Drive-by shootings by British Army in Northern Ireland

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

Why exactly was he promoted ?

I don't see how British squadies that kill unarmed teenage joyriders, are any better than provos

He had proven himself innocent in the courts. He was qualified. He was treated the same as his colleagues.

Was he to be treated differently because of charges he had been found innocent of he could (and probably would) have sued the MoD, and he would have won. The courts had found him innocent of any crime.

On the other hand, the Provo leadership (and activists, and organisers etc) are packed with people who are *convicted* criminals and killers. Who were released on licence rather than proving their innocence.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

He had proven himself innocent in the courts. He was qualified. He was treated the same as his colleagues.

Was he to be treated differently because of charges he had been found innocent of he could (and probably would) have sued the MoD, and he would have won. The courts had found him innocent of any crime.

On the other hand, the Provo leadership (and activists, and organisers etc) are packed with people who are *convicted* criminals and killers. Who were released on licence rather than proving their innocence.

What do you mean 'treated the same as his colleagues', did they all get promoted to Sgt. ?
I thought the British were supposed to be above the provos behaviour ?

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

What do you mean 'treated the same as his colleagues', did they all get promoted to Sgt. ?

Isn't it obvious? He was proven innocent in the courts (I get the impression you are struggling to accept this fact). He was a soldier with the qualifications to be considered for promotion. He was assigned to a new role in his unit which implied additional duties and responsibilities - i.e. Sergeant.

It would actually have been odder *not* to promote an innocent, qualified soldier assigned to a role with additional duties/responsibilities. Failing to do so just because it's Clegg would be victimisation.

Lee Clegg might be a total dickhead, but he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law. No employer, not even the British Army, can lawfully victimise an employee innocent of any wrong doing.

I thought the British were supposed to be above the provos behaviour ?

They are. Though that is faint praise. There are highly dangerous drug dealers who are above the provos behaviour.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? He was proven innocent in the courts (I get the impression you are struggling to accept this fact). He was a soldier with the qualifications to be considered for promotion. He was assigned to a new role in his unit which implied additional duties and responsibilities - i.e. Sergeant.

It would actually have been odder *not* to promote an innocent, qualified soldier assigned to a role with additional duties/responsibilities. Failing to do so just because it's Clegg would be victimisation.
.

Victimisation ? Now you're really taking the piss.
Very few soldiers ever reach the rank of Sgt., so what exactly did Clegg do in service to earn his promotion ?

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

Victimisation ? Now you're really taking the piss.
Very few soldiers ever reach the rank of Sgt., so what exactly did Clegg do in service to earn his promotion ?

Yeah, like I thought you really are struggling to accept that the courts found Lee Clegg to be innocent on appeal.

Relatively few soldiers serve 12 years ( the earliest they can join is 16, less than 2% serve in the BA to the age of 55 - the average is less than 9 years) which is the "average" for reaching Sergeant in the British army. I don't know when Clegg joined the British army but he was apparently in his early thirties when he was made a Sergeant...so, probably on or near about "average". If Clegg is a trained, experienced and qualified soldier with appropriate motivation...he would want to be making Sergeant by his early 30s. To give you an idea of how top heavy the British army is, in an era when the British struggle to deploy a few thousand men to Iraq or Afghanistan "an entire division, with all its ancillary support, could be manned by army officers over the rank of major. Their naval equivalents could crew an aircraft carrier, escort it with a couple of fully manned frigates - if such could be found - and RAF senior officers could cover it all with a couple of fighter squadrons, complete with all necessary support, maintenance and guard force"

That's just officers...over the rank of major. Let alone Sergeants.

I know you are really having difficulties with it - but Clegg was found innocent. He was a qualified soldier, assigned to a duty with additional responsibilities. If he was victimised by not being promoted in line with standard expectations and performance...then he would have sued the MoD and he would have won.

