gaaboard.com

(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2010/6/10/1276199099840/Derry-on-Bloody-Sunday-006.jpg)

QuoteThe long-awaited report into the Bloody Sunday massacre will conclude that a number of the fatal shootings of civilians by British soldiers were unlawful killings, the Guardian has learned.

Lord Saville's 12-year inquiry into the deaths, the longest public inquiry in British legal history, will conclude with a report published next Tuesday, putting severe pressure on the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland to prosecute soldiers.

Lord Trimble, the former leader of the Ulster Unionists and one of the architects of the Good Friday agreement, revealed to the Guardian that when Tony Blair agreed to the inquiry in 1998, he warned the then prime minister that any conclusion that departed "one millimetre" from the earlier 1972 Widgery report into the killings would lead to "soldiers in the dock".

One unionist MP who did not wish to be named described the conclusion of unlawful killings as a "hand-grenade with the pin pulled out that is about to be tossed into the lap of the PPS" in Northern Ireland.

Thirteen unarmed civilians, all of them male, were shot dead at a civil rights march in the Bogside area of Derry in January 1972. A 14th man died of his wounds several months later.

The killings electrified nationalist protests against British rule in Northern Ireland and Bloody Sunday became a critical moment in the history of the Troubles, dramatically boosting the popularity of the Provisional IRA in the province and, according to many people, acting as a catalyst for much of the violence that followed.

The results of Saville's hearing will be released to the public at 3.30pm on Tuesday when David Cameron announces its publication to the House of Commons.

Up to 10,000 people are expected to march around lunchtime that day into Guildhall Square in Derry, where they will watch live reports about the inquiry's conclusions on giant television screens. They will trace the same route that the civil rights marchers had attempted to take on Bloody Sunday, which the Stormont government, dominated in 1972 by unionists, had banned.

Families of those killed in the massacre 38 years ago have focused on a number of soldiers who were identified and gave evidence during the 12 year old tribunal. These include "Soldier F" who, according to the relatives of the Bloody Sunday dead, shot four to six of the victims. Told during the inquiry that his evidence amounted to perjury, he did not demur.

Though witnesses were protected from self-incrimination, an exception was made for perjury. And government law officers made it clear that criminal prosecution against an individual was not ruled out in the light of any evidence that emerged from other witnesses or from documents. Sources familiar with the inquiry said yesterday that Saville may not explicitly recommend criminal prosecutions and much will depend on his message, whether direct or indirect, to the PPS.

The PPS, headed by Sir Alasdair Fraser, will make the decision on prosecutions because the killings occurred in its jurisdiction, rather than the Crown Prosecution Service in London. Fraser will have to take into account the public interest in a prosecution, and the likelihood of securing a conviction.

Among survivors who were shot on the day and the families of the dead, there are many demanding that a number of British paratroopers should be prosecuted through the courts.

They could initiate a private prosecution and sue for compensation in a civil court.

Trimble, a Nobel peace prize winner, said that during the all-party talks of late 1997 and early 1998 he told Blair that a new inquiry would end up with soldiers being dragged through the courts.

He described the establishment of the tribunal during the peace talks as a "sideline deal independent from the Belfast agreement".

On his warning to Blair, Trimble said: "I just reminded him that the Widgery report of 1972 concluded that the troops' behaviour, to quote from the report, 'bordered on the reckless'.

"Then I told the prime minister that if you moved from one millimetre from the that conclusion you were into the area of manslaughter, if not murder," he said.

"I pointed out to Blair that we would see soldiers in the dock. I told him that at the time of the talks leading to the Belfast agreement," Trimble said.

Blair and the then Northern Ireland secretary, Mo Mowlam, announced the establishment of the Saville inquiry on 30 January 1998 – the 26th anniversary of the shootings, citing "compelling new evidence".

At the time Blair and Mowlam, who has since died, were locked in the intensive negotiations between unionists and nationalist that ultimately led to the Good Friday agreement of 1998.

However, Trimble said that the inquiry was "not in any way part of the agreement".

He added: "At the time of the talks the parties, it seemed to me, did not want to be obsessing on the past. The problem was that Blair, for reasons that I can't understand, gave in to pressure for a selective inquiry."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/10/bloody-sunday-inquiry-northern-ireland

At long last. Can't see any prosecutions, or meaningful ones coming out of this though. How will the families etc. react to this? Will they be content or see it as not enough?

It only took 40 years to get nowhere. Still waiting for prosecutions. There will be anger and controversy over which killings were unlawful and which killings were lawful.

No real news here.


Obviously not all questions will have been satisfactorily answered.

I'm sure Gregory Campbell will be able to put some spin on this, praising the british and reminding us that protestants suffered more.

Quote from: orangeman on June 11, 2010, 12:01:32 AM
No real news here.


Obviously not all questions will have been satisfactorily answered.

Any of the soldier's on the ground from the inquiry will never see 'the dock', because if they did you can be sure that their stories would change and the officers that gave the orders would get implicated, and so on to the politicians etc.

The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

This whole inquiry has completely sickened my happiness. Yes the people who were shot deserve justice and the British government need to admit that it was an attrocity but the whole world already know this. I am not for one second deminishing that.

Yet through this inquest all we have done is lined the pockets of already extremely wealthy Barristers and QC's, these are men who have boasted that after this they will never need to work again.

My point is the summation of this inquiry will reveal what we all already knew, so why did it take 800m to get there, surely this money would have been better spent regenerating the City of Derry gaining employment for its people and making it a better place to live for all. Surely this would have been a better legacy than a document that will still be full of holes anyway.

Well said Bud wiser. Its just typical of the Irish to walked over by other countries. This report will achieve nothing.

QuoteThis whole inquiry has completely sickened my happiness. Yes the people who were shot deserve justice and the British government need to admit that it was an attrocity but the whole world already know this. I am not for one second deminishing that.

Yet through this inquest all we have done is lined the pockets of already extremely wealthy Barristers and QC's, these are men who have boasted that after this they will never need to work again.

My point is the summation of this inquiry will reveal what we all already knew, so why did it take 800m to get there, surely this money would have been better spent regenerating the City of Derry gaining employment for its people and making it a better place to live for all. Surely this would have been a better legacy than a document that will still be full of holes anyway.

Lay the blame for the inquiry at the door of 10 Downing Street....if the Brits had owned up in the first place 38 years ago, the 800M would have been saved and those responsible for the killings would have had their time served a long time ago.

Well said Bud Wiser.

I must say Bud has said exactly how I feel but could never expressed it as well as he has done.

Buy that man a pint.

Quote from: Shamrock Shore on June 11, 2010, 11:21:59 AM
I must say Bud has said exactly how I feel but could never expressed it as well as he has done.

Buy that man a pint.

Have to agree totally.

A half 'un as well

How much money has been spent on lawyers and expenses and God knows what to come up with a clonclusion that even the biggest dope would have had hours after this outrage? We live in a seriously fucked up world.

Bud is right of course. I often wonder is there any point in us being an independent nation. We allow everything and stand for nothing.

Agree 100% Bud. Well said

Tories showing their true colours early on.


Saville Inquiry an 'expensive disaster'
Sunday, 13 June 2010 15:04
British Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has said the inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings has been a 'disaster in terms of time and expense'.

The Saville Report, which has cost more than £190m, will be published on Tuesday, more than 12 years after the inquiry was opened.

Mr Clarke said the inquiry had got 'ludicrously out of hand' and he was 'anxiously considering' how other inquiries should be held in the future.

AdvertisementThe inquiry looked into the events on 30 January 1970 when British soldiers opened fire on a civil rights march, killing 13 people.

Quote from: orangeman on June 13, 2010, 04:10:01 PM
Tories showing their true colours early on.


Saville Inquiry an 'expensive disaster'
Sunday, 13 June 2010 15:04
British Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has said the inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings has been a 'disaster in terms of time and expense'.

The Saville Report, which has cost more than £190m, will be published on Tuesday, more than 12 years after the inquiry was opened.

Mr Clarke said the inquiry had got 'ludicrously out of hand' and he was 'anxiously considering' how other inquiries should be held in the future.

AdvertisementThe inquiry looked into the events on 30 January 1970 when British soldiers opened fire on a civil rights march, killing 13 people.

Yes Ken the investigation was an expensive disaster, no comment on the killings though?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8548714.stm

it means sfa unless they prosecute the murderers

Quote from: magickingdom on June 13, 2010, 04:29:04 PM
it means sfa unless they prosecute the murderers

Won't happen.

Quote from: orangeman on June 13, 2010, 04:10:01 PM
Tories showing their true colours early on.


Saville Inquiry an 'expensive disaster'
Sunday, 13 June 2010 15:04
British Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has said the inquiry into the Bloody Sunday killings has been a 'disaster in terms of time and expense'.

The Saville Report, which has cost more than £190m, will be published on Tuesday, more than 12 years after the inquiry was opened.

Mr Clarke said the inquiry had got 'ludicrously out of hand' and he was 'anxiously considering' how other inquiries should be held in the future.

AdvertisementThe inquiry looked into the events on 30 January 1970 when British soldiers opened fire on a civil rights march, killing 13 people.

Why mention the Tories in the headline? Clarke is only saying what they are all thinking? An absolute waste of money that (as NAG said) could have been put to better use than lining the pockets of barristers and solicitors with no vested interest in getting this over and done with. Everyone clamoured for this inquiry, blow the cost, even though they knew it would be a whitewash. What did they expect? He who pays the piper...

I presume it's telling the truth and blaming the Brits seeing as they are doing so much moaning about the cost.

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

Because that 13 were murdered by the armed thug employees of the British State who then villifed them and have never apologised for their murdurous deeds.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

Quote from: Rossfan on June 13, 2010, 09:21:35 PM
Because that 13 were murdered by the armed thug employees of the British State who then villifed them and have never apologised for their murdurous deeds.

So you think there should be a hierarchy of victims? Fine. Who gets to draw up the list - you or Willie Frazer?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

I wasn't responding to you nor have I any interest in engaging with you.  Thank you.
;)

thank God

Will there be any reaction / trouble on the streets of Derry if this does not exonerate the dead?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

2012 will be the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and what I meant was that this day should be remembered, and not alone that, it should be even more remembered in the South,  to remind our children and their children what a third coming of Brit Paratroopers to this Island could bring if they are ever let back in the future.  When the first Black and Tans arrived they took out random vengance attacks, killed and slaughtered innocents and burnt towns when they had a man down following an IRA attack. They shot, plundered and murdered and raped at will because they had no discipline and were out of control of the British Government.  What happened in 1972 was exactly the same and if you want to forget about it that is fine.  I can see no problem including "thousands of innocent people who lost their lives" in that remembrance day as well - along with the teenagers that were shot dead and those who were shot in the back on Bloody Sunday.  Not alone would I like to see a Remembrance Day in 2012 but I would indeed prefer if Maggie Thatcher was made come and watch it.

Since the Iraq war there have been 164 brit soldiers charged with offences ranging from murder down along the line. They are not tried in a criminal court but by court martial - ie, by themselves and out of that 164 not one of them has received a sentence. Why?  Because what they do is they bring up about six charges to cover the one, like say, not taking due care, disobeying orders, discharging a firearm dangerously etc, etc, and what has happened on each occasion is that on day one of the court martial the lesser charge is dealt with, day two the same craic and by the time ithe day comes to get to the serious end of the stick the serious charge is dismissed because all the others have been glanced over and it doesn't look as bad.  What happened the seven 'soldiers' (their term) that were charged with murder in Iraq in 2003?   They were let away with it, thats what happened. One of them, Larkin had the stupidity to plead guilty but his guilty plea was over ruled when the Brits produced a witness at the court martial to say he (the witness)  now was not sure if Larkin was the one involved.    If we don't remember Bloody Sunday Maggie Thatcher or Lord Goldsmith are not going to remember it for us and it is still my view that we should have a National Remembrance Day so rather than go on about it I agree to disagree.

Well said Bud. Hear hear .

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

Ken Clarke is right, it has been a disaster in terms of time and expense. What a colossal waste of money. The people who ran the inquiry should be prosecuted for taking so long. It also tells us that this will be another whitewash.

Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

What about the British victims?

Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

Are you talking about victims of the IRA? they are already recognised as victims and had their killers pursued unlike victims of state terrorism.

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 14, 2010, 12:37:49 PM

to remind our children and their children what a third coming of Brit Paratroopers to this Island could bring if they are ever let back in the future.  When the first Black and Tans arrived they took out random vengance attacks, killed and slaughtered innocents and burnt towns when they had a man down following an IRA attack. They shot, plundered and murdered and raped at will because they had no discipline and were out of control of the British Government

Where did you get the idea that the B&T were out of the control of the British Government? What control are you talking about?  There was a reason the B&T were deployed. It was the British strategy to deploy them and use those methods against the IRA and the general population.
Have you ever examined the history of any colony that resisted their colonisers with violence? An essential part of the counter insurgency is to deploy some hard m f**kers.
Do you think the French paratroopers were out of control in Algeria during the Battle of Algiers? Not at all, they were doing what they were ordered to do by the French General Massau.
That's life in a war of Independence.  It's insurgency  and counter insurgency.  You have the right to fight back against the army of the occupiers/invaders and kill them or support those who are prepared to do the shooting for you.  It is naive in the extreme to think the B&T were out of control of the British government.

QuoteWhat happened in 1972 was exactly the same

Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

Quote

Quote
Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

"I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable in Nuremberg, why would you accept it?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 07:50:50 PM

Quote

Quote
Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

"I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable in Nuremberg, why would you accept it?

It depends who is saying it.
The deployment of the Paratroopers was a method used by the British government. The Paras were deployed previous to Bloody Sunday and with bloody (but not fatal) results when they battered civilian protesters to a pulp. Imo the Paras were following orders to act in the way they were trained to do.

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 07:45:04 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 14, 2010, 12:37:49 PM

to remind our children and their children what a third coming of Brit Paratroopers to this Island could bring if they are ever let back in the future.  When the first Black and Tans arrived they took out random vengance attacks, killed and slaughtered innocents and burnt towns when they had a man down following an IRA attack. They shot, plundered and murdered and raped at will because they had no discipline and were out of control of the British Government

Where did you get the idea that the B&T were out of the control of the British Government? What control are you talking about?  There was a reason the B&T were deployed. It was the British strategy to deploy them and use those methods against the IRA and the general population.
Have you ever examined the history of any colony that resisted their colonisers with violence? An essential part of the counter insurgency is to deploy some hard m f**kers.
Do you think the French paratroopers were out of control in Algeria during the Battle of Algiers? Not at all, they were doing what they were ordered to do by the French General Massau.
That's life in a war of Independence.  It's insurgency  and counter insurgency.  You have the right to fight back against the army of the occupiers/invaders and kill them or support those who are prepared to do the shooting for you.  It is naive in the extreme to think the B&T were out of control of the British government.[/b]

QuoteWhat happened in 1972 was exactly the same

Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

You're a little inconsistent in applying these fine protocols of a war of independence. ;)

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 08:03:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 07:50:50 PM

Quote

Quote
Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

"I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable in Nuremberg, why would you accept it?

