British State Collusion

[AZOffaly]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

[Nally Stand]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

Indeed. As face-saving lies go, that was a spectacular one.

[orangeman]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

Conspiracy theorists do.

[brokencrossbar1]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

Put it like this they were not killed in Germany.

[Nally Stand]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

PM sent

[Nally Stand]

Quelle surprise...


British government: Ballymurphy Massacre investigation 'would not be in public interest'

20/06/2012 - 12:47:47
The British government has told the families of 11 people killed by British troops in the case known as the Ballymurphy Massacre that there will be no independent investigation of the deaths.

The relatives criticised the decision of Northern Ireland Secretary of State Owen Paterson and pledged to continue their campaign.

The innocent civilians who died after being shot and beaten by members of the Parachute Regiment in 1971 included a mother-of-eight and a Catholic priest tending to the wounded.

The deaths occurred during a security operation in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast that stretched across August 9-11 following the introduction of internment without trial.

Military claims at the time that the victims were armed republicans were discredited and the families have called for an examination of the true facts of the case - which has been linked to the killing of civilians by the same regiment on Bloody Sunday in Derry.

A spokesman for the families said they are "deeply disappointed" by Mr Paterson's decision to turn down their request for an independent investigation.

"Mr Paterson, in his letter, has stated that it 'would not be in the public interest' that an independent investigation be established," they said.

"We refute this assertion and believe that is clearly in the 'public interest' that the full facts relating to the circumstances of the deaths of our loved ones and the role of the British Parachute Regiment is fully established.

"This is especially so given the recent findings of Lord Saville in relation to the events of Bloody Sunday and the disclosure of official British government documents which reveal evidence of immunity for British soldiers involved in the murder of innocent civilians."

Northern Ireland's Attorney General John Larkin has ordered that the inquests into the deaths be re-opened.

But the families rejected advice they said they received from Mr Paterson that other avenues were open to them, including the police Historical Enquiries Team (HET) which is examining murders from the Troubles.

The relatives said the HET's handling of cases where soldiers were responsible for deaths had been criticised in a major report into its work.

The relatives said: "Although the families regard the re-opening of the inquests by the Attorney General as a very important step on our journey for truth, we believe that even a fully resourced and effective inquest will have limitations.

"It will be able to provide facts and gather crucial forensic, logistical and witness testimony evidence, but it will not be able to examines the causes, context and consequences of the massacre and answer so many of the questions that must be answered.

"We believe that only an independent investigation can facilitate the discovery of the facts and provide an accurate historical account of the events of August 1971 on the streets of Ballymurphy."

They repeated a call for British Prime Minister David Cameron to meet directly with the families.

The campaigners also asked for Taoiseach Enda Kenny to back their cause, in the way he has publicly supported the family of solicitor Pat Finucane who was killed by loyalists acting in collusion with security forces.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/british-government-ballymurphy-massacre-investigation-would-not-be-in-public-interest-556025.html

Quelle surprise indeed FóSB. Just like the release of the Dublin/Monaghan bombing files were deemed not to be in the public interest to be released, a decision made the day after the British Queen ended her visit where we were told there was mutual respect between the countries and that there would be a new beginning yadda yadda yaddaaa

[saffron sam2]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

[Tony Baloney]

Speaking of the UDA. In 2003, a document revealed that in November of the same year as the story above (1972), a letter sent from the Ministry of Defense to the prime minister, Edward Heath of the Conservative Party, described the UDA as "useful", "constructive" and "disciplined".

The same day the letter was dated, (Nov. 29, 1972), the UDA shot dead a 22 year old Catholic bar man. In just that one same month, they murdered five civilians.

How the f**k were the UDA legal until the early 90s?! Wait, no need to answer 

[trileacman]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

Same.

Why can it not be posted on the board?

[Tony Baloney]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

Same.

Why can it not be posted on the board?

You're a great fella altogether, Nally Stand

[LeoMc]

I'd imagine there's a whole lot worse written documents that will never see the light of day, and many things I'm sure wet unwritten. What's amazing is how little fuss there is about a document which proves the existence of a policy whereby an army was allowed to shoot innocent people in this country without having to worry about facing a court. The fact that the UDA was regarded as "acceptable" shows the mindset, also.

I am sure we will never find out where these soldiers actually were killed

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat=19850211&id=5P1LAAAAIBAJ&sjid=m_kDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5159,1858697

I don't get this?

PM sent

I am very sorry for calling you a wally.

Could you please send me one also?

Same.

Why can it not be posted on the board?