Many victims of the Provos have had to get over Uncle Gerry and Martin grinning out of the TV at them as they get whizzed around the country at taxpayer expense. All in the interests of the peace process. I suggest the Provos meditate on that when they consider their own difficulty with stomaching Clegg's continued service as an innocent man in the British Army. Justice was long ago sacrificed in the interests of the peace process - build a bridge. And get over it.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, like I thought you really are struggling to accept that the courts found Lee Clegg to be innocent on appeal.

Relatively few soldiers serve 12 years ( the earliest they can join is 16, less than 2% serve in the BA to the age of 55 - the average is less than 9 years) which is the "average" for reaching Sergeant in the British army. I don't know when Clegg joined the British army but he was apparently in his early thirties when he was made a Sergeant...so, probably on or near about "average". If Clegg is a trained, experienced and qualified soldier with appropriate motivation...he would want to be making Sergeant by his early 30s.

I know you are really having difficulties with it - but Clegg was found innocent. He was a qualified soldiers, assigned to a duty with additional responsibilities. If he was victimised by not being promoted in line with standard expectations and performance...then he would have sued the MoD and he would have won.

Many victims of the Provos have had to get over Uncle Gerry and Martin grinning out of the TV at them as they get whizzed around the country at taxpayer expense. All in the interests of the peace process. I suggest the Provos meditate on that when they consider their own difficulty with stomaching Clegg's continued service as an innocent man in the British Army. Justice was long ago sacrificed in the interests of the peace process - build a bridge. And get over it.

You keep straw manning the provo's as if it's somehow makes provo like behaviour in the BA acceptable ?

Since when did getting off in court merit a promotion in the British Army ?

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

You keep straw manning the provo's as if it's somehow makes provo like behaviour in the BA acceptable ?

Since when did getting off in court merit a promotion in the British Army ?

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

I don't have to disprove that "getting off in court" was the basis for which Clegg received his promotion. You're making that claim ... you have to prove it.

I'm not strawmanning the Provos...you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between a murderous terrorist group and an imperfect but lawful army. I'm reminding you there isn't one.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

I don't have to disprove that "getting off in court" was the basis for which Clegg received his promotion. You're making that claim ... you have to prove it.

I'm not strawmanning the Provos...you're trying to draw a moral equivalence between a murderous terrorist group and an imperfect but lawful army. I'm reminding you there isn't one.

No, you've just been trying to derail a thread about the BA for some period of time.

junder

EunanMac wrote: »

You keep straw manning the provo's as if it's somehow makes provo like behaviour in the BA acceptable ?

Since when did getting off in court merit a promotion in the British Army ?

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

Clegg would have had to have passed the relevant courses and there would have had to have been a sgt's position available. Sgt is not just a rank, its a job position. Normally the first position is platoon Sgt and would put the Sgt in control of normally 3 - 4 sections each consisting of about 8 men. In combat situation being platoon Sgt means a hell of a lot of running about as the platoon Sgt will be in charge of the reorg, replening ammunition etc, passing casualtys and pow's up the line which would mean having to literally run between the attacking sections, the fire support sections and the reserve sections so he can keep the platoon lieutenant informed of the situation. So no Clegg would not have been promoted for the hell of it. Mind telling me how rank is achieved within the ira, number of people killed, number of bombs let of?

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

Clegg would have had to have passed the relevant courses and there would have had to have been a sgt's position available. Sgt is not just a rank, its a job position. Normally the first position is platoon Sgt and would put the Sgt in control of normally 3 - 4 sections each consisting of about 8 men. In combat situation being platoon Sgt means a hell of a lot of running about as the platoon Sgt will be in charge of the reorg, replening ammunition etc, passing casualtys and pow's up the line which would mean having to literally run between the attacking sections, the fire support sections and the reserve sections so he can keep the platoon lieutenant informed of the situation. So no Clegg would not have been promoted for the hell of it. Mind telling me how rank is achieved within the ira, number of people killed, number of bombs let of?

And the 'platoon sergeant' is doing all those things in combat so that soldiers can make faces at the enemy?
Rank in any army is achieved on the basis of your effectiveness and efficiency at achieving the goals of that army.

