Bloody Sunday killings to be ruled unlawful

[LCohen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54329803

Disgraceful

It's difficult to conclude that today's decision is "disgraceful"

What?

I said it's difficult to conclude that today's decision is disgraceful. Angelo was pointing out that something was disgraceful but he didn't specify

Obviously it's regarding the subject and title of the article. Do you need a picture drawn for you?

Really? That was my concern. Well the second part.

Obviously the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. The sham of Widgery was a disgrace and the failure to go and get criminal prosecutions earlier was a disgrace.

But the article is about today's decision. A decision that there is not the current evidence to secure a conviction. By all means disagree with that decision if you can point to the evidence that is there to secure specific convictions. You cannot reasonably say today's decision is a disgrace unless you can point to that weight of evidence

You don't think it's disgraceful that only one solider has been charged with the murder of 14 civilians in Derry 50 years later?

Right........

Thanks for that Enoch.

What a frankly stupid contribution. Read what I have said about Widgery and the post Widgery failings in the post you have actually posted and explain to how your brain came to that conclusion?? As for calling people Enoch catch yourself on.

Yesterday's decision is not about the original events, Widgery or the subsequent failings to go and pursue convictions. It was a decision about whether there is the evidence today to stand a reasonable chance of successful specific convictions. If you think that decision is a disgrace it can only reasonably be because you think that there is the weight of evidence. So what is the evidence?

If you don't have the evidence you cannot claim it's a disgrace not to prosecute.

So do you have the evidence or are you just spouting without any facts??

I'm saying it's disgraceful that only one soldier is being charged for Bloody Sunday.

Maybe you should go and tell the victims families that it's perfectly ok.

Clown.

So you didn't re-read my post then.

I condemn the failings to go and convictions. From that you conclude that I think it's "perfectly ok" for only 1 soldier to face charges. That's incredible. It is literally not credible that your brain could have extracted that meaning from my post.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between these 2 scenarios

A) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted.
B) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted and now there is so little prospect of a conviction that there are unlikely to be trials.

If the second option makes you angry, and it make all of us angry, then direct your anger towards the historic failings.

I get back to my point. It cannot be a disgrace for a prosecutor in 2020 to conclude that the available evidence offers little prospect of conviction if in fact it doesn't offer a reasonable chance of conviction.  You did label it a disgrace. So presumably you do think the evidence is. What is the evidence?

It can be a disgrace that only one soldier is due to face charges 50 years on from the murder of 14 civilians in broad daylight on the streets of Derry.

Yet for some reason you are defending the British judicial system here like some prize Uncle Tom.

That is also disgraceful.

Yes it can be a disgrace that only 1 soldier is facing charges. But that disgrace is routed in things already done ie the missed including deliberately missed opportunities to investigate in the passed. I have already said that, several times. For whatever reason you are failing to compute that.

I have called out these issues, repeatedly called them out. But seem to have interpreted that as a defence of the British judicial system. I have already called your earlier contribution stupid. I am trying not to call you stupid as that triggers the usual ad hominem get out. But I can only judge you by your contributions. Based on those you are either
A) an adolescent or adult with an IQ so low as to be of interest to medical science or
B) a toddler with a run of luck with mummy and daddy's password and a spell checker that would bring the house down in Vegas.

As for calling people an Uncle Tom and previously Enoch can you get that stuff out of your system early doors? It's an all to obvious indicator of stupidity and so unlikely to help your argument. File it with West Brit and quisling and move on with the substantive issues.

Can you at least admit that if a lawyer is asked to look a file to assess if it contains sufficient evidence to stand a chance of securing a conviction and the file doesn't contain the required evidence then it is manifestly not a disgrace to reach that conclusion?

If you cannot admit to that then you have link to reality or logic

[Angelo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54329803

Disgraceful

It's difficult to conclude that today's decision is "disgraceful"

What?

I said it's difficult to conclude that today's decision is disgraceful. Angelo was pointing out that something was disgraceful but he didn't specify

Obviously it's regarding the subject and title of the article. Do you need a picture drawn for you?

Really? That was my concern. Well the second part.

