Irish soldiers and saluting the queen

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

So she is in a position to simply unbestow the honour.



And now that this has been found to be false, there would be no problem with removing the OBE, correct?

I suggest you read up instead of jumping in and making claims

The Queen is the ceremonial head of state, she does not have the power to take honours off people, only politicians can authorise that.

jordan..

troubleshooter wrote: »

I suggest you read up instead of jumping in and making claims

The Queen is the ceremonial head of state, she does not have the power to take honours off people, only politicians can authorise that.

I dont get it, why are you so eager to defend the Queen??

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

The Queen is the ceremonial head of state, she does not have the power to take honours off people, only politicians can authorise that.

That's incorrect.

The Queen has complete control over who she awards an OBE to. She awards based on recommendation from the Government, but ultimately she has the end say as Sovereign of the Order.

I suggest you read up.

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

That's incorrect.

The Queen has complete control over who she awards an OBE to. She awards based on recommendation from the Government, but ultimately she has the end say as Sovereign of the Order.

I suggest you read up.

I have read up, I have never head of the Queen refusing an honour to a selected candidate.... it states: The Queen simply gives the honour the final stamp by approving/awarding it.

Candidates are identified by public or private bodies, by government departments or are nominated by members of the public. Depending on their roles, those people selected by committee are submitted either to the Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, or Secretary of State for Defence for their approval before being sent to the Sovereign for final approval. Certain honours are awarded solely at the Sovereign's discretion, such as the Order of the Garter,[5] the Order of the Thistle, the Royal Victorian Order,[6] the Order of Merit[7] and the Royal Family Order.


The Queen cannot simply remove an honour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4864530/Sir-Fred-Goodwin-How-an-honour-can-be-removed.html


Removing an honour once granted is formidably complicated and can take years to accomplish.


Because honours like Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood are granted by the Queen, only the Sovereign can remove them.



In practical terms, the real power rests with a small group of senior civil servants who make up the Forfeiture Committee

The committee is composed of the Cabinet Secretary, the Treasury Solicitor, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office and Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Executive.

Any recommendation for forfeiture from the committee is passed to the Prime Minister who then submits a request to the Queen.

troubleshooter

jordan.. wrote: »

I dont get it, why are you so eager to defend the Queen??

Im not, Im eager to expose the republican bs agenda.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

I have read up, I have never head of the Queen refusing an honour to a selected candidate.... it states: The Queen simply gives the honour the final stamp by approving/awarding it.

Wrong again.

The Queen has ultimate control over awards. She removed Lester Piggott's OBE for tax evasion.

troubleshooter wrote: »

Do you have a link for your claim that she can take OBEs off people?

The statutes of most orders of knighthood and the royal warrants of decorations and medals include provision for the Queen to "cancel and annul" appointments and awards. Cancellation is considered in cases where retention of the appointment or award would bring the honours system into disrepute.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1994-12-02/Writtens-1.html

I hope this is clear. If it isn't, let me reiterate.

• The Queen is the Sovereign of the British Empire
• The Sovereign of the British Empire has ultimate control over rewards, including awarding them or removing them.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

Im not, Im eager to expose the republican bs agenda.

There is no BS agenda. It is a legitimate gripe surrounding the idea of 'automatic respect' for the head of a foreign state. Even though it was well established that the Widgery Report was a whitewash, she still went ahead and awarded Derek Wilford for his actions. In lieu of the Saville Inquiry's findings, I cannot see why one requires a "BS agenda" to request the removal of OBE from Derek Wilford.

You're unable to actually debate the heart of the debate, and have attempted to bring it into a game of ad hominem attacks and red herrings. You were wrong in regards to the Queen's powers, and you are also wrong in regards to your assessment of people who reject automatic respect towards the Queen.

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

Wrong again.

The Queen has ultimate control over awards. She removed Lester Piggott's OBE for tax evasion.






http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199495/cmhansrd/1994-12-02/Writtens-1.html

I hope this is clear. If it isn't, let me reiterate.

• The Queen is the Sovereign of the British Empire
• The Sovereign of the British Empire has ultimate control over rewards, including awarding them or removing them.