Sand

Nodin wrote: »

No, you've just been trying to derail a thread about the BA for some period of time.

I thought it was about colonial policing between 1860 and 1960?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

I thought it was about colonial policing between 1860 and 1960?

That was in answer to the idea that it was a ridiculous notion. It was colonial 'policing' mainly from 1945 up to 1967 I was referring to, as I far as a recall.

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

And the 'platoon sergeant' is doing all those things in combat so that soldiers can make faces at the enemy?
Rank in any army is achieved on the basis of your effectiveness and efficiency at achieving the goals of that army.

The platoon Sargent is doing all these things in combat to enable his sections to fight effectively and also to allow the platoon commander to concentrate on commanding.

EunanMac

junder wrote: »

Clegg would have had to have passed the relevant courses and there would have had to have been a sgt's position available. Sgt is not just a rank, its a job position. Normally the first position is platoon Sgt and would put the Sgt in control of normally 3 - 4 sections each consisting of about 8 men. In combat situation being platoon Sgt means a hell of a lot of running about as the platoon Sgt will be in charge of the reorg, replening ammunition etc, passing casualtys and pow's up the line which would mean having to literally run between the attacking sections, the fire support sections and the reserve sections so he can keep the platoon lieutenant informed of the situation. So no Clegg would not have been promoted for the hell of it. Mind telling me how rank is achieved within the ira, number of people killed, number of bombs let of?

Another strawman,

I didn't ask what a Sgt. does, I already know that

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

junder wrote: »

Mind telling me how rank is achieved within the ira, number of people killed, number of bombs let of?

I don't know, rather than attempt a diversion with a whataboutery red herring, you'll have to ask in the correct thread. Murdering Provo's are no different to murdering Brits in my book.

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

You still haven't explained what Clegg did to get promoted, promotions to Sgt. are supposedly merit based in the BA.

You're highly unlikely to find the people who actually made the decision to promote Clegg posting in this thread. So you're unlikely to get a breakdown of their thinking. All I can tell you is he was an experienced, qualified soldier, innocent of any crime and there was obviously a position open that he went for and got. Unless you have some point to make, you need to get over that.

You still haven't explained or justified your belief that Clegg got promoted for "getting off in court". What is your evidence for that?

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

You're highly unlikely to find the people who actually made the decision to promote Clegg posting in this thread. So you're unlikely to get a breakdown of their thinking. All I can tell you is he was an experienced, qualified soldier, innocent of any crime and there was obviously a position open that he went for and got. Unless you have some point to make, you need to get over that.

You still haven't explained or justified your belief that Clegg got promoted for "getting off in court". What is your evidence for that?

Because he went from Private when goaled to Sgt. just after he was released
How do you get experience, service and merit to go from Private to Sgt. while in Prison ?

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

Because he went from Private when goaled to Sgt. just after he was released
How do you get experience, service and merit to go from Private to Sgt. while in Prison ?

He was released on licence after two years, and then waged an ultimately successful appeals process being cleared of murdering one joyrider in 1999 and unlawfully wounding the other in 2000. Clegg continued to serve as a PT instructor at Catterick during his appeals process. I presume he built up the requisite experience doing his job whilst waiting for the courts to clear his name.

And he wasn't promoted directly to Sergeant from private. He was promoted to Corporal in March 2000, after he had been cleared of the last criminal charge against him in Jan 2000. 5 years after he had been released.

He was promoted to Sergeant in 2001 - 6 years after he was released. He was at that point 31 or thereabouts, so on the "average" for the promotion if he was capable, which apparently he is.

I have to point out...I'm not Clegg's biographer. All this information is freely available if you choose to examine it, rather than simply live in the self pitying mythology.

Esel

"Released on licence after two years.." and then appealed his convictions?

If you are correct in the chronology, why was he released so soon while he still stood convicted?

Also, as you persist in using this case to prove that the BA did indeed allow soldiers to be prosecuted for unlawful killing, can you cite any/many other such successful prosecutions? Off-hand, I cannot think of any. The exception does not prove the rule.