It depends who is saying it.
The deployment of the Paratroopers was a method used by the British government. The Paras were deployed previous to Bloody Sunday and with bloody (but not fatal) results when they battered civilian protesters to a pulp. Imo the Paras were following orders to act in the way they were trained to do.

I've no doubt they were following orders however when you shoot an innocent person that has their arms raised or when they're crawling away you are a murderer, orders or not.

Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

Good questions.

It's all a matter of timing.

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 10:33:00 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

Good questions.

It's all a matter of timing.

If yous want to discuss those questions please start another thread, this one is about bloody sunday.

Try and keep up Puckoon, answer my last post on this topic??
Same thing again here: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minutes-silence-urged-for-victims-of-famine-2181338.html (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/minutes-silence-urged-for-victims-of-famine-2181338.html) and unfortunately I was in France on the day but I am fierce proud, no, really, fierce pissed off with what this country tolerated from the brits. 

No doubt, at all there will be some here on this forum that will suggest ' Oh why have a minutes silence for the victims of the famine" and that is their opinion. 

Here is a little link to a song.  In an earlier post I mentioned how all the Black & Tans got away, I mentioned how the 164 murderers (of the small amount asked to be accountable) got off. It is most probable that they are now living under a new identity and may well be "anywhere" !!  (probably sitting beside you) I would safely guess that the celebrations of Dunkirk a few weeks ago, and the wall scribbling of names that were inscribed of those that gave their lives for Britains freedom from the Hitlers of this world did not include any Irish.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPZohMD6B0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHPZohMD6B0)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

We'll have to start another thread to examine your questions.

But for now, let's stick to the topic at hand - what about the people who were murdered and injured on Bloody Sunday ?.


Willl these f---ers be charged with murder anytime soon ?.

I hope the ruling will bring some relief to families who not only had to suffer the loss of loved ones but then endure the attempts to sully their reputations with ridiculous claims of self defence.

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 11:04:01 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

We'll have to start another thread to examine your questions.

But for now, let's stick to the topic at hand - what about the people who were murdered and injured on Bloody Sunday ?.


Willl these f---ers be charged with murder anytime soon ?.

No. Despite what the various inquiries say, the British do not believe the Paras are guilty of murder. All in the line of duty.

It does seem likely that Saville will declare that some of the victims were unlawfully killed.

There's bound to be demands for these killings at least to be referred to PPS.

What then ?

Not enough evidence ?.

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 11:17:58 PM
It does seem likely that Saville will declare that some of the victims were unlawfully killed.

There's bound to be demands for these killings at least to be referred to PPS.

What then ?

Not enough evidence ?.

Is there anything in the way of hard evidence? Where do you start in creating an evidentiary case 40 years later? Surely it will come down to the case of the Paras saying they believed they were under attack and those representing the families saying the Paras fired on them indiscriminately.

When looked at in terms of beyond reasonable doubt or on balance of probabilites I couldn't see it going anywhere. The best the families could hope for may be taking a civil case, but then again it's gonna be difficult and expensive to pursue "ghosts".

Quote from: Treasurer on June 14, 2010, 11:09:43 PM
I hope the ruling will bring some relief to families who not only had to suffer the loss of loved ones but then endure the attempts to sully their reputations with ridiculous claims of self defence.

Five (that we know about) that were shot on Bloody Sunday were actually shot in the back.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 14, 2010, 11:28:37 PM

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 11:17:58 PM
It does seem likely that Saville will declare that some of the victims were unlawfully killed.

There's bound to be demands for these killings at least to be referred to PPS.

What then ?

Not enough evidence ?.

Is there anything in the way of hard evidence? Where do you start in creating an evidentiary case 40 years later? Surely it will come down to the case of the Paras saying they believed they were under attack and those representing the families saying the Paras fired on them indiscriminately.

When looked at in terms of beyond reasonable doubt or on balance of probabilites I couldn't see it going anywhere. The best the families could hope for may be taking a civil case, but then again it's gonna be difficult and expensive to pursue "ghosts".

Expect the ruling to lead to a raft of cases against the MOD / government etc then.

Let's see what Saville has to say before he or the report is put down or is that too much to ask for?

The usual suspects are at their usual antics of big headlines and little or no substance.  Such people can't be taken seriously

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on June 14, 2010, 11:44:21 PM
Let's see what Saville has to say before he or the report is put down or is that too much to ask for?

The usual suspects are at their usual antics of big headlines and little or no substance.  Such people can't be taken seriously

who do you mean?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 10:34:40 PM

Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 10:33:00 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 10:25:40 PM

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 10:16:38 PM
Ordered to be a murderer. And those that gave the orders received their knighthoods and other imperial honours. It would be farcical in that context, to be making scapegoats out of the Para soldiers.
The reply to that state terrorism was to fundamentally deny and resist it with all means. The para regiment suffered their losses, albeit by legitimate insurgency methods.
That war is over, a treaty has been signed.

What's a legitimate insurgency? How does it differ from an illegitimate insurgency and who makes the ruling? What's the difference between legitimate insurgents and 'traitors to Ireland'? What difference does a treaty make? Why does the current treaty make a difference when others (1921, for e.g) have been branded as sell outs? Why aren't those insurgents who ignored previous treaties (provisional IRA, for e.g) considered traitors to Ireland too?

Good questions.

It's all a matter of timing.

If yous want to discuss those questions please start another thread, this one is about bloody sunday.

Exactly.

Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

Shocking piece of whataboutery, but I suppose Omagh man away in the states.
It was murder by STATE FORCES so why the F U C K shouldn't there be an inquiry and why shouldn't someone be prosecuted for murder if their carrying a legally held GUN and are the supposed upholders of  the peace.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

What about the British victims?

11th Nov every year"wear it with pride "

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 14, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

Quote from: Puckoon on June 14, 2010, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 13, 2010, 09:26:40 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 13, 2010, 09:15:38 PM

Quote from: Bud Wiser on June 11, 2010, 08:59:16 AM
The b*****ds that done the shooting on Bloody Sunday are very easily identified - if the British wanted to do so. Last week we had endless ceremonies for Dunkirk and they had no bother finding matching boats and veterans who remembered exactly where they were on the 4th June 1940, but then, knowing where you were to line up to receive gallantry medals was never a problem with the brits as opposed to lining up to face mass murder charges. Last week also saw a ceremony to put names of dead soldiers killed in Afganistan on a wall of remembrance, which I have no problem with (we should have one in O'connel Street instead of a spire) but why did they not give coverage to the soldiers who on the same week were charged with the murders/execution of an entire innocent Afgan family. The level of debate on RTE or the failure of the government to even make a statement about the current report while we have people marching on the Israeli Embassy instead of the British one is two examples of why this report is too little and far too late.

There should be a national rememberance day for the 40th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday and the government should announce that intention and demand that those involved in the Bogside massacre of 27 people including children are brought to justice before that time.

There should be no hierarchy of victims. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives during the troubles. Why single out 13 for a national remembrance day?

You're right, it should be a national remembrance day for all the Irish victims of British terrorism.

But then we would need one for all the Irish victims of Irish terrorism?

What about the British victims?

Ironically Myles while the victims have no affinity to the Queen et al, Bloody Sunday was in effect the British government murdering its own citizens as were other shoot to kill murders they carried out.

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 08:03:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 07:50:50 PM

Quote

Quote
Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

"I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable in Nuremberg, why would you accept it?

It depends who is saying it.
The deployment of the Paratroopers was a method used by the British government. The Paras were deployed previous to Bloody Sunday and with bloody (but not fatal) results when they battered civilian protesters to a pulp. Imo the Paras were following orders to act in the way they were trained to do.

But the para radio operator has given a witness statement contrary to that.  He called "cease fire" over the radio, and also ran to each solider hitting him on the shoulder and shouting "Cease fire".  One of the questions raised is why 4 of the soliders ignored that direct order and went on to kill another 6 people.

I'd say that totally negates your arguement...

Today above all days in the Dail we have the FG spat and the Confidence motion. Expect little.

The official BBC view!

Norman Smith,
Chief political correspondent, BBC Radio 4
When Tony Blair launched the Bloody Sunday Inquiry he told the Commons its aim was "to close this painful chapter once and for all". Now the fear amongst politicians from all parties is that it could have precisely the opposite effect and open up a political can of worms. In Government, the possibility that former British soldiers could end up in the dock is viewed with near consternation. It would, it is argued, have a catastrophic effect on the ethos and morale of the military. But there is also a wider fear that any prosecutions would tear a gaping hole in the delicate fabric of the peace process by creating two scales of justice. One where former paramilitaries are granted immunity. Another where former squaddies, some now almost sixty, are prosecuted. The difficulty for David Cameron is that events are now out of his control and may rest in the hands of lawyers. Privately some at Westminster now point to Tony Blair's fateful decision to grant an inquiry as a fundamental political mistake

Such a crock of sh*t from the BBC. Loads of Republicans (and Loyalists) served time, but the British armed forces murdered with impunity.   

Quote from: Alco Pup on June 15, 2010, 09:11:36 AM

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2010, 08:03:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 14, 2010, 07:50:50 PM

Quote

Quote
Deployment of the paratroop regiment in 1972 was a planned brutal method.
What are you looking for? to present criminal charges against soldiers who were following orders?
Wtf use is that?  It was a planned murder carried out by the State against civilians.

"I was only following orders" wasn't acceptable in Nuremberg, why would you accept it?

It depends who is saying it.
The deployment of the Paratroopers was a method used by the British government. The Paras were deployed previous to Bloody Sunday and with bloody (but not fatal) results when they battered civilian protesters to a pulp. Imo the Paras were following orders to act in the way they were trained to do.

But the para radio operator has given a witness statement contrary to that.  He called "cease fire" over the radio, and also ran to each solider hitting him on the shoulder and shouting "Cease fire".  One of the questions raised is why 4 of the soliders ignored that direct order and went on to kill another 6 people.

I'd say that totally negates your arguement...

One witness statement totally negates what I wrote?  then what about the other killings? 
The Paras were already deployed into action with brutal consequences (a few days?) previous. The Para regiment was ordered to to be  deployed in Derry for a Civil Rights demo for one reason, they carried out that duty and just because they were very enthusiastic in carrying out that duty, you think it negates my argument, not just negate but "totally negates"?
Do you think the torture methods carried out against prisoners in the early days were just made up by the interrogators as they went along or do you suspect that somebody somewhere decided to try out these methods and made the order after getting permission?

When a brutal method is put into action against the civilian population then you want to moan against the brutes who carried the guns. I say, those who ordered them to be deployed and ordered them in, bear the responsibility. In this case it was the State and it was the State who later honoured those heroes of the empire.

Those who ordered and those who carried out the murders are equally to blame. 

Live coverage here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7459669.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7459669.stm)

Emotional scenes in the Guildhall Square.

Keep me up to date, as I've no sound at work.

In summary mass murder in all but name. Tribunal cannot call it murder cos it's not a court of law.

Would have been great to be in Derry today.

Cameron now spinning. Praising British Army in general

"David Cameron says the conclusions of this report "are absolutely clear". What happened on Bloody Sunday was "unjustifiable and wrong", he says. No warning was given to any civilians before soldiers opened fire. None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone-throwers. Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying.

None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting, David Cameron says. There is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report :the events of Bloody Sunday were not justified, he says. Mr Cameron adds: "What happened should never, ever have happened - some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. On behalf of our government and our country I am deeply sorry." "

Arlene Foster is a **** of the highest order.

Not that this is surprising in any way, I just felt it should be said again.

Radio coverage from the podium in the Guildhall Square:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/)

Quote from: Alco Pup on June 15, 2010, 03:45:03 PM
"David Cameron says the conclusions of this report "are absolutely clear". What happened on Bloody Sunday was "unjustifiable and wrong", he says. No warning was given to any civilians before soldiers opened fire. None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone-throwers. Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying.

None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting, David Cameron says. There is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report :the events of Bloody Sunday were not justified, he says. Mr Cameron adds: "What happened should never, ever have happened - some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. On behalf of our government and our country I am deeply sorry." "

Thats an important step, usually in these matters politicans merely express regret which doesn't in its self mean require culpability/responsibility, saying sorry however does.

Quote from: gallsman on June 15, 2010, 03:47:44 PM
Arlene Foster is a **** of the highest order.

Not that this is surprising in any way, I just felt it should be said again.

Why? What'd she do?

Quote from: ziggysego on June 15, 2010, 03:51:55 PM

Quote from: gallsman on June 15, 2010, 03:47:44 PM
Arlene Foster is a **** of the highest order.

Not that this is surprising in any way, I just felt it should be said again.

Why? What'd she do?

Unsurprisingly chose to spoke about Enniskillen, La Mon and Warrenpoint. Don't think she can see the significance of state-sponsored murder.

QuoteArlene Foster is a **** of the highest order

That's a bit harsh on ****s.

watching some very emotive stuff here

Mr Cameron said:

    * No warning had been given to any civilians before the soldiers opened fire

    * None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone throwers

    * Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying
    * None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting
    * There was no point in trying to soften or equivocate - the events of Bloody Sunday were not justified
    * Many of the soldiers lied about their actions
    * What happened should never, ever have happened
    * Some members of the British armed forces acted wrongly
    * On behalf of the government and the country, he said he was "deeply sorry"
    * The events of Bloody Sunday were not premeditated
    * Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, Sinn Fein, was present at the time of the violence and "probably armed with a submachine gun" but did not engage in "any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire"

I notice there was no mention of the CPS getting involved following these findings.

Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on June 15, 2010, 04:22:03 PM
I notice there was no mention of the CPS getting involved following these findings.

The findings have only just been made public, surely that process would require sometime either way.

f**k ME IS ANYONE LISTENING TO THE BASTARD BEING INTERVIEWED OUTSIDE THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?  SOME LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BRITS....OH DEAR GOD, THE ENGLISH ARMY ARE REPRESENTED BY THE SCUM OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.  HIS NAME IS STEPHEN POLLARD AND IT'LL  BE A WHILE BEFORE HE HOLIDAYS IN IRELAND, I'D SAY.

What a wonderful day for those famlies and what a wonderful day for Derry. A long time coming - but what did it tell us that we didn't already know?

BUTCHER'S DOZEN:
A LESSON FOR THE OCTAVE OF WIDGERY

by Thomas Kinsella


                              I went with Anger at my heel
                              Through Bogside of the bitter zeal
                              - Jesus pity! - on a day
                              Of cold and drizzle and decay.
                              A month had passed. Yet there remained
                              A murder smell that stung and stained.
                              On flats and alleys-over all-
                              It hung; on battered roof and wall,
                              On wreck and rubbish scattered thick,
                              On sullen steps and pitted brick.
                              And when I came where thirteen died
                              It shrivelled up my heart. I sighed
                              And looked about that brutal place
                              Of rage and terror and disgrace.
                              Then my moistened lips grew dry.
                              I had heard an answering sigh!
                              There in a ghostly pool of blood
                              A crumpled phantom hugged the mud:
                              "Once there lived a hooligan.
                              A pig came up, and away he ran.
                              Here lies one in blood and bones,
                              Who lost his life for throwing stones."