You're a great fella altogether, Nally Stand

Always had a lot of time for him

[Nally Stand]

Yis are only human 

[Evil Genius]

File reveals British Army immunity from prosecution was official policy

In 1972, 79 Irish people were shot dead by the British Army on Irish soil. The vast majority of these were civilians. In July 1972, a strategic government and security meeting at Stormont Castle was held, involving the Secretary for State William Whitelaw MP, the North's most senior British Army officer the General Officer Commanding (GOC) General Ford, the Deputy Chief Constable of the RUC, plus Lord Windlesham the British government's representative in the House of Lords, British MP's, and senior civil servants from the NIO. Relatives for Justice this week unearthed a document from this meeting. The document includes some striking quotes:

• That the GOC (the Head of the British Army in the north) "would see UDA leaders that afternoon" to let them know that their "efforts as vigilantes" were "acceptable".
• That it was the British Governments"intention to carry on the war with the IRA with the utmost vigour"
• And crucially,  'The (British) Army should not be inhibited in its campaign by the threat of court proceedings and should therefore be suitably indemnified[/b]."

This is the first documented proof of the British Government's determination to see no British Soldiers convicted for killings in Ireland. Of the approximate 300 hundreds killings by the British Army in Ireland since 1969, there has only been convictions in three cases. All of those convicted were released significantly early and reinstated back to their regiments. Some were promoted. As mentioned, this meeting took place in 1972. That year 79 people were shot by the British Army. The meeting took place in July. That month the British Army killed 20 innocent civilians. Not one British soldier faced a conviction for ANY of these killings throughout 1972.

In terms of the "acceptable" nature of the UDA's "vigilante activities"- the month this meeting was held, loyalists committed 27 sectarian murders. Over half of these (16) were carried out by the "acceptable" UDA.

Whilst these are undoubtedly very serious matters, I find it impossible to take at face value any account by you of these meetings and documents etc, both because you are either vague or selective in your quotations, but also because you are extracting from some (uncited) document produced by "Relatives For Justice", hardly the most impartial of organisations.

Worse still, you display a blatant disregard for basic facts (at least when they don't suit your case).

To take just one example which may easily be checked, I would refer to your claim that the Army killed 20 "innocent civilians" [sic] in July 1972.

For a quick reference to CAIN discloses that those 20 deaths include:
09 July - John Dougal, IRA Member
09 July - David McCafferty, IRA Mermber
11 July - Gerard Gibson, IRA Member
13 July - James Reid, IRA Member
14 July - Louis Scullion, IRA Member
14 July - Edward Brady, IRA Member
16 July - Tobias Molloy, IRA Member
21 July - Joseph Downey, IRA Member
28 July - Seamus Cassidy, IRA Member
31 July - Seamus Bradley, IRA Member (Total: 10)
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1972.html
(Note that although CAIN doesn't greatly elaborate, it can be seen that the vast majority - at least - were killed during gunfights or rioting etc).

Of course, even 10 deaths of innocent civilians are most serious and deserve further examination. But for Republicans to present even this reduced figure as "proof" of their case, without alluding to the greater context, is at best misleading and at worst malicious propaganda. For at least some of the remaining 10 civilians were caught up in exchanges of gunfire between the IRA and the Security Forces.

And what is also concealed by RFJ is just how violent, murderous and widespread was the disorder being faced by the Security Forces.

For example, during that same month, there was actually a total of 97 deaths. Twenty three of these were committed by "Loyalists" sic, whilst 51 were killed by the IRA (or other unnamed Republicans), including 28 civilians (20 Protestants and 8 RC's, btw). Republicans may also have been responsible for the murder of 2 further Protestant civilians (unattributed killings).

Included amongst this litany of death were the Bloody Friday Massacre, where the IRA murdered 9 people in a series of 20 no-warning bombs throughout Belfast, and the Claudy Massacre, where they murdered another 9 with 3 no-warning bombs.

In fact during that month, there were literally hundreds of shootings, bombings, riots and other disturbances, most of them the responsibility of the IRA/Republicans, which caused the deaths of 20 Members of the Security Forces.

In such a situation, it is a near miracle that the Security Forces didn't accidentally kill many more civilians, as they  fought to defend themselves and prevent the whole place sliding into all-out Civil War.

[Billys Boots]

The BBC report includes the words 'the vast majority of them were civilians'. 

[Evil Genius]

The BBC report includes the words 'the vast majority of them were civilians'.

And I have cited a Database (CAIN), with specific names/dates, which clearly states that half were IRA members, and indicates that some of the remainder may have been caught up in crossfire etc.