Happyman42

junder wrote: »

The platoon Sargent is doing all these things in combat to enable his sections to fight effectively and also to allow the platoon commander to concentrate on commanding.

Yes, and I'm sure that people had jobs to do in the IRA also, and got promoted demoted based on their efficiency at doing their jobs etc etc. No different to any army.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

He was released on licence after two years, and then waged an ultimately successful appeals process being cleared of murdering one joyrider in 1999 and unlawfully wounding the other in 2000. Clegg continued to serve as a PT instructor at Catterick during his appeals process. I presume he built up the requisite experience doing his job whilst waiting for the courts to clear his name.

And he wasn't promoted directly to Sergeant from private. He was promoted to Corporal in March 2000, after he had been cleared of the last criminal charge against him in Jan 2000. 5 years after he had been released.

He was promoted to Sergeant in 2001 - 6 years after he was released. He was at that point 31 or thereabouts, so on the "average" for the promotion if he was capable, which apparently he is.

I have to point out...I'm not Clegg's biographer. All this information is freely available if you choose to examine it, rather than simply live in the self pitying mythology.

And yet again, you provide nothing to explain what Clegg did to get promoted

And if Clegg didn't kill the teenagers, who did, and why were they never charged ?

Sand

Esel wrote: »

"Released on licence after two years.." and then appealed his convictions?

If you are correct in the chronology, why was he released so soon while he still stood convicted?

If you don't even know the basics of the case, why are you so exercised by it?

Also, as you persist in using this case to prove that the BA did indeed allow soldiers to be prosecuted for unlawful killing, can you cite any/many other such successful prosecutions? Off-hand, I cannot think of any. The exception does not prove the rule.

Its not the exception: Apparently a few years ago there were more serving and former British soldiers in jail or on probation than there were deployed to Afghanistan.

Royal marine jailed for executing that Afghan, a Grenadier Guardsman jailed for getting drunk and stabbing a 10 year old Afghan boy, that SAS guy jailed for possession of an illegal weapon, that Corporal from the QLR (no longer exists for a reason) who beat to death an Iraqi prisoner over 24 hours, another British soldier jailed for having a private hoard of weaponry, and on and on...

You need to get over the mythology - if Provos want truth and reconciliation they need to start being able to acknowledge objective evidence and face facts. There have been clear miscarriages of justice like the Bloody Sunday whitewash. Wallowing in self pity as a result is pointless.

@Happyman42

Yes, and I'm sure that people had jobs to do in the IRA also, and got promoted demoted based on their efficiency at doing their jobs etc etc. No different to any army.

They weren't an army. It wasn't a war.

@EunanMac

And yet again, you provide nothing to explain what Clegg did to get promoted

And yet again you don't get that I don't have to. You are the one claiming he got promoted for "getting off in court" without providing a shred of evidence. It is you who have to prove your claim - I don't have to disprove it.

I dont think you can provide a shred of evidence either given you get very simple, basic facts of the case wrong - such as your claim Clegg was promoted from private to sergeant directly. And you didn't realise Clegg was realeased for at least 5 years by the time he was cleared on appeals.

And if Clegg didn't kill the teenagers, who did, and why were they never charged ?

Oh Clegg (and his colleagues) killed them. That was never in doubt. It was just a question if he lawfully used his weapon to defend himself and his unit from a joyriders car ramming through his checkpoint, or if he murdered them. The courts (ultimately) found the latter not to be true.

Again, I'm surprised people know very, very little about the case and yet get very angry about it. I'd have thought they'd have an interest and educate themselves on it but I guess there is a lot of mythology out there, and very little objective examination of the evidence.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

Oh Clegg (and his colleagues) killed them. That was never in doubt. It was just a question if he lawfully used his weapon to defend himself and his unit from a joyriders car ramming through his checkpoint, or if he murdered them. The courts (ultimately) found the latter not to be true.

Again, I'm surprised people know very, very little about the case and yet get very angry about it. I'd have thought they'd have an interest and educate themselves on it but I guess there is a lot of mythology out there, and very little objective examination of the evidence.