                              More voices rose. I turned and saw
                              Three corpses forming, red and raw,
                              From dirt and stone. Each upturned face
                              Stared unseeing from its place:
                              "Behind this barrier, blighters three,
                              We scrambled back and made to flee.
                              The guns cried Stop, and here lie we."
                              Then from left and right they came,
                              More mangled corpses, bleeding, lame,
                              Holding their wounds. They chose their ground,
                              Ghost by ghost, without a sound,
                              And one stepped forward, soiled and white:
                              "A bomber I. I travelled light
                              - Four pounds of nails and gelignite
                              About my person, hid so well
                              They seemed to vanish where I fell.
                              When the bullet stopped my breath
                              A doctor sought the cause of death.
                              He upped my shirt, undid my fly,
                              Twice he moved my limbs awry,
                              And noticed nothing. By and by
                              A soldier, with his sharper eye,
                              Beheld the four elusive rockets
                              Stuffed in my coat and trouser pockets.
                              Yes, they must be strict with us,
                              Even in death so treacherous!"
                              He faded, and another said:
                              "We three met close when we were dead.
                              Into an armoured car they piled us
                              Wl-iere our mingled blood defiled us,
                              Certain, if not dead before,
                              To suffocate upon the floor.

                              Careful bullets in the back
                              Stopped our terrorist attack,
                              And so three dangerous lives are done
                              - Judged, condemned and shamed in one."
                              That spectre faded in his turn.
                              A harsher stirred, and spoke in scorn:
                              "The shame is theirs, in word and deed,
                              Who prate of justice, practise greed,
                              And act in ignorant fury - then,
                              Officers and gentlemen,
                              Send to their Courts for the Most High
                              To tell us did we really die !
                              Does it need recourse to law
                              To tell ten thousand what they saw ?
                              Law that lets them, caught red-handed,
                              Halt the game and leave it stranded,
                              Summon up a sworn inquiry
                              And dump their conscience in the diary.
                              During which hiatus, should
                              Their legal basis vanish, good,
                              The thing is rapidly arranged:
                              Where's the law that can't be changed?
                              The news is out. The troops were kind.
                              Impartial justice has to find
                              We'd be alive and well today
                              If we had let them have their way.
                              Yet England, even as you lie,
                              You give the facts that you deny.
                              Spread the lie with all your power
                              - All that's left; it's turning sour.
                              Friend and stranger, bride and brother,
                              Son and sister, father, mother,

                              All not blinded by your smoke,
                              Photographers who caught your stroke,
                              The priests that blessed our bodies, spoke
                              And wagged our blood in the world's face.
                              The truth will out, to your disgrace."
                              He flushed and faded. Pale and grim,
                              A joking spectre followed him:
                              "Take a bunch of stunted shoots,
                              A tangle of transplanted roots,
                              Ropes and rifles, feathered nests,
                              Some dried colonial interests,
                              A hard unnatural union grown
                              In a bed of blood and bone,
                              Tongue of serpent, gut of hog
                              Spiced with spleen of underdog.
                              Stir in, with oaths of loyalty,
                              Sectarian supremacy,
                              And heat, to make a proper botch,
                              In a bouillon of bitter Scotch.
                              Last, the choice ingredient: you.
                              Now, to crown your Irish stew,
                              Boil it over, make a mess.
                              A most imperial success ! "
                              He capered weakly, racked with pain,
                              His dead hair plastered in the rain;
                              The group was silent once again.
                              It seemed the moment to explain
                              That sympathetic politicians
                              Say our violent traditions,
                              Backward looks and bitterness
                              Keep us in this dire distress.
                              We must forget, and look ahead,

                              Nurse the living, not the dead.
                              My words died out. A phantom said:
                              "Here lies one who breathed his last
                              Firmly reminded of the past.
                              A trooper did it, on one knee,
                              In tones of brute authority."
                              That harsher spirit, who before
                              Had flushed with anger, spoke once more:
                              "Simple lessons cut most deep.
                              This lesson in our hearts we keep:
                              Persuasion, protest, arguments,
                              The milder forms of violence,
                              Earn nothing but polite neglect.
                              England, the way to your respect
                              Is via murderous force, it seems;
                              You push us to your own extremes.
                              You condescend to hear us speak
                              Only when we slap your cheek.
                              And yet we lack the last technique:
                              We rap for order with a gun,
                              The issues simplify to one
                              - Then your Democracy insists
                              You mustn't talk with terrorists!
                              White and yellow, black and blue,
                              Have learnt their history from you:
                              Divide and ruin, muddle through,
                              Not principled, but politic.
                              - In strength, perfidious; weak, a trick
                              To make good men a trifle sick.
                              We speak in wounds. Behold this mess.
                              My curse upon your politesse."

                              Another ghost stood forth, and wet
                              Dead lips that had not spoken yet:
                              "My curse on the cunning and the bland,
                              On gentlemen who loot a land
                              They do not care to understand;
                              Who keep the natives on their paws
                              With ready lash and rotten laws;
                              Then if the beasts erupt in rage
                              Give them a slightly larger cage
                              And, in scorn and fear combined,
                              Turn them against their own kind.
                              The game runs out of room at last,
                              A people rises from its past,
                              The going gets unduly tough
                              And you have (surely ... ?) had enough.
                              The time has come to yield your place
                              With condescending show of grace
                              - An Empire-builder handing on.
                              We reap the ruin when you've gone,
                              All your errors heaped behind you:
                              Promises that do not bind you,
                              Hopes in conflict, cramped commissions,
                              Faiths exploited, and traditions."
                              Bloody sputum filled his throat.
                              He stopped and coughed to clear it out,
                              And finished, with his eyes a-glow:
                              "You came, you saw, you conquered ... So.
                              You gorged - and it was time to go.
                              Good riddance. We'd forget - released -
                              But for the rubbish of your feast,
                              The slops and scraps that fell to earth
                              And sprang to arms in dragon birth.

                              Sashed and bowler-hatted, glum
                              Apprentices of fife and drum,
                              High and dry, abandoned guards
                              Of dismal streets and empty yards,
                              Drilled at the codeword 'True Religion'
                              To strut and mutter like a pigeon
                              'Not An Inch - Up The Queen';
                              Who use their walls like a latrine
                              For scribbled magic-at their call,
                              Straight from the nearest music-hall,
                              Pope and Devil intertwine,
                              Two cardboard kings appear, and join
                              In one more battle by the Boyne!
                              Who could love them? God above..."
                              "Yet pity is akin to love,"
                              The thirteenth corpse beside him said,
                              Smiling in its bloody head,
                              "And though there's reason for alarm
                              In dourness and a lack of charm
                              Their cursed plight calls out for patience.
                              They, even they, with other nations
                              Have a place, if we can find it.
                              Love our changeling! Guard and mind it.
                              Doomed from birth, a cursed heir,
                              Theirs is the hardest lot to bear,
                              Yet not impossible, I swear,
                              If England would but clear the air
                              And brood at home on her disgrace
                              - Everything to its own place.
                              Face their walls of dole and fear
                              And be of reasonable cheer.

                              Good men every day inherit
                              Father's foulness with the spirit,
                              Purge the filth and do not stir it.
                              Let them out! At least let in
                              A breath or two of oxygen,
                              So they may settle down for good
                              And mix themselves in the common blood.
                              We are what we are, and that
                              Is mongrel pure. What nation's not
                              Where any stranger hung his hat
                              And seized a lover where she sat?"
                              He ceased and faded. Zephyr blew
                              And all the others faded too.
                              I stood like a ghost. My fingers strayed
                              Along the fatal barricade.
                              The gentle rainfall drifting down
                              Over Colmcille's town
                              Could not refresh, only distil
                              In silent grief from hill to hill.

Set the truth free indeed.

I think everyone in Derry can walk a wee bit taller today.

"An apocryphal moment in British legal history, in the history of Ireland and in the U.K."  Michael Mansell

He blasted the stupid crap spewed by Empey, Foster and that clique.  He talked about the difference of paramilitary activity and "the agents of the state".  More egg on the face for the sectarian w**kers.

Oh fcuk, here comes Ken McGuinness.
Ah, now it's "urban guerrilla warfare" and not terrorism. 

Oops, back on track is Serg. Ken. Same auld shite, IRA v. brits.... 
"We are creating a heirarchy of victims".

"Urban Guerrilla warfare" used again....Ken, you might be trying to dig yourself out of the doughill lad, but you'll still be stinking of shite. 

Did the Brits let Durkan speak after their opposition leader spoke?

Would it be too much to ask for Widgery to be stipped of his OBE?

I think Widgery deserves an OBE

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:24:02 PM
f**k ME IS ANYONE LISTENING TO THE b**tard BEING INTERVIEWED OUTSIDE THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?  SOME LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BRITS....OH DEAR GOD, THE ENGLISH ARMY ARE REPRESENTED BY THE SCUM OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.  HIS NAME IS STEPHEN POLLARD AND IT'LL  BE A WHILE BEFORE HE HOLIDAYS IN IRELAND, I'D SAY.

What was he saying?

To paraphrase, he said it wasn't the soldiers' fault.  I kid you not.   I'm still fcukin livid.  Typical English condescending, imperical, patronising shite.  Wankers like him have to realise that the days of Britannia sailing the seven seas to teach the world a lesson are long, fcukin over.

Nice to see a few Palestinian flags in the Guildhall and on lapels today.

Quote from: Alco Pup on June 15, 2010, 04:38:59 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:24:02 PM
f**k ME IS ANYONE LISTENING TO THE b**tard BEING INTERVIEWED OUTSIDE THE ENGLISH PARLIAMENT?  SOME LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BRITS....OH DEAR GOD, THE ENGLISH ARMY ARE REPRESENTED BY THE SCUM OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM.  HIS NAME IS STEPHEN POLLARD AND IT'LL  BE A WHILE BEFORE HE HOLIDAYS IN IRELAND, I'D SAY.

What was he saying?

BBC coverage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8739591.stm)

1632 Stephen Pollard, a solicitor representing the soldiers' who appeared before the Saville Inquiry tells BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale that Lord Saville does not have justification for his findings and accuses him of cherry-picking the evidence. He says that Lord Saville's conclusions are not sustained by proper analysis of the evidence. "There is just as much evidence for the opposite conclusion," he says.

Quote from: funtime frankie on June 15, 2010, 04:24:37 PM
What a wonderful day for those famlies and what a wonderful day for Derry. A long time coming - but what did it tell us that we didn't already know?

We know. However now the British public know and the wider world know.

Great news today and I'm delighted.

In his report Lord Saville said: "What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed.

Quote from: ziggysego on June 15, 2010, 04:51:41 PM
In his report Lord Saville said: "What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed.

That is the man to send to Israel, not Trimble.

Quote from: muppet on June 15, 2010, 04:52:58 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on June 15, 2010, 04:51:41 PM
In his report Lord Saville said: "What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed.

That is the man to send to Israel, not Trimble.

We should still send Trimble somewhere though, Siberia perhaps.

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:45:20 PM
To paraphrase, he said it wasn't the soldiers' fault.  I kid you not.   I'm still fcukin livid.  Typical English condescending, imperical, patronising shite.  w**kers like him have to realise that the days of Britannia sailing the seven seas to teach the world a lesson are long, fcukin over.

Nice to see a few Palestinian flags in the Guildhall and on lapels today.

Saw that myself Aerlik - yer man had some neck on him... very annoying listening to that shite

It was a great PR Exercise by the brits nothing more and nothing less. The prime minister of the time, Edward Heath should be saying sorry for this, but this won't happen as he is rotting in hell

That Jackson character seems to have been shown in a bad light from these findings.

Quote from: delboy on June 15, 2010, 04:23:39 PM

Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on June 15, 2010, 04:22:03 PM
I notice there was no mention of the CPS getting involved following these findings.

The findings have only just been made public, surely that process would require sometime either way.

I saw a banner on the bottom of the BBC screen at one stage saying the CPS had made a statement to the effect that the decision on prosecutions was for the CPS to make. Seemed a bit confusing and maybe the caption-jockey got it wrong and it was someone else saying the decision was down to the CPS. In any case, it seems prosecutions are not ruled out.

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:32:33 PM
"An apocryphal moment in British legal history, in the history of Ireland and in the U.K."  Michael Mansell

Step up Mr. Mansell and assume the mantle of Bertie. Don't upset the apple tart though.

Quote from: Minder on June 15, 2010, 04:55:00 PM

Quote from: muppet on June 15, 2010, 04:52:58 PM

Quote from: ziggysego on June 15, 2010, 04:51:41 PM
In his report Lord Saville said: "What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed.

That is the man to send to Israel, not Trimble.

We should still send Trimble somewhere though, Siberia perhaps.

Gaza. With a Bowler hat.

Quote from: Hardy on June 15, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 15, 2010, 04:23:39 PM

Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on June 15, 2010, 04:22:03 PM
I notice there was no mention of the CPS getting involved following these findings.

The findings have only just been made public, surely that process would require sometime either way.

I saw a banner on the bottom of the BBC screen at one stage saying the CPS had made a statement to the effect that the decision on prosecutions was for the CPS to make. Seemed a bit confusing and maybe the caption-jockey got it wrong and it was someone else saying the decision was down to the CPS. In any case, it seems prosecutions are not ruled out.

Not the CPS, but at the PPS's discretion I believe (Public Prosecution Service).

It's been a long, long time coming, but at least it has arrived.

Quote from: Hardy on June 15, 2010, 05:20:31 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:32:33 PM
"An apocryphal moment in British legal history, in the history of Ireland and in the U.K."  Michael Mansell

Step up Mr. Mansell and assume the mantle of Bertie. Don't upset the apple tart though.

I thought "apocryphal" meant of dubious fact or evidence as in "That's an apocryphal story" meaning probably not true??

Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on June 15, 2010, 05:25:05 PM

Quote from: Hardy on June 15, 2010, 05:19:01 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 15, 2010, 04:23:39 PM

Quote from: An Gaeilgoir on June 15, 2010, 04:22:03 PM
I notice there was no mention of the CPS getting involved following these findings.

The findings have only just been made public, surely that process would require sometime either way.

I saw a banner on the bottom of the BBC screen at one stage saying the CPS had made a statement to the effect that the decision on prosecutions was for the CPS to make. Seemed a bit confusing and maybe the caption-jockey got it wrong and it was someone else saying the decision was down to the CPS. In any case, it seems prosecutions are not ruled out.

Not the CPS, but at the PPS's discretion I believe (Public Prosecution Service).

It's been a long, long time coming, but at least it has arrived.

Sorry - correct.

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on June 15, 2010, 05:30:44 PM

Quote from: Hardy on June 15, 2010, 05:20:31 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:32:33 PM
"An apocryphal moment in British legal history, in the history of Ireland and in the U.K."  Michael Mansell

Step up Mr. Mansell and assume the mantle of Bertie. Don't upset the apple tart though.

I thought "apocryphal" meant of dubious fact or evidence as in "That's an apocryphal story" meaning probably not true??

I'd guess he meant epochal.

I hope he didn't mean apocalyptic.