Obviously the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. The sham of Widgery was a disgrace and the failure to go and get criminal prosecutions earlier was a disgrace.

But the article is about today's decision. A decision that there is not the current evidence to secure a conviction. By all means disagree with that decision if you can point to the evidence that is there to secure specific convictions. You cannot reasonably say today's decision is a disgrace unless you can point to that weight of evidence

You don't think it's disgraceful that only one solider has been charged with the murder of 14 civilians in Derry 50 years later?

Right........

Thanks for that Enoch.

What a frankly stupid contribution. Read what I have said about Widgery and the post Widgery failings in the post you have actually posted and explain to how your brain came to that conclusion?? As for calling people Enoch catch yourself on.

Yesterday's decision is not about the original events, Widgery or the subsequent failings to go and pursue convictions. It was a decision about whether there is the evidence today to stand a reasonable chance of successful specific convictions. If you think that decision is a disgrace it can only reasonably be because you think that there is the weight of evidence. So what is the evidence?

If you don't have the evidence you cannot claim it's a disgrace not to prosecute.

So do you have the evidence or are you just spouting without any facts??

I'm saying it's disgraceful that only one soldier is being charged for Bloody Sunday.

Maybe you should go and tell the victims families that it's perfectly ok.

Clown.

So you didn't re-read my post then.

I condemn the failings to go and convictions. From that you conclude that I think it's "perfectly ok" for only 1 soldier to face charges. That's incredible. It is literally not credible that your brain could have extracted that meaning from my post.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between these 2 scenarios

A) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted.
B) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted and now there is so little prospect of a conviction that there are unlikely to be trials.

If the second option makes you angry, and it make all of us angry, then direct your anger towards the historic failings.

I get back to my point. It cannot be a disgrace for a prosecutor in 2020 to conclude that the available evidence offers little prospect of conviction if in fact it doesn't offer a reasonable chance of conviction.  You did label it a disgrace. So presumably you do think the evidence is. What is the evidence?

It can be a disgrace that only one soldier is due to face charges 50 years on from the murder of 14 civilians in broad daylight on the streets of Derry.

Yet for some reason you are defending the British judicial system here like some prize Uncle Tom.

That is also disgraceful.

Yes it can be a disgrace that only 1 soldier is facing charges. But that disgrace is routed in things already done ie the missed including deliberately missed opportunities to investigate in the passed. I have already said that, several times. For whatever reason you are failing to compute that.

I have called out these issues, repeatedly called them out. But seem to have interpreted that as a defence of the British judicial system. I have already called your earlier contribution stupid. I am trying not to call you stupid as that triggers the usual ad hominem get out. But I can only judge you by your contributions. Based on those you are either
A) an adolescent or adult with an IQ so low as to be of interest to medical science or
B) a toddler with a run of luck with mummy and daddy's password and a spell checker that would bring the house down in Vegas.

As for calling people an Uncle Tom and previously Enoch can you get that stuff out of your system early doors? It's an all to obvious indicator of stupidity and so unlikely to help your argument. File it with West Brit and quisling and move on with the substantive issues.

Can you at least admit that if a lawyer is asked to look a file to assess if it contains sufficient evidence to stand a chance of securing a conviction and the file doesn't contain the required evidence then it is manifestly not a disgrace to reach that conclusion?

If you cannot admit to that then you have link to reality or logic

You're the one defending it.

Maybe take that issue up with the legal team of the victims who have contested that decisions but the lady doth protest too much so I think it's a fair summation to say you have your bread buttered on one side.

The victims of Bloody Sunday have consistently been let down by due process, this is no different but you're defending, like a good little boy.

[general_lee]

I'm not going to pretend I know the intricate details inside out but from my reading of it, there is not enough evidence to charge other Soldiers of murder; or to charge soldier F of further murder/attempted murder. (Personally I am inclined to take those conclusions with a huge pinch of salt)

There does however seem to be scope to charge them under joint-enterprise laws which seems to be the victims' families main grievance as the PPS are seemingly happy to ignore that.