No she never, she simply gave the final authority for Piggotts award to be removed, the process starts with politicans, she simply gives the final stamp.

She is simply the ceremonial head of state.

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

There is no BS agenda. It is a legitimate gripe surrounding the idea of 'automatic respect' for the head of a foreign state. Even though it was well established that the Widgery Report was a whitewash, she still went ahead and awarded Derek Wilford for his actions. In lieu of the Saville Inquiry's findings, I cannot see why one requires a "BS agenda" to request the removal of OBE from Derek Wilford.

You're unable to actually debate the heart of the debate, and have attempted to bring it into a game of ad hominem attacks and red herrings. You were wrong in regards to the Queen's powers, and you are also wrong in regards to your assessment of people who reject automatic respect towards the Queen.

But your posting inaccurate bs about the Queen having the sole authority to grant OBEs and remove them, this is totally false.

She simply gave the final stamp to Wilfords OBE that was in 72, when the facts were very different.


The Queen cannot simply remove an honour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...e-removed.html


Removing an honour once granted is formidably complicated and can take years to accomplish.


Because honours like Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood are granted by the Queen, only the Sovereign can remove them.



In practical terms, the real power rests with a small group of senior civil servants who make up the Forfeiture Committee

The committee is composed of the Cabinet Secretary, the Treasury Solicitor, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office and Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Executive.

Any recommendation for forfeiture from the committee is passed to the Prime Minister who then submits a request to the Queen.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

No she never, she simply gave the final authority for Piggotts award to be removed, the process starts with politicans.

She is simply the ceremonial head of state.

You can repeat it as much as you like, it does not make it true. She has the ultimate authority by law on all matters pertaining to OBE's.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

But your posting inaccurate bs about the Queen having the sole authority to grant OBEs and remove them, this is totally false.

It is not false. By law, she has ultimate authority. I have provided you with a British parliament link, which you have conveniently refused to even acknowledge.

troubleshooter wrote: »

She simply gave the final stamp to Wilfords OBE that was in 72, when the facts were very different.

I'm sorry, but the facts were not different. A fact never changes. The report's findings were different, but it was well established at the time that it was a whitewash. The award was political and symbolic to say that even though the British army was wrong, the British state would stand by them at all costs.

You haven't said one thing that is true yet.

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

You can repeat it as much as you like, it does not make it true. She has the ultimate authority by law on all matters pertaining to OBE's.

So your still denying power to remove OBEs starts with politicans and civil servants and takes yrs :rolleyes:

She is the ceremonial head of state, she is not a politican, she simply abides by the requests of politicans.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

But your posting inaccurate bs about the Queen having the sole authority to grant OBEs and remove them, this is totally false.

She simply gave the final stamp to Wilfords OBE that was in 72, when the facts were very different.


The Queen cannot simply remove an honour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...e-removed.html


Removing an honour once granted is formidably complicated and can take years to accomplish.


Because honours like Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood are granted by the Queen, only the Sovereign can remove them.



In practical terms, the real power rests with a small group of senior civil servants who make up the Forfeiture Committee

The committee is composed of the Cabinet Secretary, the Treasury Solicitor, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office and Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Executive.

Any recommendation for forfeiture from the committee is passed to the Prime Minister who then submits a request to the Queen.

You are confusing a traditional process, with the legal process. By Law, the Queen has ultimate control as the Sovereign of the British Empire on all matters pertaining to the awarding or removal of OBE's.

troubleshooter

READ


The Queen cannot simply remove an honour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...e-removed.html


Removing an honour once granted is formidably complicated and can take years to accomplish.


Because honours like Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood are granted by the Queen, only the Sovereign can remove them.



In practical terms, the real power rests with a small group of senior civil servants who make up the Forfeiture Committee

The committee is composed of the Cabinet Secretary, the Treasury Solicitor, the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office and Permanent Secretary to the Scottish Executive.

Any recommendation for forfeiture from the committee is passed to the Prime Minister who then submits a request to the Queen.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

So your still denying power to remove OBEs starts with politicans and civil servants and takes yrs :rolleyes:

No, I have not denied at any point that that is the traditional role taken. I have outlined that the Queen legally has ultimate authority on the issue.

troubleshooter wrote: »

She is the ceremonial head of state, she is not a politican, she simply abides by the requests of politicans.