Quote from: Hardy on June 15, 2010, 05:33:41 PM

Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on June 15, 2010, 05:30:44 PM

Quote from: Hardy on June 15, 2010, 05:20:31 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on June 15, 2010, 04:32:33 PM
"An apocryphal moment in British legal history, in the history of Ireland and in the U.K."  Michael Mansell

Step up Mr. Mansell and assume the mantle of Bertie. Don't upset the apple tart though.

I thought "apocryphal" meant of dubious fact or evidence as in "That's an apocryphal story" meaning probably not true??

I'd guess he meant epochal.

I hope he didn't mean apocalyptic.

Yeah thats bound to be what he meant.

I'm fairly sure he said apocryphal, but you're right and I stand corrected if I misheard him through the internet connection here.  Bedtime for me.

Excellent result for the families and imo a total vindication of the cost and time which was invested into the tribunal.

The £192m bill should be laid squarely at the door of that bastard Widgery who obviously acted with all the moral fibre of an alleycat when compiling his original 'report'. 

Widgery, take a bow, for today you have been exposed as a liar and no amount of awards from Lizzie can return any 'honour' to your name.

David Cameron deserves credit for standing up and accepting the results of the report with no fudging of the issues.  He imparted some details in his speech to parliament which did not paint the Army in a good light whatsoever and which he could easily have omitted from his speech.

He has definitely risen in my estimation today.

I suppose they may deserve praise for finally admitting they did wrong but tainted by the fact that it  took them 38 years  to admit it.
The families may get some closure,if that's possible , from an official recognition of what they and we and most of the world knew all along ..that their sons were murdered in the streets of their own city.
But who decided that a bunch of armed well trained killers should be sent in to Derry to "control" a civil situation?
Was it the then Unionist Minister in charge of Police etc or was it the chief Policeman or was it the Brit Army chief?

Quote from: Franko on June 15, 2010, 05:57:29 PM
Excellent result for the families and imo a total vindication of the cost and time which was invested into the tribunal.

The £192m bill should be laid squarely at the door of that b**tard Widgery who obviously acted with all the moral fibre of an alleycat when compiling his original 'report'. 

Widgery, take a bow, for today you have been exposed as a liar and no amount of awards from Lizzie can return any 'honour' to your name.

David Cameron deserves credit for standing up and accepting the results of the report with no fudging of the issues.  He imparted some details in his speech to parliament which did not paint the Army in a good light whatsoever and which he could easily have omitted from his speech.

He has definitely risen in my estimation today.

1800/person in Derry City.

I suppose the victim's families feel the money was well spent and that is important.

A great outcome for the families.

I though Cameron spoke well on it and it was good to see the apology.

Delighted for the people of Derry and especially the families of all those killed and injured.

Still so sad and galling to see t**t's like Gregory Campbell still slabbering about IRA shooting and Soldiers acting apropriately in a hostile environment. Shame on you, you p***k!

QuoteDavid Cameron deserves credit for standing up and accepting the results of the report with no fudging of the issues.  He imparted some details in his speech to parliament which did not paint the Army in a good light whatsoever and which he could easily have omitted from his speech.

He has definitely risen in my estimation today.

Did he really have any other choice but to accept it and apologise?  He spent enough time laying praise on the British Army and their efforts around the World....the natives of those countries may see it differently.

Lay the blame for the 38 year wait and £192M+ at the door of successive British governments and Unionist politicians.  Listen to the bigot that is Gregory Campbell squirm now.

It was nice to see Cameron calling the city DERRY !

Quote from: balladmaker on June 15, 2010, 06:55:12 PM

QuoteDavid Cameron deserves credit for standing up and accepting the results of the report with no fudging of the issues.  He imparted some details in his speech to parliament which did not paint the Army in a good light whatsoever and which he could easily have omitted from his speech.
He has definitely risen in my estimation today.

Did he really have any other choice but to accept it and apologise?  He spent enough time laying praise on the British Army and their efforts around the World....the natives of those countries may see it differently.

Lay the blame for the 38 year wait and £192M+ at the door of successive British governments and Unionist politicians.  Listen to the bigot that is Gregory Campbell squirm now.

No, I dont believe he had any choice at all.  But he certainly had freedom to choose the fashion in which he did this which I happen to belive he did very eloquently and manfully.  (See the part in bold).

I have watched interviews with both Campbell and Foster today and imo their words only serve to show them as sectarian bigots.

Did anyone notice the squirming that Campbell, McCrea and Ian Og were forced to perform during Durkan's speech to the commons?

Credit where it is due to Cameron and Lord Saville, great to finally see the truth be spoken in such a light. No mincing of words in either statements.

Cameron could very easily have used words such as "regret" and he came out directly and said "sorry." He didn't try and dilute anything and called everything exactly as Saville had it and accepted it without question. Very impressive and courageous for a Tory PM.

Personally felt flags and talk of Palestine and Gaza were out of place. Today was about Derry and Bloody Sunday, not the events in the middle east.

Quote from: Alco Pup on June 15, 2010, 03:45:03 PM
"David Cameron says the conclusions of this report "are absolutely clear". What happened on Bloody Sunday was "unjustifiable and wrong", he says. No warning was given to any civilians before soldiers opened fire. None of the soldiers fired in response to attacks by petrol bombers or stone-throwers. Some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to help those injured or dying.

None of the casualties was posing a threat or doing anything that would justify their shooting, David Cameron says. There is no point in trying to soften or equivocate what is in this report :the events of Bloody Sunday were not justified, he says. Mr Cameron adds: "What happened should never, ever have happened - some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. On behalf of our government and our country I am deeply sorry." "

Fair play. 

I don't care what unionist politicans or anyone else says, just point to what their prime minster's statement. 

I'm glad for the families of the 14, although they'll probably never see anyone charged hopefully they'll get some satisfaction from the report.

I feel sorry for the families of the state's other victims though, I wonder how they're feeling today.

Just some of the reactions of our unionist politicians (BBC website)

Some of these remarks are disgraceful.  Jim Allister called it a 'jamboree'.  I call him a tr**p.

Jeffrey Donaldson:
"The difficulty is that we have the truth on one side, but not the truth on the other.
"We don't know the truth about what Martin McGuinness and the IRA were doing on that day.
"While we regret every death... we must not lose sight of the need for balance."

Jim Allister:
"My primary thoughts today are with the thousands of innocent victims of the IRA who have never had justice, nor benefitted from any inquiry into why their loved ones died.
"Thus today's jamboree over the Saville report throws into very sharp relief the unacceptable and perverse hierarchy of victims which the preferential treatment of 'Bloody Sunday' has created."

David Trimble:
Lord Trimble said the killings were wrong, and mistakes had been made in the planning and conduct of the operation on Bloody Sunday.
However, he added: "It would be perverse if the events of Bloody Sunday were used to justify those unjustifiable events that PIRA launched in the 1970s."

Reg Empey:
"Clearly and rightly the onus will always be on ministers of the crown to account for the actions of the military, and today David Cameron shouldered that responsibility.
"However, while some families may have had a degree of closure today, very many others have not been so fortunate.
"In the days before Bloody Sunday, two RUC officers - Peter Gilgunn and David Montgomery - were shot dead in the Creggan area of the city. Their families have not received justice."

Reg Empey:
"Clearly and rightly the onus will always be on ministers of the crown to account for the actions of the military, and today David Cameron shouldered that responsibility.
"However, while some families may have had a degree of closure today, very many others have not been so fortunate.
"In the days before Bloody Sunday, two RUC officers - Peter Gilgunn and David Montgomery - were shot dead in the Creggan area of the city. Their families have not received justice."

The families of the bloody sunday victims haven't received justice either, and they waited almost 40 years before someone admitted they didn't bring it on themselves.

Quote from: seafoid on June 15, 2010, 07:04:04 PM
It was nice to see Cameron calling the city DERRY !

Channel 4 had the city named as Derry beside C4 on there broadcast too. Maybe they realised its not the time to push their political agenda.

Quote from: gallsman on June 15, 2010, 07:51:05 PM
Cameron could very easily have used words such as "regret" and he came out directly and said "sorry." He didn't try and dilute anything and called everything exactly as Saville had it and accepted it without question. Very impressive and courageous for a Tory PM.

Personally felt flags and talk of Palestine and Gaza were out of place. Today was about Derry and Bloody Sunday, not the events in the middle east.

Totally agree.

Quote from: Minder on June 15, 2010, 08:57:26 PM

Quote from: gallsman on June 15, 2010, 07:51:05 PM
Cameron could very easily have used words such as "regret" and he came out directly and said "sorry." He didn't try and dilute anything and called everything exactly as Saville had it and accepted it without question. Very impressive and courageous for a Tory PM.

Personally felt flags and talk of Palestine and Gaza were out of place. Today was about Derry and Bloody Sunday, not the events in the middle east.

Totally agree.

+1
Great day for the people of Derry. A long time coming.

I thought it was fair enough not to forget the injustice in Gaza as well. Sharpville, Darfur, Tianaman Square and other atrocities were aslo mentioned by one of the relatives.

Just reading about yon **** widgery - didnt realise he'd dismissed the Birmingham six's first appeal in 76.

Quote from: omagh_gael on June 15, 2010, 06:45:21 PM
Delighted for the people of Derry and especially the families of all those killed and injured.

Still so sad and galling to see t**t's like Gregory Campbell still slabbering about IRA shooting and Soldiers acting apropriately in a hostile environment. Shame on you, you p***k!

Gregory Campbell isn't good enough to be a public representative. You can tell watching him on TV that he is out of his depth. The fact that he is an elected politicians says a lot about the unionists who vote for him. It's the equivalent of the standard of the newsletter- ie very poor. All the talent is somewhere else.

Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 15, 2010, 09:40:48 PM
I thought it was fair enough not to forget the injustice in Gaza as well. Sharpville, Darfur, Tianaman Square and other atrocities were aslo mentioned by one of the relatives.

Norn Irn is about 50 years ahead of Israel, much farther down the road. Israel hasn't even started.

btw, has nothing been said in the Dail about this?

I wonder how different this country would currently be if Widgery had reached the same conclusions as Saville has today?

Widgery did reach those conclusions, he just didn't publish them.  Col Mike Jackson is the one I'd have liked strung up.  His aloof attitude today was maddening. KUNT.

Gregory Campbell on the beeb now. Hateful hateful bastard, times like this you wish there was no ceasefire....

Campbell is an embarrassment! Complete tr**p of a man.

Seeing Campbell now on BBC! What a hateful miserable bag of shite he is

Let's not add creedance to this person by taking his bigoted views under our notice.

Just watched that Campbell fck, he is one rotten boil on the arsehole of an inbred mongrel.

VILE MAN

Quote from: Minder on June 15, 2010, 08:57:26 PM

Quote from: gallsman on June 15, 2010, 07:51:05 PM
Cameron could very easily have used words such as "regret" and he came out directly and said "sorry." He didn't try and dilute anything and called everything exactly as Saville had it and accepted it without question. Very impressive and courageous for a Tory PM.

Personally felt flags and talk of Palestine and Gaza were out of place. Today was about Derry and Bloody Sunday, not the events in the middle east.

Totally agree.

Same here, no need for any other agenda

How much does Campbell's bitterness and begrudgery contrast with the generosity of the leaders of the main Protestant churches who intend to meet the Bloody Sunday families tomorrow in an act of reconciliation?

The following text was taken from the brilliant book by Peter Pringle and Philip Jacobson, Those Are Real Bullets, Aren't They? - and detail some of the events in Glenfada Park that day. Some of the detail is not nice reading.

Sheltering in the doorway of 7 Abbey Park, the house of Mr and Mrs O'Reilly, was William John Porter, a quartermaster sergeant in the Irish Army. He ran through the alley and a woman in number 8 said, 'Mister, Quick. Come in here.' He slipped in and hid behind the door, keeping it slightly open so that he could see down the alley.

Porter saw Jim Wray fall and hit his head on the sidewalk. Then there was a volley of shots. He closed the door and went to the window. 'My God, there's a man been shot,' he told the people in the house. He went back to the door and opened it. He saw Wray lying half on, half off the pavement. His left arm was limp and there was blood on his wrist.

Wray raised his head up off the ground and looked towards where Porter was standing in the doorway. Wray then tried to press himself up with his right hand, but he couldn't move. Porter ran out of the door towards Wray and three bullets smacked into the wall in front of him. He ran back into the house and slammed the door.

Malachy Coyle, a sixteen year old schoolboy, also saw Jim Wray fall on the pavement. Coyle had been running away from the paratroopers as they came into Glenfada (Park) and had almost reached the alley into Abbey Park when he was grabbed by a man, who pulled him to safety into the backyard of a house. It had a slatted wooden fence through which Coyle could see the Paras moving into the courtyard. He was scared stiff. He thought of hiding in the dustbin, but it was full of rubbish, so he just crouched down behind the fence.

Wray was looking directly at Coyle, raised his head off the pavement and said, 'I can't move my legs.' The bald man who had pulled Coyle to safety told Wray, 'Keep calm, keep calm.'

Coyle said, 'Don't move. Pretend you're dead.'

More shots rang out from the north end of the courtyard and the pavement around Wray exploded in sparks. Wray was still trying to raise himself up. From the house he was in, John Porter saw Wray's corduroy jacket jump four or five inches in the air and his head went down slowly on the pavement. Wray had been shot in the back for the second time.

The first bullet, which had caused him to fall so that he couldn't move, entered Wray's back from the right and travelled to the left almost horizontally across his back – from the direction of the paratroopers. The bullet damaged the spine at the tenth and eleventh thoracic vertebrae, fractured the tenth and eleventh left ribs and bruised, but did not penetrate, the left lung. The spinal injury meant that Wray could not lift himself up.

The second bullet was the one that killed him. It entered Wray's back, just above the first bullet. Then it passed through muscle tissue, damaged the eighth thoracic vertebrae, fractured parts of five left ribs by which time it was tumbling through the tissue of the left lung before leaving the body. The gaping exit wound exposed lacerated muscles. Death, which was not instantaneous, was caused by bleeding and the escape of air into the left chest cavity from the damaged lung.

The wounded Joe Mahon watched, terrified, as Wray was shot while on the ground. Mahon was lying behind Wray and saw his desperate efforts to get up. He heard him calling for help to Porter, Coyle and others sheltering in the alley.

After Wray was shot the second time, Mahon could hear the soldiers coming closer. He lay still, pretending he was dead. Behind him, Willie McKinney lay moaning.
Willie McKinney was still conscious after being shot, also in the back. One bullet had caused four surface wounds and multiple internal injuries. The entrance wound was on the right side of his back. As it travelled through his body, it fractured some ribs, lacerated the diaphragm, the right lung, the liver, colon, stomach and spleen and then made a hole in his left side big enough for his guts to be hanging out. The bullet then ripped holes in the back and front of his left forearm before leaving his body.

A paratrooper, whose footsteps Mahon could hear coming closer, left McKinney alone and walked forward towards the alley. He then fired three more rounds into the alley and Mahon heard him say, 'I've got another one.' Mahon did not dare move to see what he was firing at.

The paratroopers' last shots into the alley before leaving killed the businessman, Gerry McKinney, and a youth in blue jeans named Gerald Donaghy.

