Cameron apologies for Bloody sunday

twinytwo

British Prime Minister David Cameron, addressing the House of Commonas after its publication on 15 June 2010, described what British soldiers had done as "both unjustified and unjustifiable, it was wrong". He acknowledged that all those who died were unarmed when they were killed by British soldiers and that a British soldier had fired the first shot at civilians. He also said that this was not a premeditated action, though "there was no point in trying to soften or equivocate" as "what happened should never, ever have happened". Cameron then apologised on behalf of the British Government by saying he was "deeply sorry".

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/cameron-says-sorry-for-bloody-sunday-killings-461790.html

Sad how it took them nearly 40 odd years and 200 million pounds to admit what everyone already knew.

Poccington

Lads I'm gonna get this warning out of the way now.

If you're going to post in this thread, just try to remember you're not a child and in turn, you should be able to have a proper discussion about something.

Anyone that starts the usual bollocks, will be dealt with. There's nothing wrong with speaking out about the actions of the British Army on the day but please don't turn it into a back and forth pissing contest.

Poccington

Personally, I'm delighted with the outcome of the report. However, this is merely the victims names being officially cleared... It still isn't justice for the people who died that day.

johngalway

It was heartening to hear the apology of the British PM for the actions of the British soldiers on the day. I was genuinely surprised by his comments, but in a good way.

Run_to_da_hills

Very good move on behalf of the British Government and perhaps it will lead to furher healing and bettering of relations between both countrys.

Zambia

I think its well known enough here that I hold no ill feeling to the BA but in this case I think Cameron said it directly enough

"You do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible."

I do think one thing though a lot of bad decisions where made by a lot of people on the day. The worst by far was on the part of of the individual's who lined up targets that where clearly not a threat, and pulled the trigger.

Delancey

I thought Camerons comments were especially generous coming from a Tory Prime Minister .
What a pity this was not sorted at the time - many people might still be alive today.

Fratton Fred

I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but I would be interested in a military persons view on what may have happened that day.

It seems the initial order to move into the bogsiide was a bad one, but Wilford didn't order anyone to shoot.

Could it have been one soldier opening fire that caused confusion, resulting in four other soldiers opening fire maybe?

What I don't understand (and I suppose no one ever will) is why they opened fire in the first place.

cyrusdvirus

No-one is really all that surprised at the result of this, and the fact that the victims names have been cleared is something i suppose, however it will not bring them back or undo the bad feeling that resulted against the BA that lingers to this day.

BUT, i have a vague memory of Martin McGuinness mentioning something about there being armed IRA 'volunteers' on the bogside that day. Is that just a false memory or can anyone else remember it?

DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN INCITEMENT, OR AN EFFORT TO JUSTIFY WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY, IT IS A GENUINE QUESTION

OS119

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but I would be interested in a military persons view on what may have happened that day...

...It seems the initial order to move into the bogsiide was a bad one, but Wilford didn't order anyone to shoot.

my own view is that two factors caused Bloody Sunday - the build up to it, and the command and control within Spt Coy while the shooting took place.

1) the build-up to the march 'painted a picture' to members of 1PARA - they were the Belfast reserve Bn, but were moved to Derry to police the march amid internal HQNI criticism of Derry brigade over the 'relaxed' way they handled public disorder and praise for the harder line the Belfast Brigade took on the same issue, all the members of the Bn would of been aware of this, and understood that they were being used instead of Derry Brigade units because the Army was unhappy with Derry's performance but pleased with theirs.

2) on the morning of the march shots were exchanged between OIRA and 1Royal Anglians at an OP next to the Bogside, and 1PARA were aware of this.

3) there was a shooting incident within the Bogside itself - about 15 mins before the real shooting started - in which the Coy HQ element of Spt Coy came under fire in the street: the event was captured on TV as the BBC journalist PeterTaylor was stood next to the Coy Cdr at the time.

4) the Commander, Land Forces NI, General Ford was present - though not in command - but his presence, particulary as the person responsible for criticising Derry Brigade (in Part 1), suggested to 1PARA that the normal command structure of the Brigade didn't apply that day, and that he said, rather than what the Derry Brigade Commander said, went. he had previously suggested that leading rioters could be shot, though he had been stamped on hard for that and had backtracked, and as 1PARA went into the Bogside he was yelling 'go on 1PARA, get them!'.