So then, you can see no reason why - with an interjection to the British Parliament, she would have no problem in removing Derek Wilford's OBE? Afterall - he fits very specific criteria which would provide the basis for the removal of his OBE.

jordan..

not everyone who disaproves of the queen visiting here is a republican!

Sounds like you have your own issues with republicanism!

Jamiekelly

Yep they'll salute her. And why not? I think it's time we stop being shallow bastards and show some respect. Even though I don't like her, she hasn't really done anything against an Irishman so let them salute her.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

READ


The Queen cannot simply remove an honour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...e-removed.html

Removing an honour once granted is formidably complicated and can take years to accomplish.

Because honours like Sir Fred Goodwin's knighthood are granted by the Queen, only the Sovereign can remove them......

I'm not sure if you're getting this. The Queen has ultimate authority as the Sovereign of the British Empire to award or remove OBE's. I have not disputed at any point that there is a bureaucratic process and route that is traditionally taken to resolve such matters. Nevertheless - the final step rests at her feet, and as such as the leader of the British Empire, she is ultimately responsible for any actions taken by herself. If she doesn't like the role, she can always step down and out of the public eye.

And if she is just a symbolic head of state, when was she in the UN recently trying to tell the world to embrace world peace? (Which is additionally hypocritical given that Britain has one of the worst records in history when it comes to world peace).

dlofnep

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Even though I don't like her, she hasn't really done anything against an Irishman so let them salute her.

She awarded a soldier with an OBE for the murder of 14 innocent Irish civilians. If anything, they should give her the O'Gara salute.

lemonjelly

jordan.. wrote: »

not everyone who disaproves of the queen visiting here is a republican!

Sounds like you have your own issues with republicanism!

I'm no republican either but to salute the monarchy is wrong in my eyes. No im not living in the past. Sure she maybe a nice woman but that's rubbing it in.

dlofnep

r. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister upon what grounds the grant of an honour may be withdrawn; and in which cases this has happened since 1979.

The Prime Minister: The statutes of most orders of knighthood and the royal warrants of decorations and medals include provision for the Queen to "cancel and annul" appointments and awards. Cancellation is considered in cases where retention of the appointment or award would bring the honours system into disrepute. There are no set guidelines for cancellations, which are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Since 1979, the London Gazette has published details of cancellations of 15 appointments and awards--three knighthoods, one CBE, five OBEs, four MBEs and two BEMs.

Dr. Wright: To ask the Prime Minister how many Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979.

The Prime Minister: One hundred and fifteen Conservative hon. Members have received knighthoods since 1979.

End of discussion.

stop

dlofnep wrote: »

She awarded a soldier with an OBE for the murder of 14 innocent UK civilians. If anything, they should give her the O'Gara salute.

FYP

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

The comparison was fine. Hitler himself isn't even important in the context of my point - which was that heads of state should only be afforded our respect if they have not disrespected our state. The Queen disrespected the Irish people when she awarded Derek Wilford with an OBE.

The events of bloody sunday did not happen in this state, they happened in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Queen deserves the same respect that any other head of state gets.

mgmt

troubleshooter wrote: »

Why do republicans who are a tiny minority, yet vocally infest the internet always claim to speak for the Irish people.

The guy made a valid point and that is your counter-argument. Pathetic.


She awarded an honour to someone who slaughtered Irishmen, why should she be welcomed?

oglaigh

lemonjelly wrote: »

I'm no republican either but to salute the monarchy is wrong in my eyes. No im not living in the past. Sure she maybe a nice woman but that's rubbing it in.

Why havent you started threads complaining about members of other European royal families visiting here then?? or is it just the British monarchy you have a problem with?

mgmt

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The events of bloody sunday did not happen in this state, they happened in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Queen deserves the same respect that any other head of state gets.

Hitler gave out medals for the sluaghter of Jews. You would have welcomed him because that happened abroad? Would you salute Kim Jong-il or the other world mass murderers?

oncevotedff

Reg'stoy wrote: »

The reason I asked my original question was because I personally find it strange that a society would allow an individual within it to inherit power by virtue of their birth. .