After the rush out of Glenfada through the alley into Abbey Park, people took shelter in and behind the houses there. John O'Kane had run through the alley with his brother-in-law, Gerry McKinney, and they had dived for cover. Through the alley, they could see where Wray had fallen in Glenfada Park and wondered how they could reach him.

Donaghy was seventeen and an ardent Republican who had just completed six months in jail for rioting. He said he would be able to get to Wray if he crawled on his stomach but as he started out O'Kane and McKinney pulled him back saying it was too risky. There was more shooting and then all three started to move out across the mouth of the alley. People on the other side shouted, 'Get back, get back.'

O'Kane turned back, but McKinney and Donaghy kept edging out. O'Kane shouted , 'Come back, it's not worth it.' But it was too late.

The paratrooper spotted them.

Gerry McKinney's arm was stretched out across Donaghy's chest, holding him back. He said to Donaghy, 'Just a minute son, 'til we see if it's clear.'  As he turned his head into the alley to see if it was safe to cross, he spotted the paratrooper aiming at him, his hands shot up in the air and he cried out, 'No, no.' Two shots rang out. McKinney and Donaghy fell to the ground. Donaghy was clutching his stomach.

A thirteen year old school boy, John Carr, saw Gerald McKinney shot. He lived with his family at 8 Abbey Park. John's father, Peter, had let the group with Kelly's body inside the house, then herded all the children upstairs and put four or five of them, including John and the one year old baby, in an empty wardrobe, closed the door, and told them to stay there.

After a minute, John's curiosity got the better of him, and he came out of the wardrobe and went into his brother's bedroom at the front of the house. As he looked out of the window through the alleyway into Glenfada, several shots rang out  and he saw Jim Wray's head fall slowly on to the pavement.

Then he saw a soldier come through the alleyway and face a group of people who ran away – except for one man who threw his hands up in the air and looked directly at the soldier. The bedroom window was closed and John could not hear whether the man said anything, but as his hands went up, the soldier shot him, and he fell on his back. John saw him bless himself with his right hand across his face. It was Gerry McKinney. John screamed out, 'They've shot a man and he had his hands up.'

When the shooting stopped, people came out of the houses in Abbey Park and tried to get to the wounded. The first to go to Donaghy and Gerry McKinney were shot at. Eibhlin Lafferty came out of the Murrays' house, where she had been treating Joe Friel. Another paramedic, Robert Cadman, joined her.

Looking through the alley, Lafferty saw the bodies of Wray, Mahon and Willie McKinney lying on the pavement. There was blood coming from McKinney's mouth.

Cadman saw the barrel of a rifle appear at the Glenfada end of the alley and shouted to Lafferty to stay still but she didn't hear him. She was bending over Gerry McKinney and Donaghy, and had only time to see they were alive when there was a shot. The bullet apparently hit the cobblestones behind Leo Young and he ducked down on one knee. Lafferty lay flat and shouted, 'Don't shot, don't shoot, Red Cross.' Cadman joined her and they moved towards the alley into Glenfada

At the same moment, Mahon, who was still pretending to be dead, turned his head to see if the paratroopers had gone and looked straight at one. . The soldier got down on one knee and took aim. Just then Lafferty shouted again, 'Don't shoot, Red Cross.'

The soldier shouted back, 'Your white coats are great targets but your red hearts are even better.'

She shouted, 'Are you mad?'

He didn't fire and Mahon would later credit Lafferty's intervention with saving his life.     

Michael Mansfield talks an awful lot of sense.

Quote from: Celt_Man on June 15, 2010, 11:24:15 PM

Quote from: Minder on June 15, 2010, 08:57:26 PM

Quote from: gallsman on June 15, 2010, 07:51:05 PM
Cameron could very easily have used words such as "regret" and he came out directly and said "sorry." He didn't try and dilute anything and called everything exactly as Saville had it and accepted it without question. Very impressive and courageous for a Tory PM.

Personally felt flags and talk of Palestine and Gaza were out of place. Today was about Derry and Bloody Sunday, not the events in the middle east.

Totally agree.

Same here, no need for any other agenda

I think it gives hope to those people that justice and truth can prevail and was okay at time to compare Bloody Sunday with Sharpeville massacre in the USA.

Jaysus Rufus tough stuff reading that there

I was deeply sickened listening to the words of Gregory Campbell on Spotlight tonight. An extremely bitter man, who is hell bent on rewriting history to suit his own needs ironically enough.

When Mark asked Gregory does he believe if the killings were justified, he danced around the subject for a long time until he was backed into a corner. Then he just said he didn't know, as how could Saville know what happened 38 years ago!!!

As Michael Mansfield QC said, Gregory wants to move on and he is terrified of looking back.

Gregory Campbell's response was a disgrace.  I hope anyone who cast a vote for that man in the recent elections is now thoroughly ashamed of the bigoted sectarian scum who they have elected.

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 12:04:30 AM
Gregory Campbell's response was a disgrace.  I hope anyone who cast a vote for that man in the recent elections is now thoroughly ashamed of the bigoted sectarian scum who they have elected.

What, sure the ones who voted for him probably think his response was great.

Miriam O'Callaghan on tonight saying the British Army have a great and honorable tradition. I nearly puked.

Maybe I'm being naive but I would hope that Gregory's response wouldn't be indicative of the broader unionist feeling.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 12:07:35 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 12:04:30 AM
Gregory Campbell's response was a disgrace.  I hope anyone who cast a vote for that man in the recent elections is now thoroughly ashamed of the bigoted sectarian scum who they have elected.

What, sure the ones who voted for him probably think his response was great.

Exactly. His comments aren't an isolated incident. His entire political being is based on this sort of sectarian bullshit. Except in his world it's nationalists that are sectarian. Every person casting a vote for him knows his form. Shame on them.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 12:07:35 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 12:04:30 AM
Gregory Campbell's response was a disgrace.  I hope anyone who cast a vote for that man in the recent elections is now thoroughly ashamed of the bigoted sectarian scum who they have elected.

What, sure the ones who voted for him probably think his response was great.

100%. Anyone with any idea of the craic up knows exactly what's being said indoors on both sides of the divide.

QuoteMiriam O'Callaghan on tonight saying the British Army have a great and honorable tradition. I nearly puked

The Saville inquiry has established that the Parachute Regiment unlawfully killed 13 people on Bloody Sunday.

The individual soldiers who shot these innocent people were acting on orders from their superiors within the regiment and therefore cannot be held individually accountable for the killings (unless the superior officers did not have control of their soldiers).

When the comrades of these killers lied at the inquiry, to protect their comrades, they also contributed to the guilt of the parachute regiment.

This "Elite Regiment" of British soldiers will never face justice from a British Government.

The killing of 18 Members of this regiment at Narrow Water in 1979 brings up the biblical quote of "an eye for an eye"

If any of these elite soldiers had stood up and told the truth about what happened, maybe we could have avoided decades of violence.

And maybe I would not have to wait until I hear what regiment a soldier is from before I feel regret for them and their families when we hear about casualties in Afganistan or Iraq.

May Gregory Campbell rot in hell. He is a sick,evil, twisted sc**bag. I just cannot contemplate how a man can be so bitter but also wonder as Pints indicated, do his thoughts represent the Unionist majority?

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 12:12:07 AM
Maybe I'm being naive but I would hope that Gregory's response wouldn't be indicative of the broader unionist feeling.

This is all part of the long running Unionist campaign to deter from Saville. It's not new.

Quote from: hardstation on June 16, 2010, 12:22:19 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 12:12:07 AM
Maybe I'm being naive but I would hope that Gregory's response wouldn't be indicative of the broader unionist feeling.

Have you ever met any DUPers? Naive indeed.
I work with a 'good living Christian type' UUPer. Discussing this today, he refused to accept the report in the way everyone else has, saying "There are two sides to every story" and "Pointing the finger at one side". Two direct quotes.

'Tis the way of the world.

Fair enough.

Shame on anyone who shares the rotten views of that bastard.

Quote from: hardstation on June 16, 2010, 12:22:19 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 12:12:07 AM
Maybe I'm being naive but I would hope that Gregory's response wouldn't be indicative of the broader unionist feeling.

Have you ever met any DUPers? Naive indeed.
I work with a 'good living Christian type' UUPer. Discussing this today, he refused to accept the report in the way everyone else has, saying "There are two sides to every story" and "Pointing the finger at one side". Two direct quotes.

'Tis the way of the world.

Unfortunately it's us and them. If anything other than the verdict today was announced, nationalists would have said it was another whitewash whereas unionists will see this as a whitewash and appeasement to keep the peace. Very few will see it for what it is I would reckon.

Lawyers for the paras certainly still maintaining a level of innocence. I think they must be scared of criminal convictions coming from this report. All this talk of .......it couldn't be proved in a court of law who shot who type stuff apart from para F whos bullet was found in one of the dead but in that case he said that it could have been a richocet rather than the para aiming at him.

GC is a horrible cnut. If the shoe was on the other foot he would have demanded the same and he'd have been right. He talks about the 100s killed before bloody sunday and how those deaths should be used in context of bloody sunday but not much chance of him explaining the zeitgeist of that time when the unionist elite oppressed the working classes (especially but not exclusively in catholic areas). Thats not something that should be discussed as it might properly explain the very valid reasons why the civil rights movement existed and the protests took place

I hadn't quite grasped the heights of hysteria and fantasy of which Campbell is capable until I heard him on the BBC this evening stating, matter-of-factly that the IRA was funded by the government of the Republic.

For those who are interested, the report can be read here.

http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/ (http://www.bloody-sunday-inquiry.org/)

I don't know why people are still surprised by Campbell's behaviour. I still clearly remember him on telly congratulating the murderers of unarmed civilian (and Wolfe Tones player) Mchael Tighe in 1982, two weeks after he (Campbell) had publicly called for the British to introduce an "effective fighting unit who could kill at will". 

I went through the statement and transcript of the appearance before the inquiry of someone I know.  He had guns aimed at him, was arrested for throwing stones, battered by the butts of army guns, and this was someone who was working as part of the Order of Malta on the day and is one of the people carrying the body of Jackie Duddy in the picture with Bishop Daly.  He was never called to appear before Widgery. 

Prime Time had the NI Secretary on last night - that man's head just doesn't move.  Eamonn McCann made a few interesting comments on the meeting that was held in the Bogside after Bloody Sunday to decide what to do.  The leaders that came forward in that meeting were the two IRA OCs, and it marked the point where the balance tipped away from constitutional politics. 

Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2010, 01:11:26 AM
I hadn't quite grasped the heights of hysteria and fantasy of which Campbell is capable until I heard him on the BBC this evening stating, matter-of-factly that the IRA was funded by the government of the Republic.

its hard to believe Hardy, but this is the norm for unionist/loyalist public reprsentatives and their supporters. these are the people that believe in creationism too - you really dont know the half of it in relation to these nutcases.

Justice at last for these poor people. An indication of what the people had to contend with at the time.
Some people including Blair and now cameron should be applauded. They simply told the truth, but for far too long this was avioided.
The usual crew of apologists are up making whataboutery excuses.

there will be no inquest into the preceeding injustices and years of persecution etc prior to this....also state sponsored !!!
There will also be no inquests into the people on both sides killed in the decades afterwards.

But we know that this shows what the state and its colluding peoples were capable of and offers up a nod to that this was not all made up from the nationalist/catholic/working class side.

with that underlined, we can go on with our lives. Still intact, but badly scarred.
I hope the next generations never have to experience this.

How much more do we not know about State sponsored murders. I`m glad the people of Derry got the truth at last.

QuotePersonally felt flags and talk of Palestine and Gaza were out of place. Today was about Derry and Bloody Sunday, not the events in the middle east

Folks you have to remember the real agenda here.Whilst Cameron's apology was long overdue and welcome the real reason he introduced talk of that is to reinforce the message re the British Army as articulated in the Daily Mail today. It is the message of imperialists since the beginning of time.

Both men served in Ulster - both have just died heroically in Afghanistan. After that damning report into Bloody Sunday this is the TRUE face of Britain's soldiers
They joined as boy soldiers, and both gave the Army the best years of their lives. And then when duty demanded it, they made the ultimate sacrifice.
Yesterday Private Jonathan Monk and Lance Corporal Andrew Breeze, who had both served in Northern Ireland, were named as the latest British soldiers to die in Afghanistan.
On the day that the Bloody Sunday inquiry left an indelible stain on the reputation of the British Army, the bravery of these two young men stands as a potent reminder of the true face of our Forces.
Speaking after the Saville Inquiry's damning verdict on the 'indefensible' conduct of Paratroopers who killed 14 on the streets of Derry 38 years ago, Prime Minister David Cameron reminded the country of the 'courage and professionalism' of Britain's soldiers.

Private Monk, who had wanted to be a soldier from the age of five and joined the Army at 16, and Lance Corporal Breeze, who signed up at 17, joined the roll call of Britain's Afghan dead which now stands at 298.

They were named yesterday as the long-awaited verdict of the Bloody Sunday inquiry savaged the conduct of Parachute Regiment soldiers in an out-of-control shooting spree in Derry on January 30, 1972.
Mr Cameron reminded the Commons that it was the sacrifice of soldiers such as Private Monk and Lance Corporal Breeze that remained the Army's real legacy.
'I never want to believe anything bad about our country,' he said.
'I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, which I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve.'
But it was 'absolutely clear', he said, that what happened on Bloody Sunday 'was both unjustified and unjustifiable'.
He reminded the Commons that 1,117 members of the security forces had lost their lives 'setting the conditions that made peaceful politics possible' in Northern Ireland.
'Our Armed Forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland,' he said. 'Without their work, the peace process would not have happened.'
Lord Saville's report also said that former IRA leader Martin McGuinness - now Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister --spent Bloody Sunday armed with a submachine gun, and may have fired it.
But Lord Saville, who has spent £200million and more than 12 years to produce his report, cleared McGuinness and the IRA of any blame for the Army's conduct.
Mr Cameron made a sweeping apology in the Commons for the killing of the Bloody Sunday marchers.
'On behalf of the Government, indeed on behalf of our country, I am deeply sorry,' he said.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1286923/Bloody-Sunday--Saville-Inquiry-Soldiers-served-Ulster-died-Afghanistan.html#ixzz0r0AutrJU

Campbell was made to look like a right c**k by Carruthers as Gregory started to say 'why were the 2 murdered RUC men not mentioned in Saville' Carruthers chips in to say 'if you read the report you will see several mentions of this in section 2, sub-section 2 etc', Campbell made to look like a ballbag as usual.

Great to see the reaction of Protestant clergymen, dignified, human repsonse.

Eamonn McCann should be the Mayor of Derry, legend that he is.

Lovely to see Eddie Daly on the news too with a tear in his eye as he said he was so glad to see this result in his lifetime.

The new British Sec of State was also badly briefed as it was clear from his performance on Prime Time and Spotlight that he had not even read the report summary.

I don't think yesterday was a day for soundbites but I clearly felt the hand of history on my shoulder.

Declan, what else do you expect from the Daily Mail.