5) Lt Col Wilford ordered Spt Coy to chase the rioters into the Bogside to 'round them up' - as was done in Belfast. this was in direct opposition to the Derry Brigade plan, and in direct insubordination to the Derry Brigade commander who had forbidden it, but Wilford had 'communications difficulties' and claimed that as the situation developed he needed orders and couldn't get them. this is almost certainly the result of a 'nod and wink' between LtCol Wilford, and Gen. Ford, CLF, NI (Part 4).

the spark was probably one soldier from Spt Coy shooting at something within the Bogside, whether that was a legitimate target as mandated by the Yellow Card is unknown, other soldiers, hearing the fire, joined in - some, like Soldier F, just picked males of military age and shot at them, others may have been more discerning, but the result was the same in that the soldiers who fired - still the minority of Spt Coy - fired at persons that their Rules of Engagement did not allow, and those soldiers would have known that.

what allowed an initial, illegal contact to develop into Bloody Sunday was that Spt Coy's officers and SNCO's completely failed to grip what was happening, to find out what their soldiers were shooting at, and to stop it. their failure was they neither know what was happening, had control over their men, nor that once a contact was underway, did anything about it.

there is little doubt that some soldiers were litterally murderous - Soldier F is believed to have killed 3 of the 13 and possibly 5 of the 13 - but what turned a killing spree into a massacre was the atmosphere within 1PARA that CLF NI had created and the OIRA had contributed to, and the failure of Spt Coys' officers and SNCO's to find out what the fcuk was going on for at least 15 minutes after the shooting started.

gizmo555

gatecrash wrote: »

No-one is really all that surprised at the result of this, and the fact that the victims names have been cleared is something i suppose, however it will not bring them back or undo the bad feeling that resulted against the BA that lingers to this day.

BUT, i have a vague memory of Martin McGuinness mentioning something about there being armed IRA 'volunteers' on the bogside that day. Is that just a false memory or can anyone else remember it?

DO NOT TAKE THIS AS AN INCITEMENT, OR AN EFFORT TO JUSTIFY WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY, IT IS A GENUINE QUESTION

Good summary of the report's main points here, on the Guardian website, including this:

• The report said that republican paramilitaries had been responsible for "some firing" but the scale had been exaggerated by British soldiers and "none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of the civilian casualties".

• The report concluded that two Official IRA men had gone to a pre-arranged sniping position and shots had been fired by republican paramilitaries that were not merely in response to the British soldiers opening fire.

• Saville said Martin McGuiness, now the deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, "was probably armed with a Thompson sub-machine gun" but said that there was no evidence he fired the weapon and that this provided no justification for the soldiers opening fire.

• It also found evidence of people with nail and petrol bombs and at least one car used to hold weapons in Glenfada Park North. The inquiry said the Official IRA had tried to conceal the whole truth about its activities but that the Glenfada Park North area was clear of weapons when the soldiers arrived.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Poccington wrote: »

Personally, I'm delighted with the outcome of the report. However, this is merely the victims names being officially cleared... It still isn't justice for the people who died that day.

Not inciting also.

But just wondering if soldiers are brought to court to face criminal charges do you think it could cause violence in the North?

I think the soldiers should be but if tensions rise it could cause violence and potentially more people could die. i don't think it would be worth it if that was the case.

It wasn't me!

I shouldn't think so. The report was broadly welcomed and there are very few looking to discredit its value. Frankly, I think that prosecutions are definitely in the interests of peace in the north going forward. They would do a lot to ameliorate the raw feelings between large swathes of the community and the army. It would also be a gesture which demonstrates the intent of the establishment to work on behalf of the people.

OS119

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I shouldn't think so. The report was broadly welcomed and there are very few looking to discredit its value. Frankly, I think that prosecutions are definitely in the interests of peace in the north going forward. They would do a lot to ameliorate the raw feelings between large swathes of the community and the army. It would also be a gesture which demonstrates the intent of the establishment to work on behalf of the people.

there's going to be a fudamental problem with any prosecution - that of a fair trial.

its for the DPPNI to bring a prosecution, and a trial would have to be in NI because thats where the offence was commited - but can anybody imagine the chances of finding a jury in NI that didn't contain preconcieved ideas about the men's guilt or innocence? the British PM has just told the world that the soldiers lied on oath, and that the shootings fell completely outside the lawful reasons for opening fire - there's not a defence lawyer in the world who couldn't convince a judge that the trial was hopelessly prejudiced and that a fair trial was impossible.

one of the central tenets of the law is that you can't correct one miscarriage of justice with another - so i'd be astonished if a trial actually took place, much less that any of the men will have to stand in a courtroom and hear the Jury foreman read out the verdicts.