But he didn't use it in defence.
The kids were shot dead leaving the checkpoint, not approaching it, there was no 'threat' to anyone.

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

But he didn't use it in defence.
The kids were shot dead leaving the checkpoint, not approaching it, there was no 'threat' to anyone.

The courts and forensics found differently.

Given you make glaring mistakes on basic points of the case, I think I'll trust their judgement over yours.

Esel

Sand wrote: »

If you don't even know the basics of the case, why are you so exercised by it?

Its not the exception: Apparently a few years ago there were more serving and former British soldiers in jail or on probation than there were deployed to Afghanistan.

Royal marine jailed for executing that Afghan, a Grenadier Guardsman jailed for getting drunk and stabbing a 10 year old Afghan boy, that SAS guy jailed for possession of an illegal weapon, that Corporal from the QLR (no longer exists for a reason) who beat to death an Iraqi prisoner over 24 hours, another British soldier jailed for having a private hoard of weaponry, and on and on...

You need to get over the mythology - if Provos want truth and reconciliation they need to start being able to acknowledge objective evidence and face facts. There have been clear miscarriages of justice like the Bloody Sunday whitewash. Wallowing in self pity as a result is pointless.

Did my first post in this thread give you the impression that I am 'so exercised' by the Clegg case? Really?

I know the Clegg story. You didn't answer my question about his early release before having lodged any appeals.

We are talking about BA killings in Ireland. Afghanistan BA crimes could not be so easily covered up in the internet age. Enough about Afghanistan in this thread.

Do you have any other instances of BA convictions for unlawful killing during the troubles?

I don't subscribe to any mythology, by the way. I can't see how you got that idea from my brief post.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

The courts and forensics found differently.

Given you make glaring mistakes on basic points of the case, I think I'll trust their judgement over yours.

The same forensics and courts that found the car was shot at from behind and the sides, or the same forensics and courts that found traces of explosives on the Birmingham six ?

Sand

Esel wrote: »

Did my first post in this thread give you the impression that I am 'so exercised' by the Clegg case? Really?

I know the Clegg story. You didn't answer my question about his early release before having lodged any appeals.

If you know the story, then you know the story. Make your point or don't. It isn't a game of charades.

We are talking about BA killings in Ireland. Afghanistan BA crimes could not be so easily covered up in the internet age. Enough about Afghanistan in this thread.

Do you have any other instances of BA convictions for unlawful killing during the troubles?

No, we're talking about a poster who claimed the British army never sent their own to jail. He was proven wrong on that point. And a lot of people just cant get over that. Now, you want to make the case that if we ignore all the cases where the British army sent their own to jail, that they didn't send their own to jail. Makes sense...

If the Provo worldview was realistic, they wouldn't have to try *so* hard.

@EunanMac

The same forensics and courts that found the car was shot at from behind and the sides, or the same forensics and courts that found traces of explosives on the Birmingham six ?

The forensics that found the car was shot from the front and sides. The forensics the court accepted.

The Birmingham Six? Look - Nodin has clearly ruled this thread is about the British Army. If you keep introducing tangents in a desperate attempt to evade acknowledging your earlier claims were disproven, then you're going to derail the thread. And everyone will be unhappy. We've got to keep this focused on the British Army. And the MRF....well until the claims about the MRF were disproven. Still, British Army. Try to keep that in mind.

Esel

Now who is exercised? Still not answering my questions.

Deflection and avoidance, with a smidgin of rant.

Sand

Esel wrote: »

Now who is exercised? Still not answering my questions.

Deflection and avoidance, with a smidgin of rant.

If you have a point, make it. If you are uninformed about the Clegg case, inform yourself. That you can't make a point and are uninformed about the case isn't a problem I have to solve.

padma

Sand wrote: »

No, we're talking about a poster who claimed the British army never sent their own to jail. He was proven wrong on that point. And a lot of people just cant get over that.

.