There is a lot of talk about the cost of the inquiry. The fact is had they not fired the shots there wouldnt have been any inquiry, had they have told the truth and not had a cover up then there would be no inquiry. Had they not been there in the first place there would be no inquiry. So dry your eyes about 200 million, they will be very lucky if there aren't prosecutions. Probably a simplistic view of it but often the truth is simple.
Also the whatabouttery of calling for inquiries into republican murders. The British state called them criminal murders at the time, refusing to accept it was a war. Therefore they had the chance to hunt down and prosecute "criminals" at the time. If it is now being called a war then they let POWs die in Long Kesh and therefore there should be an inquiry into this also. You cant have it everyway.

QuoteDeclan, what else do you expect from the Daily Ma

Not much Nag
It's not the Daily Mail per se I was getting at - more the mindset of the English establishment in regards to their "boys" and how that message is constantly re-inforced at every opportunity. A bit like Bud's observations earlier in the thread

Gregory Campbell is a hateful little **** who you'd love to smack if he passed you in the street. Eammon McCann deserves credit for openly calling him a "sectarian disgrace" on the BBC last night.

Though Michael Mansfield and the Presbyterian minister, David Latimer (sp?) spoke very well, with Latimer not rying to pursue any agenda and openly hoping that Campbell's view was out of tune with most unionists.

Was great to Mansfield come out directly and say that the reason Bloody Sunday differs from other atrocities throughout the troubles was that it was perpetrated by agents of the state, wearing a uniform. It was murder.

Carruthers interviewed McGuinness earlier in the day about the Thompson claims and Saville's rejection of the claim that the Paras were sent in that day to "teach them a lesson." McGuinness reserved the right to respectfully disagree. Considering their complete unsuitability for what was meant to be a policing action, as well as the events up at Magilligan Strand the week before, it's hard not to share his viewpoint.

Quote from: gallsman on June 16, 2010, 10:23:10 AM
Gregory Campbell is a hateful little **** who you'd love to smack if he passed you in the street. Eammon McCann deserves credit for openly calling him a "sectarian disgrace" on the BBC last night.

Though Michael Mansfield and the Presbyterian minister, David Latimer (sp?) spoke very well, with Latimer not rying to pursue any agenda and openly hoping that Campbell's view was out of tune with most unionists.

Was great to Mansfield come out directly and say that the reason Bloody Sunday differs from other atrocities throughout the troubles was that it was perpetrated by agents of the state, wearing a uniform. It was murder.

Carruthers interviewed McGuinness earlier in the day about the Thompson claims and Saville's rejection of the claim that the Paras were sent in that day to "teach them a lesson." McGuinness reserved the right to respectfully disagree. Considering their complete unsuitability for what was meant to be a policing action, as well as the events up at Magilligan Strand the week before, it's hard not to share his viewpoint.

Agree with the above, the Pres. Minister showed an honesty and compassion missing from every unionist politician who has spoken about this recently. He also said that he was shocked and dismayed at Campbells words.
Fantastic day for the families and the people of Derry, the relief and joy on their faces was great to see, at least now the world knows what we've known for 38 years - the people that were murdered and injured on that fateful day were INNOCENT.

Can anyone explain the Gerard Donaghy nail bombs claim, and how they came to the conclusion that he had them but didn't use them? I know Paddy Ward claimed to be head of the Fianna that day but I'm not sure how it sits in with everything else given that his evidence was largely discredited by most. I personally disagree with the accusation that he had nail bombs on his person and think there's been a cover-up of a cover-up... I am just nit-picking though, I suppose.

I dont really see why we should have any gratitude to unionists and the protestant churches for reacting 'well'. Its the only way to act. The fact that campbell and his ilk reacted badly just shows what scum they are, they shouldnt be the yardstick of unionist decency.

Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 01:43:56 PM
I dont really see why we should have any gratitude to unionists and the protestant churches for reacting 'well'. Its the only way to act. The fact that campbell and his ilk reacted badly just shows what scum they are, they shouldnt be the yardstick of unionist decency.

Well it is not representative of the way Unionist politicians reacted, for that I think we should be if not thankful at least appreciative.

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 01:43:04 PM
Can anyone explain the Gerard Donaghy nail bombs claim, and how they came to the conclusion that he had them but didn't use them? I know Paddy Ward claimed to be head of the Fianna that day but I'm not sure how it sits in with everything else given that his evidence was largely discredited by most. I personally disagree with the accusation that he had nail bombs on his person and think there's been a cover-up of a cover-up... I am just nit-picking though, I suppose.

I scanned through that part of the report myself, and it doesn't sit well with me either. 

Quote from: Rois on June 16, 2010, 01:59:42 PM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 01:43:04 PM
Can anyone explain the Gerard Donaghy nail bombs claim, and how they came to the conclusion that he had them but didn't use them? I know Paddy Ward claimed to be head of the Fianna that day but I'm not sure how it sits in with everything else given that his evidence was largely discredited by most. I personally disagree with the accusation that he had nail bombs on his person and think there's been a cover-up of a cover-up... I am just nit-picking though, I suppose.

I scanned through that part of the report myself, and it doesn't sit well with me either.

As I haven't had a chance to read the report yet, but I have to agree. This doesn't well with me either.

I made some comments about the report and the justice for the families on my Facebook yesterday and the response from my protestant friends was shocking in one way but not surprising in another.
I feel that Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles but Protestants/Unionists/loyalists will openly deny there was any police brutality, any collusion, any murders committed directly or indirectly by the british troops.
I have had manys a drunken conversation about it with protestant friends but it always gets brushed under the carpet to save the friendship and not brought up again.

I wonder is this just pride, are they brainwashed into thinking nothing that bad happened or do they just not care, or is it something else I'm missing?

Doogie, if you get a moment look at the statement made by Willie B.  He relished the opportunity - name dropping everywhere! 
Part of his statement referred to Martin McGuinness asking him to come to his car and verify that there were no weapons in it, which there weren't.  Willie was chosen by Martin because he was so publicly anti-IRA and even Willie came away with the notion that the provos appeared to feel duped by the security forces as they had agreed to keep weapons away from the march. 

I bet he'd have loved to have been there yesterday.

Quote from: Rois on June 16, 2010, 03:14:06 PM
Doogie, if you get a moment look at the statement made by Willie B.  He relished the opportunity - name dropping everywhere! 
Part of his statement referred to Martin McGuinness asking him to come to his car and verify that there were no weapons in it, which there weren't.  Willie was chosen by Martin because he was so publicly anti-IRA and even Willie came away with the notion that the provos appeared to feel duped by the security forces as they had agreed to keep weapons away from the march. 

I bet he'd have loved to have been there yesterday.

Cheers, I did some searching and it never occurred to me to look for his statement, I will certainly do that now.  You are right, there are so many who never lived long enough to see the truth established finally, it makes it all the more poignant.

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

state sponsored actions ?

the rest were tit for tat killings which are/were deplorable
but when you have killings caused and carried out by the supposed custodians of the law/security - thats a whole different proposition !

I know you dont mean to try to muddy the waters, but there is a massive distinction.
Your comments seem to echo the comments of a lot of unionist /loyalist peoples.
The only common aspect is that there were regretable deaths.
there were plenty of 'atrocities' carried out by unionists/loyalist etc groups as well.
Its not the same thing in the context of the Bloody sunday killings.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 16, 2010, 03:45:16 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

state sponsored actions ?

the rest were tit for tat killings which are/were deplorable
but when you have killings caused and carried out by the supposed custodians of the law/security - thats a whole different proposition !

I know you dont mean to try to muddy the waters, but there is a massive distinction.
Your comments seem to echo the comments of a lot of unionist /loyalist peoples.
The only common aspect is that there were regretable deaths.
there were plenty of 'atrocities' carried out by unionists/loyalist etc groups as well.
Its not the same thing in the context of the Bloody sunday killings.

Notwithstanding who or what organisation caused the deaths an understandable reaction of a bereaved relative watching yesterday's events would be  .."and what about me"? Would it not?

The Inquiry seems to have hopefully started the  door closing on Bloody Sunday but the thorny issue of dealing with the past (most if not all of it) still needs to be addressed or it seems to me an unexpected   hierarchical structure will develop . This needs to be managed carefully by our government.

I make no distinction between those atrocities carried out by Republicans and those carried out by Loyalists.

I referred to Republican atrocities because the poster stated that republicans would admit  about what went on during the Troubles.

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 16, 2010, 03:45:16 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

state sponsored actions ?

the rest were tit for tat killings which are/were deplorable
but when you have killings caused and carried out by the supposed custodians of the law/security - thats a whole different proposition !

I know you dont mean to try to muddy the waters, but there is a massive distinction.
Your comments seem to echo the comments of a lot of unionist /loyalist peoples.
The only common aspect is that there were regretable deaths.
there were plenty of 'atrocities' carried out by unionists/loyalist etc groups as well.
Its not the same thing in the context of the Bloody sunday killings.

Notwithstanding who or what organisation caused the deaths an understandable reaction of a bereaved relative watching yesterday's events would be  .."and what about me"? Would it not?

The Inquiry seems to have hopefully started the  door closing on Bloody Sunday but the thorny issue of dealing with the past (most if not all of it) still needs to be addressed or it seems to me an unexpected   hierarchical structure will develop . This needs to be managed carefully by our government.

I make no distinction between those atrocities carried out by Republicans and those carried out by Loyalists.

I referred to Republican atrocities because the poster stated that republicans would admit  about what went on during the Troubles.

I for one do not begrudge people having feelings like this, it's perfectly understandable and I wouldn't berate for this. However, this was murder by the state, our so-called protectors. So of course there should be an inquiry into it. Same as any murder where the army, police or government have been involved with. Just like the murder of Billy Wright.

What gets me angry is listening to Gregory Campbell, as an elected representative of the people of East Derry. The language he used was a disgrace and uncalled for. When pushed by Spotlight if he felt if the murders were justified, he refused to answer.

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 16, 2010, 03:45:16 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

state sponsored actions ?

the rest were tit for tat killings which are/were deplorable
but when you have killings caused and carried out by the supposed custodians of the law/security - thats a whole different proposition !

I know you dont mean to try to muddy the waters, but there is a massive distinction.
Your comments seem to echo the comments of a lot of unionist /loyalist peoples.
The only common aspect is that there were regretable deaths.
there were plenty of 'atrocities' carried out by unionists/loyalist etc groups as well.
Its not the same thing in the context of the Bloody sunday killings.

Notwithstanding who or what organisation caused the deaths an understandable reaction of a bereaved relative watching yesterday's events would be  .."and what about me"? Would it not?

The Inquiry seems to have hopefully started the  door closing on Bloody Sunday but the thorny issue of dealing with the past (most if not all of it) still needs to be addressed or it seems to me an unexpected   hierarchical structure will develop . This needs to be managed carefully by our government.

I make no distinction between those atrocities carried out by Republicans and those carried out by Loyalists.

I referred to Republican atrocities because the poster stated that republicans would admit  about what went on during the Troubles.

not really understanding your point - if any.
The other poster said that republicans would admit to killings (as a group I expect)
however unionists/loyalists still wont accept the findings of the saville report - as witnessed by gregory campbells antics yesterday - its been known for 38 years that these people were innocent ! Move on - yes we must do so ! Hard to see how campbell etc can pretend they want to !

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 16, 2010, 03:45:16 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

state sponsored actions ?

the rest were tit for tat killings which are/were deplorable
but when you have killings caused and carried out by the supposed custodians of the law/security - thats a whole different proposition !

I know you dont mean to try to muddy the waters, but there is a massive distinction.
Your comments seem to echo the comments of a lot of unionist /loyalist peoples.
The only common aspect is that there were regretable deaths.
there were plenty of 'atrocities' carried out by unionists/loyalist etc groups as well.
Its not the same thing in the context of the Bloody sunday killings.

Notwithstanding who or what organisation caused the deaths an understandable reaction of a bereaved relative watching yesterday's events would be  .."and what about me"? Would it not?

The Inquiry seems to have hopefully started the  door closing on Bloody Sunday but the thorny issue of dealing with the past (most if not all of it) still needs to be addressed or it seems to me an unexpected   hierarchical structure will develop . This needs to be managed carefully by our government.

I make no distinction between those atrocities carried out by Republicans and those carried out by Loyalists.

I referred to Republican atrocities because the poster stated that republicans would admit  about what went on during the Troubles.

I assume what he meant was that Republicans would admit that some of what went on was wrong. It seems that to admit that is too much for scum like Campbell. He is a disgracefull human being.

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 04:05:31 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 16, 2010, 03:45:16 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on June 16, 2010, 02:49:48 PM

I feel that .....Republicans will openly admit what went on during the troubles

??? Have we found out who commmitted the La Mon atrocity then? Dropping Well?  Enniskillen? Darkley? .......I am afraid that comment doesn't hold water.

I am pleased that the relatives of those killed and injured on Bloody Sunday have found out , on the basis of a thorough examination of the evidence by a Tribunal how their loved ones were killed. (albeit 38 years too late).

I am also sad that countless other relatives   can have that 38 years multiplied infinitely without end.

state sponsored actions ?

the rest were tit for tat killings which are/were deplorable
but when you have killings caused and carried out by the supposed custodians of the law/security - thats a whole different proposition !

I know you dont mean to try to muddy the waters, but there is a massive distinction.
Your comments seem to echo the comments of a lot of unionist /loyalist peoples.
The only common aspect is that there were regretable deaths.
there were plenty of 'atrocities' carried out by unionists/loyalist etc groups as well.
Its not the same thing in the context of the Bloody sunday killings.

Notwithstanding who or what organisation caused the deaths an understandable reaction of a bereaved relative watching yesterday's events would be  .."and what about me"? Would it not?

The Inquiry seems to have hopefully started the  door closing on Bloody Sunday but the thorny issue of dealing with the past (most if not all of it) still needs to be addressed or it seems to me an unexpected   hierarchical structure will develop . This needs to be managed carefully by our government.

I make no distinction between those atrocities carried out by Republicans and those carried out by Loyalists.

I referred to Republican atrocities because the poster stated that republicans are more open about what went on during the Troubles.

If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion. In terms of whether or not 'republicans are more open' during the troubles, they at least claimed responsibility for the vast majority of those attacks. Given that it was an imprisonable offence to  be a member of the IRA, and that countless young men were put in prison as a result (whether right or wrongly), there was a course of justice which they could point to. Bloody Sunday was filmed, recorded and photographed by countless people. It is one of the single incidents in the Western World of a state killing its putative citizens and then going against all evidence to exonerate and commend the murderers of innocents in what is undeniably a cover-up. This difference between it and the countless other tragedies in the troubles is hardly something which needs to be explained, but as usual the familiar suspects come out of the woodworks to deflect criticism.

Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Wow. That clampett is absolutely delusional, inarticulate and a serious embarassment to unionism/loyalism.

I see McGuinness changed his name recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq6HG0HaTxg

and still won. ;)

In all seriousness, has anyone a link to Campbell's rant on BBC 1 or was it the one with Jon Snow on C4 that he was out of order on?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ss4ry/Spotlight_2010_2011_Bloody_Sunday_Report/

Greg starts at 25 minutes. Complete tosser

thanks Dun Dun, but I can't view it over here.  Ah well, I can but imagine.

