'm not content at all. The GFA and the post-trouble settlement unfortunately demands that we suspend incredulity and try to put the past to rest.

If one side of the community can't accept this, it rubbishes their right to enjoy the freedom afforded to people on 'their side' that did intolerable and completely illegal things during the troubles.

No single group from the families of IRA bomb, loyalist and British Army victims has parity over the other. Every group have had to endure the fact that the killers of their loved ones are strolling around unpunished (or at least partially punished).

What makes Republicans any different?

I never stated the Republicans were any different. This is another attempt to turn this into a debate about the IRA. Members of the IRA and members of loyalist paramilitaries served time, whatever amount of time it was. They were convicted and admitted to their actions.

Stick to the topic at hand, or don't post at all. Do you think that the soldier should be punished for murdering a civilian? Yes or no. Stop trying to veer this off-topic. You're trying to cover the fact that this is yet another documented account of a British soldier murdering a civilian and getting away with it.

Fratton Fred

dlofnep wrote: »

No, I would not. He should serve time for his multiple crimes. He is a mandated soldier and should pay the consequences for his actions. What do you think Fred - Do you think he should serve time for the murder of a civilian and the blatant lieing in regards to the incident?

Personally i would like to see everyone who has killed serve their time, but the GFA has put a stop to that. There are some absolute psychos walking around NI, in some cases living close to the relatives of people they have tortured and killed, it amazes me.

i remember Mo Mowlem talking of a road show her and General (forgottten his name:eek:) were doing to sell the peace process. they were in a village hall talking about peace, reconciliation etc and a women stood up and said she is all for peace, but it not easy when the man who killed your son is sitting three rows in front of you.

It must be ****ing torture for those people who went throught this, but if the release of prisoners is what people see as the best way forward, then so be it.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Personally i would like to see everyone who has killed serve their time

So you agree that this soldier should serve time for the murder of a civilian? Good. That wasn't hard, was it?

It's hard for a community to have faith in a system that allows it's own soldiers to commit murder and come away unscathed.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

Do you think that the soldier should be punished for murdering a civilian? Yes or no.

Ideally: Yes. For life. With no parole.

In reality: No. Not if it means lasting peace. No more than other vermin from both sides of the community who have never been brought to book or who have walked away without serving full sentences for murder.

As for the off-topic cracks: give me a break. If somebody started a thread here bellyaching about IRA prisoners being released under the GFA, you'd be in like a light. And rightly so, it being a Irish political discussion forum.

dlofnep

It is off-topic. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you've been discussing anything but. You're apologists for the British soldier's actions. Time and time again they have proven that they are incapable of respecting human life. In Derry, in Belfast, in Tyrone, in Iraq and then some.

I refuse to allow them to get away with murder. If a member of any paramiltary organisation killed a civilian, I feel that they should serve time for it. IRA, or anyone else. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a mandated soldier who killed a civilian, and then covered it up with backing of his collegues - and this is not the first time and you damn well know it. You are attempting to veer away from it by continously referring to the IRA. This is a common tactic for British army apologists in an attempt to do anything BUT discuss the issue. I refuse to be conned by your ruse.

madden1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Personally i would like to see everyone who has killed serve their time, but the GFA has put a stop to that. There are some absolute psychos walking around NI, in some cases living close to the relatives of people they have tortured and killed, it amazes me.

Must be over 30 years from Captian Robert Niriac was killed,
I read a few weeks ago that a guy Kevin Crilly from Co Armagh has been charged with his killing.

looks like the GFA has not put a stop to all court action.

Sand

It is off-topic. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you've been discussing anything but. You're apologists for the British soldier's actions. Time and time again they have proven that they are incapable of respecting human life. In Derry, in Belfast, in Tyrone, in Iraq and then some.

I refuse to allow them to get away with murder. If a member of any paramiltary organisation killed a civilian, I feel that they should serve time for it. IRA, or anyone else. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a mandated soldier who killed a civilian, and then covered it up with backing of his collegues - and this is not the first time and you damn well know it. You are attempting to veer away from it by continously referring to the IRA. This is a common tactic for British army apologists in an attempt to do anything BUT discuss the issue. I refuse to be conned by your ruse.

The soldier involved, if guilty [ no conviction afterall so hes as innocent as Gerry Adams at this point], wont serve a day in jail. Hell be sentenced and then immediately released under the GFA, just like the Provos and the Loyalists.

Move on Dlop, move on. Do you get the reference now?

dlofnep

Sand wrote: »

The soldier involved, if guilty

He is guilty.

Sand wrote: »

wont serve a day in jail.

Hence my thread. Soldier murders civilian. Dlofnep moves in and addresses the issue. Understand? It's very simple really.

Sand wrote: »

Hell be sentenced and then immediately released under the GFA, just like the Provos and the Loyalists.

Or, the coverup will continue and he will never be brought to justice, like the countless other British soldiers who took the lives of civilians - not only in Ireland, but in Iraq and then some.

Sand wrote: »

Move on Dlop, move on. Do you get the reference now?

No sorry, I'd rather highlight this blatant murder of a civilian than allow you to try and dictate to me what I'm allowed to address and what I'm not. :rolleyes:

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

H
No sorry, I'd rather highlight this blatant murder of a civilian than allow you to try and dictate to me what I'm allowed to address and what I'm not. :rolleyes:

It was blatant murder. It's rotten that he will go unpunished. But many other civilians were murdered, none of whom have more parity than others. Asking people on a public forum to ignore the wider issue is as pointless as expecting you to contribute to a thread about Republican atrocities without pushing for your own version of parity.