QE2 doesn't have any power.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

I was interested to see a lot of posts using the Nuremberg Defence, in that they must follow orders irrespective of their personal feelings. .

Not quite. DF personnel are required to obey all LAWFUL orders irrespective of their personal feelings. That is not the Nuremerg defence.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

...but surely individual members should be allowed some latitude in their personal views.

No

Reg'stoy wrote: »

...Rather I was wondering if they might ask to be excused for want of a better word.

Again, No.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The events of bloody sunday did not happen in this state, they happened in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Queen deserves the same respect that any other head of state gets.

I'm afraid, I don't draw the distinction between Irish people - regardless of where they may happen to live on Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement doesn't either, and all are entitled to claim Irish citizenship.

It's moot whether or not the 6 counties are currently under British control - The reality still exists - The Queen awarded Derek Wilford with an OBE for his operations in Derry which lead to the deaths of 14 Irish civilians. Perhaps you might tell the families of those bereaved that they are not Irish? Or would you be so quick to draw the line between being Irish & British in person? Doubtful.

So no - she doesn't deserve the same respect as other heads of state might receive, because as I've already pointed out - none of them bestowed one of their soldiers with an honour for killing Irish civilians.

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm afraid, I don't draw the distinction between Irish people - regardless of where they may happen to live on Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement doesn't either, and all are entitled to claim Irish citizenship.

It's moot whether or not the 6 counties are currently under British control - The reality still exists - The Queen awarded Derek Wilford with an OBE for his operations in Derry which lead to the deaths of 14 Irish civilians. Perhaps you might tell the families of those bereaved that they are not Irish? Or would you be so quick to draw the line between being Irish & British in person? Doubtful.

So no - she doesn't deserve the same respect as other heads of state might receive, because as I've already pointed out - none of them bestowed one of their soldiers with an honour for killing Irish civilians.

No the British govt gave Col Wilford an OBE for his service as a colonel in the Paras, the Queen simply awarded the honour, she does what the govt tell her, why do you post bs?

As for approving of ignorant behavior, ie hands in pockets while representing your country and meeting a foreign head of state, that shows your level.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

No the British govt gave Col Wilford an OBE for his service as a colonel in the Paras, the Queen simply awarded the honour, it was not her chioce, she does what the govt tell her, why do you post bs?

I haven't posted BS. Everything I have stated is factual. The Queen awarded Derek Wilford an OBE for his operations in Derry - the latter one of which resulted in 14 innocent people dieing. The Queen gave him the honour, and awarded it to him - on recommendation of the British Government.

troubleshooter

dlofnep wrote: »

I haven't posted BS. Everything I have stated is factual. The Queen awarded Derek Wilford an OBE for his operations in Derry - the latter one of which resulted in 14 innocent people dieing. The Queen gave him the honour, and awarded it to him - on recommendation of the British Government.

Its on record that Edward Heaths govt started the process to award Col Wilford an ObE do you dispute that?

The Queen is simply ceremonial head of state, who stamps things and physically gives the award.

Do you not undersand that?

You stated the Queen gave an OBE in honour of an op that killed 14 civilans, thats totally untrue.

dlofnep

troubleshooter wrote: »

The Queen is simply ceremonial head of state, who stamps things and physically gives the award.

Do you not undersand that?

Not once have I disputed that her role is nothing more than ceremonial. Not once. It's irrelevant. She awarded him, and if she doesn't envy her role as head of state - she can step down and allow the UK to become a Republic, where she won't have to make decisions as an unelected representative.

And if she's merely ceremonial - then it would serve her well to stay out of UN affairs, trying to preach about world peace - when her own state is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in recent history.

troubleshooter wrote: »

You stated the Queen gave an OBE in honour of an op that killed 14 civilans, thats totally untrue.

It is 100% factual, I'm afraid.