Maybe our West Brit friends canvassing for a visit to Ireland by Lizzie will chew over the fact that she awarded mass murderer Derek Wilford an OBE only six months after Bloody Sunday ... and don't gimme any oul shite that it's not her who decides who gets these pathetic baubles - she's also commander in chief of the British Army, don't forget

Quote from: red hander on June 16, 2010, 05:32:46 PM
Maybe our West Brit friends canvassing for a visit to Ireland by Lizzie will chew over the fact that she awarded mass murderer Derek Wilford an OBE only six months after Bloody Sunday

Who are they, as a matter of interest?

Willie Frazer is an insignificant little toad. Nobody takes him seriously in the slightest. He'll rant on and on until the day he joins his colluding, murdering father in the grave and still nobody will give a shit about him.

Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2010, 05:34:30 PM

Quote from: red hander on June 16, 2010, 05:32:46 PM
Maybe our West Brit friends canvassing for a visit to Ireland by Lizzie will chew over the fact that she awarded mass murderer Derek Wilford an OBE only six months after Bloody Sunday

Who are they, as a matter of interest?

They know who they are

Quote from: red hander on June 16, 2010, 05:43:17 PM

Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2010, 05:34:30 PM

Quote from: red hander on June 16, 2010, 05:32:46 PM
Maybe our West Brit friends canvassing for a visit to Ireland by Lizzie will chew over the fact that she awarded mass murderer Derek Wilford an OBE only six months after Bloody Sunday

Who are they, as a matter of interest?

They know who they are

I think Hardy's point is that maybe you don't.

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

The wee piece of shit embarrasses himself and all of unionism each and every time he gets in front of a microphone.

Quote from: Franko on June 16, 2010, 06:04:31 PM

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

The wee piece of shit embarrasses himself and all of unionism each and every time he gets in front of a microphone.

I can't het that link to work on my Iphone. Is it still working?

Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

Quote from: gallsman on June 16, 2010, 05:49:23 PM

Quote from: red hander on June 16, 2010, 05:43:17 PM

Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2010, 05:34:30 PM

Quote from: red hander on June 16, 2010, 05:32:46 PM
Maybe our West Brit friends canvassing for a visit to Ireland by Lizzie will chew over the fact that she awarded mass murderer Derek Wilford an OBE only six months after Bloody Sunday

Who are they, as a matter of interest?

They know who they are

I think Hardy's point is that maybe you don't.

No shit, Sherlock?

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 07:06:32 PM

Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

Are you thick or just sectarian?
The only comfort the bloody sunday families have is that it's now been admitted, almost 40 years on, that their loved ones were innocent victims.
No one has ever suggested the victims of Enniskillen, for example, were not innocent. So what are they missing out on that the families of bloody sunday have?
The only people who have a right to feel "what about me" are the families of the other victims of the British Army, RUC and co.

So which is it, thick or sectarian?


Minder the link is working but you're not missing anything, sinn fein blah blah blah, martin mcguinness blah blah blah....

'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

when I posted earlier than most Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans will admit what went on during the troubles I did mean that we would all admit there were shootings, killings, bombings, that it all actually happened. Protestants will ask to agree to disagree, or claim that it wasn't as bad as we make out that the truth of the Saville Report is a Republican Truth not what really happened.
I nearly feel like we were all brought up in two different worlds  and maybe we were.  Maybe the majority of them were never exposed to it all or maybe brainwashed into thinking it was normal or maybe just didn't care.....

Either way its messed up.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.

Read through a few of the soldiers statements there, bullets in the head would be too good for them.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:04:40 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 07:06:32 PM

Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

Are you thick or just sectarian?
The only comfort the bloody sunday families have is that it's now been admitted, almost 40 years on, that their loved ones were innocent victims.
No one has ever suggested the victims of Enniskillen, for example, were not innocent. So what are they missing out on that the families of bloody sunday have?
The only people who have a right to feel "what about me" are the families of the other victims of the British Army, RUC and co.

So which is it, thick or sectarian?

Read the the piece that you have emboldened again.

It must be thick then. ::)

As for the piece that I have emboldened......forget about the rest eh?

You have tried to equate incidents like enniskillen with bloody sunday in this thread.

Why do you suggest I'm saying "forget about the rest", I'm not.

Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM
Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Even the likes of Martin McGuinness and Mitchel McLaughlin acknowledged the feelings and needs of such people yesterday and commented on the need to address their feelings and concerns, McLaughlin going on to talk about the need for a "Truth Recovery Process" specifically for that purpose.

Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2010, 08:56:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM
Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Even the likes of Martin McGuinness and Mitchel McLaughlin acknowledged the feelings and needs of such people yesterday and commented on the need to address their feelings and concerns, McLaughlin going on to talk about the need for a "Truth Recovery Process" specifically for that purpose.

I dont understand what they'd think they were missing out on? The families yesterday simply had it admitted that their loved ones were innocent victims. That's something families of the victims of Enniskillen and la mon etc had from day one.

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.

So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I hope this news brings the families some sort of closure and satisfaction and I admire greatly their fight to see justice done in this case.

I also think Cameron did the right thing and handled the apology with class, respect and genuine remorse for the murder of civilians at the hands of her majestys troops.

I feel sorry for wee willie and Campbell, I cannot imagine living with that sort of hate in my heart for people, it must be horrendous to wake up every day and hate with all your heart 50% of your neighbours.

I had tears in my eyes when I got the news and cried when I once again looked at the victims and I hope those that murdered those poor men and children feel the full force of Justice in a court of law, it will probably  not happen but by God it should happen.

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Frazer's youtube page is classic. He's so far removed from reality.

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 16, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Frazer's youtube page is classic. He's so far removed from reality.

Bejaysus, he scares the hell outa me!
It seems he really believes what he says.
How much support does he and his ilk  really have amongst the Unionist community?

Quote from: Maguire01 on June 16, 2010, 10:22:08 PM
Frazer's youtube page is classic. He's so far removed from reality.

Got to see it. He is some value, "that is why unionists and nationalists, err that are innocent, think this inquiry is a disgrace". So most nationalists are "guilty"?

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM

Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Not least and amongst other thingsbecause  former members of that organisation now form part of our government.

Please read my previous posts re Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 09:03:58 PM

Quote from: Hardy on June 16, 2010, 08:56:10 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM
Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Even the likes of Martin McGuinness and Mitchel McLaughlin acknowledged the feelings and needs of such people yesterday and commented on the need to address their feelings and concerns, McLaughlin going on to talk about the need for a "Truth Recovery Process" specifically for that purpose.

That's something families of the victims of Enniskillen and la mon etc had from day one.

Cold comfort indeed.

Both of them need to be seen to push this process as hard as possible.

Obviously they are not 'lucky' Olaf but they at least they had a smidgeon of comfort in knowing that their loved ones died without the murky lies/rumour/innuendo that hung over the victims of bloody Sunday never had...until now.

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 10:50:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM

Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Not least and amongst other thingsbecause  former members of that organisation now form part of our government.

Please read my previous posts re Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday

So? the paratroopers are still regarded as heroes.   

Quote from: omagh_gael on June 16, 2010, 11:02:44 PM
Obviously they are not 'lucky' Olaf but they at least they had a smidgeon of comfort in knowing that their loved ones died without the murky lies/rumour/innuendo that hung over the victims of bloody Sunday never had...until now.

exactly. 

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 11:03:35 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 10:50:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM

Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Not least and amongst other thingsbecause  former members of that organisation now form part of our government.

Please read my previous posts re Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday

So? the paratroopers are still regarded as heroes.   

I do not think that the paratroopers who caused the deaths on Bloody Sunday are regarded as heroes. You know otherwise?

In answer to your short question I refer to my previous post.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.

So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I think a political grievance makes a cause slightly less sectarian, whether that justifies it or not, rather than a general shoot taigs to kill policy. The IRA killed plenty of nationalists and Catholics. A sizeable number, actually.

The First Minister Peter Robinson said the Saville Report should give closure and a sense of justice to the families of the victims after 38 years of waiting.

He said he accepted the conclusions of the report.

Prime Minister David Cameron has ruled out further "Saville like" inquiries.

He said he understood the grief of such families and promised that those responsible for terroist acts would still be prosecuted.

Mr Cameron also said he personally found it "painful" to have to sit around a table with Northern Ireland's deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness because of his IRA background.

However Mr Cameron said it was a price worth paying for peace.

Thirteen people died after paratroopers opened fire during a civil rights march in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. Another person died of his injuries some time later.

Lord Saville's report said Mr McGuinness was present on the day and probably armed with a sub-machine gun but did not engage in any activity that caused the soldiers to open fire.

First Minister Peter Robinson said what happened was "wrong" and "unjustified".

"After the length of time, the detail that is provided in that report, I think you cannot pick and choose the elements of that report that you accept and those that you do not.

The former Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward suggested there should be what he called "a process of reconciliation and truth recovery" to examine all unresolved killings.

The Conservative peer Lord Tebbit, whose wife was seriously injured in the IRA Brighton bombing said many terrorist had escaped prosecution for crimes far worse than anything done by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday.

He urged Mr Cameron to consider holding an investigation into the Brighton bombing.

"My anxiety now is that we should not divide victims into first and second class victims.

"In my mind are the victims of the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Are they not to achieve closure?"

BBC

A very measured responded. I'm pleased at how he conducted himself. I hope Gregory Campbell was listening.

Quote
The Conservative peer Lord Tebbit, whose wife was seriously injured in the IRA Brighton bombing said many terrorist had escaped prosecution for crimes far worse than anything done by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday.

He urged Mr Cameron to consider holding an investigation into the Brighton bombing.

"My anxiety now is that we should not divide victims into first and second class victims.

"In my mind are the victims of the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Are they not to achieve closure?"

Another hateful ****.


I love all these who drop the word "closure" in, the Saville Report should only be the start of it! We'll have closure when c***ts like soldier f is locked up for the rest of his days.

Quote from: ziggysego on June 17, 2010, 12:06:06 AM
The First Minister Peter Robinson said the Saville Report should give closure and a sense of justice to the families of the victims after 38 years of waiting.

He said he accepted the conclusions of the report.

Prime Minister David Cameron has ruled out further "Saville like" inquiries.

He said he understood the grief of such families and promised that those responsible for terroist acts would still be prosecuted.

Mr Cameron also said he personally found it "painful" to have to sit around a table with Northern Ireland's deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness because of his IRA background.

However Mr Cameron said it was a price worth paying for peace.

Thirteen people died after paratroopers opened fire during a civil rights march in Londonderry on 30 January 1972. Another person died of his injuries some time later.

Lord Saville's report said Mr McGuinness was present on the day and probably armed with a sub-machine gun but did not engage in any activity that caused the soldiers to open fire.

First Minister Peter Robinson said what happened was "wrong" and "unjustified".

"After the length of time, the detail that is provided in that report, I think you cannot pick and choose the elements of that report that you accept and those that you do not.

The former Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward suggested there should be what he called "a process of reconciliation and truth recovery" to examine all unresolved killings.

The Conservative peer Lord Tebbit, whose wife was seriously injured in the IRA Brighton bombing said many terrorist had escaped prosecution for crimes far worse than anything done by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday.

He urged Mr Cameron to consider holding an investigation into the Brighton bombing.

"My anxiety now is that we should not divide victims into first and second class victims.

"In my mind are the victims of the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Are they not to achieve closure?"

BBC

A very measured responded. I'm pleased at how he conducted himself. I hope Gregory Campbell was listening.

Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

When those who enforce the law break the law there is no law.

Quote
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

No, they're just hateful c***ts.

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 17, 2010, 12:11:19 AM

Quote
The Conservative peer Lord Tebbit, whose wife was seriously injured in the IRA Brighton bombing said many terrorist had escaped prosecution for crimes far worse than anything done by paratroopers on Bloody Sunday.

He urged Mr Cameron to consider holding an investigation into the Brighton bombing.

"My anxiety now is that we should not divide victims into first and second class victims.

"In my mind are the victims of the IRA's bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Are they not to achieve closure?"

Another hateful ****.


I love all these who drop the word "closure" in, the Saville Report should only be the start of it! We'll have closure when c***ts like soldier f is locked up for the rest of his days.

It's like saying all prisoners in Britian should be released as there are still unsolved crimes. It's not fair on criminals who have been caught that those who haven't been caught are not in jail.

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM

Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

When those who enforce the law break the law there is no law.

They know rightly. Don't take their word for anytrhing regarding the north.

and wtf does he mean there's crimes far worse than shooting innocent people in a street?

Tebbit is a disgrace. So much so, I pay no attention to his rants about the north. They are full of hate and venom and it is best not even acknowledging.

He is a throw back to the past and slowly but surely, the tide is changing. Attitudes are changing and the truth about our dark past are being to be acknowledged. We should use this time to push forward and bring new hope for the future of the north.

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:23:08 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

what are you on about

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:23:08 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

Or how about the protection of the public from the dirty truth which leads to people being above the law?

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:23:08 AM

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 12:12:02 AM
Can these people seriously not differentiate between the likes of the Brighton bomb and Bloody Sunday?  Are they slow?

What should happen to terrorists who killed innocent people outside of Bloody Sunday? Some sort of crazy early release scheme, let's say a Good Friday Agrreement or something?

Are you Gregory Campbell? w**ker

No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Yeah, especially if they are the supposed upholders of law & order.

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Government murdering its own citizens....   

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

If you kill someone and then lie about it (twice) under oath then I think you can be reliably considered worse than someone who at least does some time for their actions. Not that the acts in themselves are divisible, but given that the British continue to divide the killings of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan as collateral there is at once a wider perspective and a lesson unlearned. They are the great equivocators.

Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 17, 2010, 12:51:59 AM

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Government murdering its own citizens....   

Ok, but atrocities committed by people who werent government figures, are they any more innocent than them? Surely for those relatives of the dead, they should be incarcerated?

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 01:05:36 AM

Quote from: longrunsthefox on June 17, 2010, 12:51:59 AM

Quote from: Yer Ma on June 17, 2010, 12:40:13 AM
No, not Gregory, God Forbid.

There's seems to be a ranking though in the killing of innocent people, some perpetrators are not as bad, some are a bit worse, some are just terrible.

All a bit strange.

Government murdering its own citizens....   

Ok, but atrocities committed by people who werent government figures, are they any more innocent than them? Surely for those relatives of the dead, they should be incarcerated?

Have you ever heard of the historical enquiries team?

Quote from: ziggysego on June 16, 2010, 09:34:38 PM

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Some of the bile he is spouting is vile... funny thing is he doesn;t strike me as having any sort of thought process or rebuttal to the report in that video... he seems quite stupid actually

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 11:51:11 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.

So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I think a political grievance makes a cause slightly less sectarian, whether that justifies it or not, rather than a general shoot taigs to kill policy. The IRA killed plenty of nationalists and Catholics. A sizeable number, actually.

Agreed. Some they killed accidently, the rest they murdered for being pro British (members of the security forces, contractors for the security forces, informers, etc). The best you could say for the IRA is that they were slightly more discriminating in their ethno religious struggle than the loyalists, but the result was the same.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 17, 2010, 07:24:57 AM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 11:51:11 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.