It wasn't me!

OS119 wrote: »

there's going to be a fudamental problem with any prosecution - that of a fair trial.

its for the DPPNI to bring a prosecution, and a trial would have to be in NI because thats where the offence was commited - but can anybody imagine the chances of finding a jury in NI that didn't contain preconcieved ideas about the men's guilt or innocence? the British PM has just told the world that the soldiers lied on oath, and that the shootings fell completely outside the lawful reasons for opening fire - there's not a defence lawyer in the world who couldn't convince a judge that the trial was hopelessly prejudiced and that a fair trial was impossible.

one of the central tenets of the law is that you can't correct one miscarriage of justice with another - so i'd be astonished if a trial actually took place, much less that any of the men will have to stand in a courtroom and hear the Jury foreman read out the verdicts.

That is a fair point I hadn't considered. Indeed, the report itself clearly passes judgement when it identifies the individual soldiers who committed the acts, certifies them as having been definitively extra-legal and states that no justification for them existed.

OS119

It wasn't me! wrote: »

That is a fair point I hadn't considered. Indeed, the report itself clearly passes judgement when it identifies the individual soldiers who committed the acts, certifies them as having been definitively extra-legal and states that no justification for them existed.

yeah, i can imagine that DPPNI will look at it hard, and for political reasons maybe make a go of it, but i can't see it going far - probably not to court, and certainly not to a conviction.

that, imho, would probably be the worst result politically - one legal body says they are guilty as fcuk, and another says that either there's no chance of a fair trial or theres not enough evidence to secure a conviction - or worse, delivers a 'not guilty' verdict.

there are two other issues as well: the evidence given to the Saville enquiry by an individual can't be then used to prosecute that individual for anything other than perjury, and that the Saville enquiry was able to draw judgements based - as in a UK Civil or Corroners Court - on the Balance of Probabilities - but a Criminal trial may only convict on the basis of Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

the word 'minefield' instantly springs to mind...

Fratton Fred

OS119 wrote: »

yeah, i can imagine that DPPNI will look at it hard, and for political reasons maybe make a go of it, but i can't see it going far - probably not to court, and certainly not to a conviction.

that, imho, would probably be the worst result politically - one legal body says they are guilty as fcuk, and another says that either there's no chance of a fair trial or theres not enough evidence to secure a conviction - or worse, delivers a 'not guilty' verdict.

there are two other issues as well: the evidence given to the Saville enquiry by an individual can't be then used to prosecute that individual for anything other than perjury, and that the Saville enquiry was able to draw judgements based - as in a UK Civil or Corroners Court - on the Balance of Probabilities - but a Criminal trial may only convict on the basis of Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

the word 'minefield' instantly springs to mind...

add in the GFA and the release of prisoners to the mix and i tink it could be pretty pointless.

If anything, i can see one (Maybe Soldier F) being made an example of and taken to court, but i could see that ending up in a deal. He pleads guilty, does a few months inside an English prison before being released under the GFA and keeping his full pension.

oncevotedff

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but I would be interested in a military persons view on what may have happened that day.

My view is that there but for the grace of God goes every soldier who was ever sent onto a street full of civilians.

oncevotedff

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If anything, i can see one (Maybe Soldier F) being made an example of and taken to court, but i could see that ending up in a deal. He pleads guilty, does a few months inside an English prison before being released under the GFA and keeping his full pension.

Sure.

Unless Soldier F starts putting witnesses on the stand who start talking about how the Paras were trained in the 60s and 70s, the briefings they received before going on patrol and specifically before they went out on Bloody Sunday. Maybe they'll even testify that Cpl X or Sgt Y (now conveniently dead) gave a fire order. A prosecution will inevitably be hugely embarrassing for the government and the Army.

Glenshane Pass

Good step forward but I would like to see prosecutions. Thankfully the world now knows what really happened.

Fratton Fred

Glenshane Pass wrote: »

Good step forward but I would like to see prosecutions. Thankfully the world now knows what really happened.