It does have relevance to NI society as one person's killer is another person's hero. And every time we try and force the public to pay for another tribunal simply to establish a widely known truth, the divisions are copper-fastened.

Sand

No sorry, I'd rather highlight this blatant murder of a civilian than allow you to try and dictate to me what I'm allowed to address and what I'm not.

Would you like to join me in condemning all coverups of murderers crimes? Regardless of political affiliation or what sort of public profile they now hold? Youd never align yourself with a figure who covered up their involvement in murders would you?

[I am totally convinced that Provos generate some sort of Irony Free Zone within a 2 foot radius. Science ought to study the potential for a sustainable source of clean energy]

dlofnep

There you go again. Unable to discuss the issue at hand, and once again diverting it . You're as predictable as Irish weather - Cold and morbid.

Keep up your nonsense. I will continue to ensure that the British military are justifiably criticised for their blatant disregards for basic human rights. You can keep trying to drag this off-topic, but I'm not going to jump in your hole.

You won't be doing any condemning, because you're unable to take any sort of criticism for your beloved British army onboard. I would have no qualms whatsoever condemning any attacks made by Republican groups which resulted in the loss of civilian life. Can you say the same? No. Because every ounce of criticism ever directed at the British system is always deflected by you back towards Republican groups in an attempt to avoid the issue at hand. Are you going to condemn this British soldier for his blatant calculated and cold murder of an civilian or are you going to pitter-patter around the issue for another 4 pages?

I repeat once more. This man was blatantly murdered by a member of the British military, which was quickly covered up - and there should be justifiably a full and thorough enquiry into it.

RSF Cill Dara

dlofnep wrote: »

It is off-topic. Instead of discussing the issue at hand, you've been discussing anything but. You're apologists for the British soldier's actions. Time and time again they have proven that they are incapable of respecting human life. In Derry, in Belfast, in Tyrone, in Iraq and then some.

I refuse to allow them to get away with murder. If a member of any paramiltary organisation killed a civilian, I feel that they should serve time for it. IRA, or anyone else. But that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is a mandated soldier who killed a civilian, and then covered it up with backing of his collegues - and this is not the first time and you damn well know it. You are attempting to veer away from it by continously referring to the IRA. This is a common tactic for British army apologists in an attempt to do anything BUT discuss the issue. I refuse to be conned by your ruse.

same old story , you can not start a thread on this forum about the apaling actions carried by the crown forces in the occupied 6 counties without the mention of the IRA

stovelid

RSF Cill Dara wrote: »

same old story , you can not start a thread on this forum about the apaling actions carried by the crown forces in the occupied 6 counties without the mention of the IRA

Could you completely ignore a long thread posted by a crackpot unionist bellyaching about the release of, say, Sean Kelly, as part of the GFA?

People are not absolving the soldier or solely beating up the IRA. They're saying that you can't cherry pick to whom settlement applies. Provos or Loyalists can't have their prisoners walk free because a line is drawn under the past, and then decide to pursue inquiries against other 'troubles criminals'.

dlofnep

Stovelid, you're entirely missing the point. The point is, a soldier killed a civilian, lied about the circumstances and got away Scot-Free. But instead of discussing it, you and the rest were quick to jump on the IRA-bashing wagon rather than condemn the soldier, which is one of many instances where the mandated soldiers took the lifes of civilians. That is what RSF Cill Dara is referring to. There cannot be one ounce of criticism towards the British military on here without it being deflected to and turned into another IRA bashing thread.

stovelid

dlofnep wrote: »

Stovelid, you're entirely missing the point.

I'm not.

I'm not concurring with your point.

There is a difference.

dlofnep wrote: »

But instead of discussing it, you and the rest were quick to jump on the IRA-bashing wagon rather than condemn the soldier

stovelid wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that the lad was murdered and it's desperate that it went unpunished.

stovelid wrote: »

It sticks in the craw that a solider has got away with murder.

stovelid wrote: »

Ideally: Yes. For life. With no parole.

stovelid wrote: »

It was blatant murder. It's rotten that he will go unpunished.

dlofnep

You did stovelid, but you also felt the need to append an attack on the IRA in your very first post. I was trying to discuss the events of Aidan's death, but with every post there has been the whole rigamorole of either being told to move on by Sand or the usual "ah yeah it's bad but, sure, so were the IRA too". It's widening the scope of the issue, and therefore takes away from the immediate issue at hand. It's like a game of tit for tat - I provide evidence of British military attacks on civilians, and then someone counters with whatever attacks Republican groups are responsible. It's not a game of tit for tat - I'm trying to discuss Aidan's death and not be lead off to another topic. Look at what's happened in this thread already - We've spent 4 pages debating on anything but Aidan's death.

stovelid

Accepted.

Just meant that the GFA involved painful sacrifices (and the signing away of recourse to justice for many people) right across all communities. I would never argue that the lad's death was anything other than murder though so fair enough.

dlofnep

Fair enough.

Fratton Fred

madden1 wrote: »

Must be over 30 years from Captian Robert Niriac was killed,
I read a few weeks ago that a guy Kevin Crilly from Co Armagh has been charged with his killing.

looks like the GFA has not put a stop to all court action.

I can't see that going the distance to be honest. I'm not sure people want it out in the open exactly what he was up to.