R.Dub.Fusilier

most of the country north and south signed up to and voted for the good friday agreement and with the GFA are some things that are unplesant such as the release of loyalist terrorists and mass killers etc. and after years of relative calm it has been deemed safe for the british queen to make a state visit to this country.

irish soldiers will do what they are supposed to do, parade and salite, and republicans will do what they are supposed to do , protest about the english queen visiting our country.

i personelly think she should address the irish people if and when she gets here and apologise for all the wrongs done to the irish people by her ancesters and past english/british governments . british PMs did it about the famine and more recently bloody sunday why shouldn't she do it.

anyway if irish soldiers salute her it can only build bridges with our nearest neighbours .

Fratton Fred

The Queen no more honoured Derek Wilford for killing Irish citizens than Martin Ferris Honoured Kevin Walshe for murdering Gerry McCabe.

Reg'stoy

oncevotedff wrote: »

QE2 doesn't have any power.



Not quite. DF personnel are required to obey all LAWFUL orders irrespective of their personal feelings. That is not the Nuremerg defence.



No



Again, No.

Can I start firstly by thanking you by staying on point, but I must question your assertion that she has no power. Anyway that has nothing to do with my substantive question which is, should Irish soldiers have an opinion on whether or not they can refuse to pay compliments as a previous poster so eloquently put it; to the queen.

This question is much more complex than as to simply say, they must follow orders like a good automaton. But it must also not be allowed to become the poster child for one side when some soldier does put his head above the parapet and ask the question.

So again I would ask should she expect salutes or would she be so closeted as to not understand the significance of an Irish soldier paying compliments to an English monarch on Irish soil and bearing in mind this, might an Irish man or woman who happens to be in the army ask to not be involved.

Pardon my ignorance here but do Gardai salute or is it just soldiers.

cushtac

Reg'stoy wrote: »

should Irish soldiers have an opinion on whether or not they can refuse to pay compliments as a previous poster so eloquently put it; to the queen.

Why should personal opinions have an impact on a soildier's execution of his or her duties? Would you allow them to refuse to pay complements to black leaders if they were racist?

Reg'stoy wrote: »

This question is much more complex than as to simply say, they must follow orders like a good automaton. But it must also not be allowed to become the poster child for one side when some soldier does put his head above the parapet and ask the question.

It is insulting on your part to imply that those who advocate following orders are automatons. Discipline and the chain of command are the cornerstone of any good military; anyone who doesn't accept that knows where the door is.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

So again I would ask should she expect salutes or would she be so closeted as to not understand the significance of an Irish soldier paying compliments to an English monarch on Irish soil and bearing in mind this, might an Irish man or woman who happens to be in the army ask to not be involved.

She should expect the same treatment that our President got when she visited the UK and was paid full complements by members of the British Armed Forces.

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance here but do Gardai salute or is it just soldiers.

Gardaí salute on formal occasions.

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

She awarded a soldier with an OBE for the murder of 14 innocent Irish civilians. If anything, they should give her the O'Gara salute.

Did she?

I would be curious to read the citation. I believe OBEs were pretty much standard end-of-tour awards for battalion commanders.

NTM

Chimichangas

i just wrote a ridiculous reply to those nutters talking bs and it got lost between posting.

So to repeat myself(like its worthwhile)...

How did hitler disrespect the Irish? If he didnt, then we were right to respect him? (even in hindsight?)
No thanks for pretending to represent the views of our state/irish people.

Petty victory republicans murders?? That was a petty statement, small minority of republicans that did commit murder in order to (they say) protect their communities.

Lets not get caught up in this quagmire, please?

Yes a Head of state, any head of state, should be afforded the official respect of the officialdom of another state. Its etiquette. Goes back a long way.

Chimichangas

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did she?

I would be curious to read the citation. I believe OBEs were pretty much standard end-of-tour awards for battalion commanders.

NTM

hmmm... thought that other argument you refer to didnt stand up too good, imo.

Manic Moran

Forgive me, I'm a little slow tonight. Can you amplify on that one?

NTM

syklops

should Irish soldiers have an opinion on whether or not they can refuse to pay compliments as a previous poster so eloquently put it; to the queen.

I can see that playing out nicely.

In the near future, in an army barracks near you...