I think it did, just not "officially".

Fuinseog

Poccington wrote: »

Lads I'm gonna get this warning out of the way now.

If you're going to post in this thread, just try to remember you're not a child and in turn, you should be able to have a proper discussion about something.

Anyone that starts the usual bollocks, will be dealt with. There's nothing wrong with speaking out about the actions of the British Army on the day but please don't turn it into a back and forth pissing contest.

???????

Fuinseog

about two weeks ago a catholic was cleared of any wrongdoing which cause his own death. in 1971 he was walking through the streets minding his own business when an army sniper shot him dead.
the philosophy of the time was that no soldier could be brought to trail for something they did while on duty.

Fuinseog

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but I would be interested in a military persons view on what may have happened that day.

It seems the initial order to move into the bogsiide was a bad one, but Wilford didn't order anyone to shoot.

Could it have been one soldier opening fire that caused confusion, resulting in four other soldiers opening fire maybe?

What I don't understand (and I suppose no one ever will) is why they opened fire in the first place.

read Brits by Peter Taylor or indeed watch it on Youtube.

click on
British Paratrooper comes clean about Bloody Sunday

Poccington

Fuinseog wrote: »

???????

????????

Poccington

Fratton Fred wrote: »

add in the GFA and the release of prisoners to the mix and i tink it could be pretty pointless.

If anything, i can see one (Maybe Soldier F) being made an example of and taken to court, but i could see that ending up in a deal. He pleads guilty, does a few months inside an English prison before being released under the GFA and keeping his full pension.

Why would he be released under the GFA? He wasn't a member of a paramilitary organisation.

Also, considering someone was charged with the kidnapping, false imprisonment and murder of Robert Nairac last year, I don't see why any of the Para's who murdered civilians on Bloody Sunday shouldn't face charges.

OS119

Poccington wrote: »

Why would he be released under the GFA? He wasn't a member of a paramilitary organisation.

Also, considering someone was charged with the kidnapping, false imprisonment and murder of Robert Nairac last year, I don't see why any of the Para's who murdered civilians on Bloody Sunday shouldn't face charges.

i think a monkey in a suit could convince the UK supreme court that it was fundamentaly unfair that one person convicted with murder in the period 1969 to 1998 shouldn't have to serve a prison sentence, and another person, convicted of the same offence, and who commited it for similar reasons, should.

the GFA can say what it likes, but the UK Supreme Court's authority and juristiction trump it everytime - and no British government is going to spend money (and the chance of being re-elected) trying to appeal to the SC that former soldiers should go to prison but that terrorists should not.

convictions may be slightly different, but there are a number of reasons why - as i've explained above - i think they are unlikely. that doesn't mean i don't think that an individual against whom there is significant evidence if a criminal offence shouldn't face prosection for that offence, merely that for a number of legitimate legal reasons, i don't think in this case they will.

Poccington

OS119 wrote: »

convictions may be slightly different, but there are a number of reasons why - as i've explained above - i think they are unlikely. that doesn't mean i don't think that an individual against whom there is significant evidence if a criminal offence shouldn't face prosection for that offence, merely that for a number of legitimate legal reasons, i don't think in this case they will.

Oh I don't think they will either, I was merely wondering why the GFA would apply to a soldier.

BTW you've had some great posts on this thread, very informative.

cyrusdvirus

Poccington wrote: »

BTW you've had some great posts on this thread, very informative.

So say we all.

Glenshane Pass

For anyone interested;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballymurphy_Massacre

Fratton Fred

Poccington wrote: »

Why would he be released under the GFA? He wasn't a member of a paramilitary organisation.

Also, considering someone was charged with the kidnapping, false imprisonment and murder of Robert Nairac last year, I don't see why any of the Para's who murdered civilians on Bloody Sunday shouldn't face charges.

Good point. All I would say is that being charged and being convicted and sent to prison are two different things.

The GFA doesn't say anything about Paramilitaries, it just states "Organisation". probably left intentionally ambiguous.

ddef

too little too late, in my opinion.

bunny shooter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

.........Could it have been one soldier opening fire that caused confusion, resulting in four other soldiers opening fire maybe?.......

I worked with a lad years ago in London who claimed he was a Para there on the day and his version of the events on that day are not dissimilar to this