[GetOverTheBar]

I'm not going to pretend I know the intricate details inside out but from my reading of it, there is not enough evidence to charge other Soldiers of murder; or to charge soldier F of further murder/attempted murder. (Personally I am inclined to take those conclusions with a huge pinch of salt)

There does however seem to be scope to charge them under joint-enterprise laws which seems to be the victims' families main grievance as the PPS are seemingly happy to ignore that.

The state is reluctant to spent millions on trying to secure a conviction when a) The will is not entirely there and probably more importantly b) the cost v the actual likelihood of a guilty verdict

[BennyCake]

Weren't there previous enquiries into Bloody Sunday before Saville? "Nothing to see here" was obviously the outcome. Then suddenly, there is evidence - to bring F to court anyway.

So in the previous enquiries, army/military personnel/government officials obviously lied or failed to disclose information/evidence. Why isn't that been followed up? Surely lying on oath at an enquiry is an offence?

Anyway, it's better to think only one rogue soldier was responsible for the murders, than to say that a whole army unit, their superiors and their superiors, and their government above them were responsible for ordering the murders of innocent people. Yep, just one bad egg. And he was suffering from PTSD, depression, insert ailment here. Nothing to see here...

[LCohen]

Weren't there previous enquiries into Bloody Sunday before Saville? "Nothing to see here" was obviously the outcome. Then suddenly, there is evidence - to bring F to court anyway.

So in the previous enquiries, army/military personnel/government officials obviously lied or failed to disclose information/evidence. Why isn't that been followed up? Surely lying on oath at an enquiry is an offence?

Anyway, it's better to think only one rogue soldier was responsible for the murders, than to say that a whole army unit, their superiors and their superiors, and their government above them were responsible for ordering the murders of innocent people. Yep, just one bad egg. And he was suffering from PTSD, depression, insert ailment here. Nothing to see here...

Wouldn't argue with that apart from maybe the very last bit. The people in authority who sanctioned the events or conditioned the troops (mentally) or facilitated the cover up are getting away with this. By all means go after them. Might not work and the chances diminish with time

[LCohen]

I'm not going to pretend I know the intricate details inside out but from my reading of it, there is not enough evidence to charge other Soldiers of murder; or to charge soldier F of further murder/attempted murder. (Personally I am inclined to take those conclusions with a huge pinch of salt)

There does however seem to be scope to charge them under joint-enterprise laws which seems to be the victims' families main grievance as the PPS are seemingly happy to ignore that.

Joint enterprise seems to be the basis of the JR. I'm really not sure that is going to work either but the JR will flush that out.

[BennyCake]

Weren't there previous enquiries into Bloody Sunday before Saville? "Nothing to see here" was obviously the outcome. Then suddenly, there is evidence - to bring F to court anyway.

So in the previous enquiries, army/military personnel/government officials obviously lied or failed to disclose information/evidence. Why isn't that been followed up? Surely lying on oath at an enquiry is an offence?

Anyway, it's better to think only one rogue soldier was responsible for the murders, than to say that a whole army unit, their superiors and their superiors, and their government above them were responsible for ordering the murders of innocent people. Yep, just one bad egg. And he was suffering from PTSD, depression, insert ailment here. Nothing to see here...

Wouldn't argue with that apart from maybe the very last bit. The people in authority who sanctioned the events or conditioned the troops (mentally) or facilitated the cover up are getting away with this. By all means go after them. Might not work and the chances diminish with time

The last bit isn't my opinion. It's just the British government's spin on it. And ultimately, the outcome won't be far off that.

[LCohen]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54329803

Disgraceful

It's difficult to conclude that today's decision is "disgraceful"

What?

I said it's difficult to conclude that today's decision is disgraceful. Angelo was pointing out that something was disgraceful but he didn't specify

Obviously it's regarding the subject and title of the article. Do you need a picture drawn for you?

Really? That was my concern. Well the second part.

Obviously the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. The sham of Widgery was a disgrace and the failure to go and get criminal prosecutions earlier was a disgrace.

But the article is about today's decision. A decision that there is not the current evidence to secure a conviction. By all means disagree with that decision if you can point to the evidence that is there to secure specific convictions. You cannot reasonably say today's decision is a disgrace unless you can point to that weight of evidence

You don't think it's disgraceful that only one solider has been charged with the murder of 14 civilians in Derry 50 years later?