I wouldnt call your use of the Clegg case as proof that I was wrong, as the past few pages, have thought you, the Clegg single case is a very dubious case to bring up in trying to prove hundreds of civilians being shot and murdered is proof the BA convict their forces for every unlawful and unjustified killing.

It is highly disrespectful to the hundreds of families in The North who had their family siblings killed for being nothing more than an innocent victim behind the sights of a British soldier walking the streets of Ireland.

Esel

Esel wrote: »

Now who is exercised? Still not answering my questions.

Deflection and avoidance, with a smidgin of rant.

Sand wrote: »

If you have a point, make it. If you are uninformed about the Clegg case, inform yourself. That you can't make a point and are uninformed about the case isn't a problem I have to solve.

More of the same then. Questions too hard, maybe?

Gerry and yourself could have gone to the same course in Carr Communications.

EunanMac

Sand wrote: »

The forensics that found the car was shot from the front and sides. The forensics the court accepted.

The Birmingham Six? Look - Nodin has clearly ruled this thread is about the British Army. If you keep introducing tangents in a desperate attempt to evade acknowledging your earlier claims were disproven, then you're going to derail the thread. And everyone will be unhappy. We've got to keep this focused on the British Army. And the MRF....well until the claims about the MRF were disproven. Still, British Army. Try to keep that in mind.

The same forensics earlier, and the witness statements, had from the rear and sides.
But we all know the history of how truthful and reliable British forensics, courts and tribunals have been regarding BA murders of civilians in NI, and they've been proven false more times than they've been proven true. So it's very relevant to the thread, but I can see why you'd be desperate to ensure their track record does not come up.

Sand

padma wrote: »

I wouldnt call your use of the Clegg case as proof that I was wrong

It was though, and you were.

@Esel
I thought you might have a point and were waiting for some moment to make it. The longer you go on, the more I think you don't have a point.

@EunanMac
Clegg and the Birmingham Six. Two cases of men jailed on the basis of dodgy forensics, later cleared on appeal. Casting doubt on the quality of the forensics is *exactly* the basis on which Clegg won his appeal.

Its amusing and ironic you're smearing British forensics whilst so convinced of Cleggs guilt when it was (apparently) fault British forensics that convicted him the first place. If your point of view was justifiable by the evidence, you wouldn't have to twist and turn so hard to try to support it.

Esel

@Sand Mr. Adams, I see you are not willing to give a straight answer to the questions I have repeatedly put to you, and I am afraid we are out of time. However, I am confident that viewers will draw their own conclusions from your performance here tonight. In other news, dogs have been heard talking in the street. Film at eleven. If you have any comments on this or any other issue raised here tonight, you can tweet @idgaf. The programme which follows is a repeat.

Aaand..... cut! Can I take this thing out of my ear now? Get the sound engineer on a refresher course before I have to make a deafness claim. Yes, I can hear you! Did you not see me wincing? Yes, I kept repeating the question. It's not my fault that Gerry has obviously been trained by Terry! MK Ultra is in the halfpenny place. Is my taxi outside?

EunanMac

@ Sand, I'm not you are

K-9

Sand wrote: »

If you don't even know the basics of the case, why are you so exercised by it?

Sand wrote: »

If you know the story, then you know the story. Make your point or don't. It isn't a game of charades.

Sand wrote: »

If you have a point, make it. If you are uninformed about the Clegg case, inform yourself. That you can't make a point and are uninformed about the case isn't a problem I have to solve.

Sand wrote: »

@Esel
I thought you might have a point and were waiting for some moment to make it. The longer you go on, the more I think you don't have a point.

Mod:
This is a discussion board on politics, people will ask questions from time to time as part of that, it would be helpful if you could try and answer them, if not, just say you don't want to rather than derailing the thread.

Sand

EunanMac wrote: »

@ Sand, I'm not you are

Sorry? You're not I am what?

DarkyHughes

I was just going through the sutton index of deaths the UVF/UDA must have slaughtered about 50 innocent people in May 1974 alone which is a staggering statistic starting with the Rose & Crown bar bombing which killed 6.