Soldier: Excuse me Sergeant, I was looking at myself in the mirror there this morning, and I thought to my self. You know Johnnie, in my opinion, you would be dead sexy with a mustache. So I decided not to shave for parade, as I am going to grow a beard.
Sergeant: Thats grand Johnnie, dont worry about it. In fact I was thinking yesterday that in my opinion a camouflage uniform is a symbol of war, and lets face it, none of us want war, so I have decided to go to parade in a liverpool top, and track suit bottoms. Also, I have an order here from Colonel O'Meara, it his opinion that from a health and safety point of view, from now on all boots should be polished with orange day-glo polish. This is an order which all troops must follow unless they have a different opinion on the subject.

BlaasForRafa

mgmt wrote: »

Hitler gave out medals for the sluaghter of Jews. You would have welcomed him because that happened abroad? Would you salute Kim Jong-il or the other world mass murderers?

Congratulations on winning todays Godwin award.

Morpheus

Queen/President

You say tomato I say Lycopersicon Esculentum....

Both heads of state, both recieve same respect when arriving in other countries.

Some people here need to build a bridge

and jump off it.

dlofnep

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Queen no more honoured Derek Wilford for killing Irish citizens than Martin Ferris Honoured Kevin Walshe for murdering Gerry McCabe.

The good old red herring - Divert attention away from the fact that Derek Wilford still to this very day is regarded as a hero by the British Establishment. A man who is responsible for the deaths of 14 civilians, still holds an OBE.

And whatever excuse they had for it to remain with him after the Widgery Report - there can be no mistake about it, they have no excuse now.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Congratulations on winning todays Godwin award.

Godwin's law or not, his point is valid. Under normal circumstances, leaders of states would receive a standard welcome - But while one leader stands over an OBE awarded to a man who is responsible for the deaths of 14 Irish civilians, then that respect must be earned.

This matter could be resolved easily in a gesture of good will, by removing Derek Wilford's OBE, and showing that the British state does not stand over state murder.

You can belittle the matter anyway you like - but Derek Wilford still has an OBE, and it's an issue worth discussing.

dekbhoy

oncevotedff wrote: »

When Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (to distinguish "the" Queen from any other Queen ) visits here she will be given a Guard of Honour on arrival and on departure as every head of state is. Nobody had any problem saluting the King of Spain or the Queen of the Netherlands.

Not sure the netherlands and spain caused misery, hurt, hatred of untold proportions on this country .She on the other hand did , therefore should not be welcomed by the masses

emzolita

yeah salute her as you would any other head of state, but dont bow/curtsy to the hag!

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

Godwin's law or not, his point is valid. Under normal circumstances, leaders of states would receive a standard welcome - But while one leader stands over an OBE awarded to a man who is responsible for the deaths of 14 Irish civilians, then that respect must be earned.

This matter could be resolved easily in a gesture of good will, by removing Derek Wilford's OBE, and showing that the British state does not stand over state murder.

You can belittle the matter anyway you like - but Derek Wilford still has an OBE, and it's an issue worth discussing.

No its not worth discussing, its a pointless stupid argument put forward by those with a Sinn Fein bias because they dislike "the brits" and if it wasn't this, it would be some other spurious argument.

BlaasForRafa

dlofnep wrote: »

The good old red herring - Divert attention away from the fact that Derek Wilford still to this very day is regarded as a hero by the British Establishment. A man who is responsible for the deaths of 14 civilians, still holds an OBE.

And whatever excuse they had for it to remain with him after the Widgery Report - there can be no mistake about it, they have no excuse now.

Red herring indeed, perhaps you forget that its the IRA that have caused more death and injury in the north and the republic than the british state. Would you have President McAleese refuse to shake IRA army council members Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams hands?

If as you argue the Queen has blood on her hands (she dosen't but lets just play along with your argument for a while), then Gerry and Martin are covered in buckets of blood from the thousands killed and injured by their IRA comrades. If we were to follow your line of thought then theres no way that those two should be allowed into the state let alone meet the head of state.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

No its not worth discussing, its a pointless stupid argument put forward by those with a Sinn Fein bias because they dislike "the brits" and if it wasn't this, it would be some other spurious argument.

I'm sorry, but you don't determine the validity of an argument. It has nothing to do with "disliking the Brits". That's just another ad hominem attack with intent of attacking the character of those who may wish to highlight Derek Wilford's unjust OBE.