Right........

Thanks for that Enoch.

What a frankly stupid contribution. Read what I have said about Widgery and the post Widgery failings in the post you have actually posted and explain to how your brain came to that conclusion?? As for calling people Enoch catch yourself on.

Yesterday's decision is not about the original events, Widgery or the subsequent failings to go and pursue convictions. It was a decision about whether there is the evidence today to stand a reasonable chance of successful specific convictions. If you think that decision is a disgrace it can only reasonably be because you think that there is the weight of evidence. So what is the evidence?

If you don't have the evidence you cannot claim it's a disgrace not to prosecute.

So do you have the evidence or are you just spouting without any facts??

I'm saying it's disgraceful that only one soldier is being charged for Bloody Sunday.

Maybe you should go and tell the victims families that it's perfectly ok.

Clown.

So you didn't re-read my post then.

I condemn the failings to go and convictions. From that you conclude that I think it's "perfectly ok" for only 1 soldier to face charges. That's incredible. It is literally not credible that your brain could have extracted that meaning from my post.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between these 2 scenarios

A) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted.
B) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted and now there is so little prospect of a conviction that there are unlikely to be trials.

If the second option makes you angry, and it make all of us angry, then direct your anger towards the historic failings.

I get back to my point. It cannot be a disgrace for a prosecutor in 2020 to conclude that the available evidence offers little prospect of conviction if in fact it doesn't offer a reasonable chance of conviction.  You did label it a disgrace. So presumably you do think the evidence is. What is the evidence?

It can be a disgrace that only one soldier is due to face charges 50 years on from the murder of 14 civilians in broad daylight on the streets of Derry.

Yet for some reason you are defending the British judicial system here like some prize Uncle Tom.

That is also disgraceful.

Yes it can be a disgrace that only 1 soldier is facing charges. But that disgrace is routed in things already done ie the missed including deliberately missed opportunities to investigate in the passed. I have already said that, several times. For whatever reason you are failing to compute that.

I have called out these issues, repeatedly called them out. But seem to have interpreted that as a defence of the British judicial system. I have already called your earlier contribution stupid. I am trying not to call you stupid as that triggers the usual ad hominem get out. But I can only judge you by your contributions. Based on those you are either
A) an adolescent or adult with an IQ so low as to be of interest to medical science or
B) a toddler with a run of luck with mummy and daddy's password and a spell checker that would bring the house down in Vegas.

As for calling people an Uncle Tom and previously Enoch can you get that stuff out of your system early doors? It's an all to obvious indicator of stupidity and so unlikely to help your argument. File it with West Brit and quisling and move on with the substantive issues.

Can you at least admit that if a lawyer is asked to look a file to assess if it contains sufficient evidence to stand a chance of securing a conviction and the file doesn't contain the required evidence then it is manifestly not a disgrace to reach that conclusion?

If you cannot admit to that then you have link to reality or logic

You're the one defending it.

Maybe take that issue up with the legal team of the victims who have contested that decisions but the lady doth protest too much so I think it's a fair summation to say you have your bread buttered on one side.

The victims of Bloody Sunday have consistently been let down by due process, this is no different but you're defending, like a good little boy.

God help you.

The families have been let down. As I have sad many times.

I am merely pointing out that you have labelled something a disgrace but have zero to back it up. Not a number. Not a sentence. Not a word. Not a syllable.

If it's a disgrace explain what different decision should have been reached and what evidence it should have been based on.

It strikes me that you are rightly angry and your anger has blinded you to logic and fact.

[Angelo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54329803

Disgraceful

It's difficult to conclude that today's decision is "disgraceful"

What?

I said it's difficult to conclude that today's decision is disgraceful. Angelo was pointing out that something was disgraceful but he didn't specify

Obviously it's regarding the subject and title of the article. Do you need a picture drawn for you?

Really? That was my concern. Well the second part.

Obviously the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. The sham of Widgery was a disgrace and the failure to go and get criminal prosecutions earlier was a disgrace.

But the article is about today's decision. A decision that there is not the current evidence to secure a conviction. By all means disagree with that decision if you can point to the evidence that is there to secure specific convictions. You cannot reasonably say today's decision is a disgrace unless you can point to that weight of evidence

You don't think it's disgraceful that only one solider has been charged with the murder of 14 civilians in Derry 50 years later?

Right........

Thanks for that Enoch.

What a frankly stupid contribution. Read what I have said about Widgery and the post Widgery failings in the post you have actually posted and explain to how your brain came to that conclusion?? As for calling people Enoch catch yourself on.

Yesterday's decision is not about the original events, Widgery or the subsequent failings to go and pursue convictions. It was a decision about whether there is the evidence today to stand a reasonable chance of successful specific convictions. If you think that decision is a disgrace it can only reasonably be because you think that there is the weight of evidence. So what is the evidence?

If you don't have the evidence you cannot claim it's a disgrace not to prosecute.

So do you have the evidence or are you just spouting without any facts??

I'm saying it's disgraceful that only one soldier is being charged for Bloody Sunday.

Maybe you should go and tell the victims families that it's perfectly ok.

Clown.

So you didn't re-read my post then.

I condemn the failings to go and convictions. From that you conclude that I think it's "perfectly ok" for only 1 soldier to face charges. That's incredible. It is literally not credible that your brain could have extracted that meaning from my post.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between these 2 scenarios

A) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted.
B) the events of Bloody Sunday were a disgrace. There have been sham investigations in the past and opportunities for prosecutions have been wasted and now there is so little prospect of a conviction that there are unlikely to be trials.

If the second option makes you angry, and it make all of us angry, then direct your anger towards the historic failings.

I get back to my point. It cannot be a disgrace for a prosecutor in 2020 to conclude that the available evidence offers little prospect of conviction if in fact it doesn't offer a reasonable chance of conviction.  You did label it a disgrace. So presumably you do think the evidence is. What is the evidence?

It can be a disgrace that only one soldier is due to face charges 50 years on from the murder of 14 civilians in broad daylight on the streets of Derry.

Yet for some reason you are defending the British judicial system here like some prize Uncle Tom.

That is also disgraceful.

Yes it can be a disgrace that only 1 soldier is facing charges. But that disgrace is routed in things already done ie the missed including deliberately missed opportunities to investigate in the passed. I have already said that, several times. For whatever reason you are failing to compute that.

I have called out these issues, repeatedly called them out. But seem to have interpreted that as a defence of the British judicial system. I have already called your earlier contribution stupid. I am trying not to call you stupid as that triggers the usual ad hominem get out. But I can only judge you by your contributions. Based on those you are either
A) an adolescent or adult with an IQ so low as to be of interest to medical science or
B) a toddler with a run of luck with mummy and daddy's password and a spell checker that would bring the house down in Vegas.

As for calling people an Uncle Tom and previously Enoch can you get that stuff out of your system early doors? It's an all to obvious indicator of stupidity and so unlikely to help your argument. File it with West Brit and quisling and move on with the substantive issues.

Can you at least admit that if a lawyer is asked to look a file to assess if it contains sufficient evidence to stand a chance of securing a conviction and the file doesn't contain the required evidence then it is manifestly not a disgrace to reach that conclusion?

If you cannot admit to that then you have link to reality or logic

You're the one defending it.

Maybe take that issue up with the legal team of the victims who have contested that decisions but the lady doth protest too much so I think it's a fair summation to say you have your bread buttered on one side.

The victims of Bloody Sunday have consistently been let down by due process, this is no different but you're defending, like a good little boy.

God help you.

The families have been let down. As I have sad many times.

I am merely pointing out that you have labelled something a disgrace but have zero to back it up. Not a number. Not a sentence. Not a word. Not a syllable.

If it's a disgrace explain what different decision should have been reached and what evidence it should have been based on.

It strikes me that you are rightly angry and your anger has blinded you to logic and fact.

Gold help me? You're the on defending the indefensible like the obedient Uncle Tom you are.

I have said that one soldier being charged for 14 civilians being murdered in broad daylight by members of the British Army is disgraceful.

You're defending that in a very subservient manner, I'm sure the British establishment are extremely proud of you.

Sadly I can imagine the families of the victims are understandably extremely unhappy at this news, maybe pop around and explain it to them if you support it so much.

[LCohen]

God help you in the sense that you cannot follow logic.

If I was speaking to the family I know what I would say in terms of their loss and how they have been treated. There would be nothing there that would cause them any further distress.

In terms of this week's decision I would explain to them that because the PPS are not taking forward further prosecutions is only a disgrace if the evidence is there and PPS are ignoring it.

I would also refer them to you and you could then explain to them the evidence that PPS are ignoring. Be so good to tell us now what that evidence is?

It's a simple question but one that with Trump like sidestepping you consistently avoid and instead resort to name calling, wilful misinterpretation and general empty headedness. Just answer the question. Tell us the evidence or admit you have none and you have reached your conclusion without any facts

[Franko]

LCohen, for you to say that it "cannot be a disgrace", you have to assume that the prosecutor is an honest actor and is not being politically influenced.

That's a big jump where the British govt are concerned.

Franko - read what I said. You are quoting part of a sentence and also ignoring the tenor of what I have said.

The decision was one about the weight of available evidence. If the decision is wrong point to the evidence.

It's not sufficient to say the decision was a disgrace because it could have been wrong. On that basis every decision ever has been a disgrace. You need some evidence.

There could jet be a judicial review on this. If the evidence is there it will find it's way to a non UK court. What will the reaction be if that court says there's insufficient evidence for a 2020 prosecution? Will that court be correct but a Belfast prosecutor who reached the same decision be a disgrace??

IF (it's a big if, but certainly not outside the realms of possibility) the decision was politically influenced, it most certainly is a disgrace.

You are assuming that didn't happen.

I've no evidence that it did, of course.  But I wouldn't be so quick to assume.

[LCohen]

LCohen, for you to say that it "cannot be a disgrace", you have to assume that the prosecutor is an honest actor and is not being politically influenced.

That's a big jump where the British govt are concerned.

Franko - read what I said. You are quoting part of a sentence and also ignoring the tenor of what I have said.

The decision was one about the weight of available evidence. If the decision is wrong point to the evidence.

It's not sufficient to say the decision was a disgrace because it could have been wrong. On that basis every decision ever has been a disgrace. You need some evidence.

There could jet be a judicial review on this. If the evidence is there it will find it's way to a non UK court. What will the reaction be if that court says there's insufficient evidence for a 2020 prosecution? Will that court be correct but a Belfast prosecutor who reached the same decision be a disgrace??

IF (it's a big if, but certainly not outside the realms of possibility) the decision was politically influenced, it most certainly is a disgrace.

You are assuming that didn't happen.

I've no evidence that it did, of course.  But I wouldn't be so quick to assume.

Political influence would be a disgrace. I would be a fool to ignore evidence of it. But as you say there is no evidence for me to consider.

Maybe you could point to historical political interference- some rumoured, some proven.

You would also have to point to the fact that this has been back to PPS twice in recent times. On both occasions findings and rationale have been published. On both occasions we have not dealt with faceless bureaucrats. Officials have been available to field questions. On both occasions there has been the right of further appeal. The decision makers know that they are going to have their homework checked. They will have known that from the start. On both occasions they will have known that ultimately those appeals will take this outside UK and the potential or UK influence on the outcome. They will also have known that the UK domestic judiciary are not enamoured with the UK government. We are also aware that we are talking about events of almost 50 years ago. The chances of a conviction on any case outside of a confession are low and diminishing. If they are not very nearly zero they are very actually zero.  That would be the case in normal circumstances but added to a case where physical evidence was taken or was subsequently conveniently mislaid then the chances diminish further.

The apparent fact that the legal teams appear to be focussing on the joint enterprise angle seems to indicate that they themselves think there isn't the evidence for specific individual convictions.

You got to weigh all these things up before jumping to the conclusion that this week's decision was a disgrace

[grounded]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52885615

Out of interest how many British soldiers have been convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[BennyCake]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-52885615

Out of interest how many British soldiers have been convicted of war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The acts they carried out here were disgusting. Imagine what they've got away with there.