So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I think a political grievance makes a cause slightly less sectarian, whether that justifies it or not, rather than a general shoot taigs to kill policy. The IRA killed plenty of nationalists and Catholics. A sizeable number, actually.

Agreed. Some they killed accidently, the rest they murdered for being pro British (members of the security forces, contractors for the security forces, informers, etc). The best you could say for the IRA is that they were slightly more discriminating in their ethno religious struggle than the loyalists, but the result was the same.

?

'myles stating that IRA 'not sectarian' post shocker'

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 11:21:53 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 11:03:35 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 10:50:43 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 16, 2010, 08:41:16 PM

Why would someone who had a loved one killed by say the IRA be thinking "what about me" yesterday?

Not least and amongst other thingsbecause  former members of that organisation now form part of our government.

Please read my previous posts re Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday

So? the paratroopers are still regarded as heroes.   

I do not think that the paratroopers who caused the deaths on Bloody Sunday are regarded as heroes. You know otherwise?

In answer to your short question I refer to my previous post.

They were honored by the Queen and given medals - they were treated as war heroes.

That in itself speaks volumes - "you shot and murdered innocent people. Congratulations, well done! Here's a medal"

I think the gist of what the lads here are trying to say is that there should be one law for all, and all should treated and punished according to the same law.  Those on either the republican or loyalist sides who actively assist or partake in acts which result in a loss of life do so in the knowledge that if caught they will have the full force of the law come down on them and they will do time.

But in the case of Bloody Sunday, those soliders that fired their weapons that day walked away.  They didn't have the full force of the law come down on them, quite the opposite.  Those meant to uphold and enforce the law backed them to the hilt, defended them, and let them continue with their lives unpunished.
In any other situation, if you help or assist a murdered, you also are punishable as an accessory to murder.

A clear case of one rule for one and a different rule for others.

Justice is blind eh?

Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

Can't really argue with anything you've said there delboy.

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 07:06:32 PM

Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

But the point is that they were proclaimed by those in governance to deserve their fate. It was a battle to clear their name and establish that lies had been told by the army and government.
What other case compares? Certainly not any on the unionist side. Noone in power has ever questioned the innocence of any of the victims of the IRA, even though on occasions their victims were not innocent.

What cases would you have enquiries into? In most unionist deaths, the official line was that which suited unionists anyway - enquiries into at least some of these may reveal a truth which the families and wider unionist community may wish had never been uncovered (collusion etc)

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 17, 2010, 07:24:57 AM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 11:51:11 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 09:04:44 PM

Quote from: stibhan on June 16, 2010, 08:31:19 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 16, 2010, 08:26:10 PM
'If you're leveling the paras with the provos then I suppose that's at least somewhere approaching the truth, but any study of loyalist murders will reveal them to be non-political killings which were based on religion.'

A familiar republican mantra, but one which doesn't stand up under any kind of scrutiny. Republicans murdered people because of their (perceived) support for the union and for the NI state. Loyalists murdered Catholics because of the Catholic community's (perceived) support for a united Ireland and the IRA. No real difference. Republicans would rather compare themselves with the British armed forces, rather than be compared with other paramilitary groups. That's why the IRA had 'active service units', while loyalists had 'murder gangs'. That's why the IRA waged an 'armed struggle', while loyalists carried out 'pograms'. Complete bollix, obviously. Republicans were no different from their loyalist counter parts.

I'm sorry but there is a clear difference. One being an ethno-religious struggle and one being a political one. Equivocating the truth by ignoring the facts doesn't make Republicans, who have a long history of struggle against Britain, the same as Loyalists, who have a long history of anti-Catholic hatred and murder. Bear in mind that you used the word 'Catholic' to signify the type of people Loyalists killed--a qualification which you deemed unnecessary for the IRA.

So you don't think a hatred for 'the Brits' or the 'huns' or the 'orangies' qualifies as an ethno-religious struggle?

I think a political grievance makes a cause slightly less sectarian, whether that justifies it or not, rather than a general shoot taigs to kill policy. The IRA killed plenty of nationalists and Catholics. A sizeable number, actually.

Agreed. Some they killed accidently, the rest they murdered for being pro British (members of the security forces, contractors for the security forces, informers, etc). The best you could say for the IRA is that they were slightly more discriminating in their ethno religious struggle than the loyalists, but the result was the same.

They killed people for being pro-British. This amounts to a political, not ethno-religious, stance. Incidentally, there has never been a bomb constructed which either asks all Catholics to get out of the way before it goes off or whose effects only harm Protestants.

The result was the same? I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that, but if my central point was that they are both the same, and British soldiers have killed thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the North, then you're surely agreeing with me?

Thanks for stopping by.

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

Good post Delboy.  I would pretty much be in agreement with all you have said there.

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

...I am prob in the minority as I dont really blame the soldiers as much
I would still think that their commanding officers (if still alive) should be taken to task and if not a custodial sentence , then stripping of rank, awards, honours and army pension would be correct and proper.
Maybe some would think this should be the case for the individual soldiers also.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 17, 2010, 12:14:41 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 11:07:06 AM
Heres my tuppence for what its worth, I can't understand the likes of campbell spouting off about other atrocities carried out by the IRA, as has been pointed out those innocent people were killed unlawfully by a terrorist organisation, no amount of investigations or reports is going to change that.

Bloody sunday was the murdering of innocents by the state with a subsequent coverup besmirching their name, thats a very very important critical distinction.

I was shouting at campbell on the telly to shut up and let the families have their day of closure. He did however make one point about the perversity of prosecuting the soliders at this stage whilst terrorists who killed and maimed have been freed under the terms of the GFA.
Personally i think if there is a case to answer (and it looks like there is) they should face prosecution, but just like the terrorists even if convincted they should be freed under licence.
This compromise is probably not enough for some republicans who would be calling for their blood and would be a step to far for some loyalists but thats what compromising is all about.

...I am prob in the minority as I dont really blame the soldiers as much
I would still think that their commanding officers (if still alive) should be taken to task and if not a custodial sentence , then stripping of rank, awards, honours and army pension would be correct and proper.
Maybe some would think this should be the case for the individual soldiers also.

Whilst ultimately the blame lies with their commanding officer yes, the soldiers on the ground fired indiscriminantly and with cool heads. Killing mortally wounded and shots in the back. It's murder, so blame also lies with them.

Quote from: haranguerer on June 17, 2010, 11:31:55 AM

Quote from: Olaf on June 16, 2010, 07:06:32 PM

Quote from: haranguerer on June 16, 2010, 04:25:31 PM
Olaf, who has questioned the innocence of those you mention? The equivalent of what happened in bloody sunday is if the state had stated that those who died in Enniskillen had been armed with guns and petrol bombs, and thus deserved their fate. Its clearly not true.

Have you ever heard anyone defend the Enniskillen bomb - on any side of the divide? No, and rightly so - it was indefensible. But put yourself in the postion of the families of those who died if it had been defended, and the perception perpetuated by the authorities was that they deserved it. Thats what happened in Derry.

I could understand the ambiguity and open hositility from unionists if it were an investigation into say the ambush of IRA men. In the troubles, this would equate to the killing of security forces/RUC. But I cant see how this hositility to an investigation into the murder of 13 innocent civilians by state forces can be attributed to anything but sectarianism.

I was not equating the two (Enniskillen and Bloody Sunday) in any respect. See my first post on the thread. It is clear in any event that the deaths arose from different circumstances on the days in question. One awful day began with a group of  people going to church on a Sunday (Remembrance Day) and the other awful day  began with a banned street protest.

I do not feel that you will find open hostility from the majority of the  Unionist community to the fact that a Tribunal was held given that the deaths were as a result of the actions of the agents of the  State and most will be glad that a thorough report painstakingly prepared seems to have established the truth. i would say that I have  not read the Report . It is sad though that other bereaved relatives (on both sides) cannot find the same comfort (on the assumption that the families have gained some comfort from this).

But the point is that they were proclaimed by those in governance to deserve their fate. It was a battle to clear their name and establish that lies had been told by the army and government.
What other case compares? Certainly not any on the unionist side. Noone in power has ever questioned the innocence of any of the victims of the IRA, even though on occasions their victims were not innocent.

What cases would you have enquiries into? In most unionist deaths, the official line was that which suited unionists anyway - enquiries into at least some of these may reveal a truth which the families and wider unionist community may wish had never been uncovered (collusion etc)

I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles, a nice idea but impossible in real terms, for a start it would bankrupt the country.
But as others have been pointing out bloody sunday was an exceptional set of circumstances and it needed to be addressed, not only did the truth need to come out to clear the names of the victims but the truth also needed to come out to clear the name of the judicial/legal system/government call it what you will, a coverup like that eats away at the foundations of the rule of law, it needed to be exposed to restore faith. £200 million in that context is worth every penny, im not sure you could make the same case for the other incidents and the numerous billions of pounds it would ultimately cost to investigate them,

Time to stop the whataboutery, put all this behind us and move on.

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM


I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Not if everyone starts shouting 'What about them?' whenever there is such an enquiry, rather than welcoming the findings.

Quote from: Celt_Man on June 17, 2010, 02:37:48 AM

Quote from: ziggysego on June 16, 2010, 09:34:38 PM

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Some of the bile he is spouting is vile... funny thing is he doesn;t strike me as having any sort of thought process or rebuttal to the report in that video... he seems quite stupid actually

just watched that as well, unreal stuff.
i know what you mean celtman, he doesnt come across as the smartest of cookies  :-X

Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 17, 2010, 01:47:10 PM

Quote from: Celt_Man on June 17, 2010, 02:37:48 AM

Quote from: ziggysego on June 16, 2010, 09:34:38 PM

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Some of the bile he is spouting is vile... funny thing is he doesn;t strike me as having any sort of thought process or rebuttal to the report in that video... he seems quite stupid actually

just watched that as well, unreal stuff.
i know what you mean celtman, he doesnt come across as the smartest of cookies  :-X

In other news, it has been reported that the Pope was seen wearing a funny hat.

Wullie is certifiable.

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

You could have used that same cop-out answer to the bloody sunday report, if only there was a willlingness for the soliders and powers to be to say what happened, unfortuanately we live in the real world there will be conflicting reports etc and painstaking meticulous (expensive) investiagtions would need to be carried out to get to the truth.

Personally i think its crass to compare the bloody sunday thing with terrorist atrocities, but if there was any case to be made for investigating IRA murders etc the only justification for it would be to look into the states role in them, as in the dirty war british operatives running IRA spies (and UVF etc also) will have allowed them on occasion to have carried out murders so as to maintain their cover.
You could argue that the state was complitcit in those matters and should be held accountable, my own view though is that people will get no closure only hurt from knowing the state could have intervened to safe their loved one but didn't. 

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

Hold on a second.  There was no willingness from the British Army to divulge information.  Even when questioned on this they still told lies.
It took 12 years, and £200 million to put together the events of Bloody Sunday and to give the relatives their peace of mind. 
Now when the law makers/upholders don't willingly divulge such information do you seriously expect IRA members and the likes to come forward and spill their guts.  Catch a grip.

All this come back from the Protestant Unionist Loyalist community simply adds to the argument that they live in an alternate reality. I spoke up on my facebook account for a couple of days and some of my protestant  "friends" comments were similar to those posted here and also to the comments made by Campbell and wee Willy.

Shocking? ...... Or not a surprise......

Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 17, 2010, 01:53:16 PM

Quote from: blewuporstuffed on June 17, 2010, 01:47:10 PM

Quote from: Celt_Man on June 17, 2010, 02:37:48 AM

Quote from: ziggysego on June 16, 2010, 09:34:38 PM

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Some of the bile he is spouting is vile... funny thing is he doesn;t strike me as having any sort of thought process or rebuttal to the report in that video... he seems quite stupid actually

just watched that as well, unreal stuff.
i know what you mean celtman, he doesnt come across as the smartest of cookies  :-X

In other news, it has been reported that the Pope was seen wearing a funny hat.

Wullie is certifiable.

Yes - but he's very articulate, so he is.

I spent a most enjoyable hour earlier watching wee wullie's back catalogue of work...haven't laughed as much in a long time!

I choose my words carefully here.... Willie Frazer is a **** of a man.

Listen to this little soundbite to you hear what he's like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pg9L75AG-Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pg9L75AG-Y)

The best one yet from Wullie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX6gxYhPPJo&feature=youtube_gdata

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

I'm just after showing this video to a Protestant friend of mine.

The moment Wille said there was no need for the protest, he turned to me "There was no f**king need for Love Ulster to be in Dublin!"

Boy, that is one dim bulb.

Wee Willie is bad, very bad. However, who are the gobshites that put him on the air, video him and do the producing? Do they do it for the love of 'FAIR' or do they stiffle their laughter and take their pay cheque each month?

I can see that part that says "Gerry you are nathin but a murderin' tr**p", being remixed and put to dance music.

you'll find there are a lot of protestants / unionists think exactly like willie
we can all laugh but this is the reaility

'They killed people for being pro-British. This amounts to a political, not ethno-religious, stance. Incidentally, there has never been a bomb constructed which either asks all Catholics to get out of the way before it goes off or whose effects only harm Protestants.'

It's difficult not to be pro British if you're...um...British. The effect of the IRA campaign was to make targets of the unionist / British population. That's an ethnic conflict. As for bombs being indiscriminate - absolutely. However, you can plant it in places frequented mainly by people from one side of the community (Enniskillen?). 

Willie is not right in the f**king head.  It's a pity there's no one to look about him.

I think I said before, I know someone that is quite friendly with members of his family and they're all sound apparently.

There are some fantastic videos on youtube where people kindly "translate" and subtitle Willie's speeches and thoughts.

For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hTk_l0KN2g

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 03:59:49 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

 
Now when the law makers/upholders don't willingly divulge such information do you seriously expect IRA members and the likes to come forward and spill their guts.  Catch a grip.

Some of those who now  sit in govt were former members of the organisation you mention.

Sadly, I think it unlikely that they would willingly divulge any information or "spill thier guts" as part of this "peace process"  to help other families of totally  innocent victims. More's the pity.

Whoever said that with power comes responsibility, eh?

questiontime now - donaldson the ****

I love this woman from the daily mail going on about it's the only way "WE can move on", what the f**k would she know about it?

f**king hell - new found respect for Peter Hain, what a legend, taking on Donaldson, fair play to him!

Quote from: haranguerer on June 17, 2010, 10:50:09 PM
f**king hell - new found respect for Peter Hain, what a legend, taking on Donaldson, fair play to him!

Not only taking him on, bating the head of him. Go on Hain!!

Donaldsons a twat - when Hain said there was no evidence that McGuinness had a gun, nor fired it, Donaldsons retort was that there was no evidence that many of the soldiers had fired either  ??? So the people were playing dead???

The daily mail bitch is a complete f**ker, no surprise I suppose - reminds me of Cruella deVille...

Who the f**k was that one? "I grew up in northern ireland and I feel it's very wrong to blame the british army"  :o

Great question from the lad in the audience, made him look like a **** too.

He had to throw in the 'I lost people...'. Thon woman is FAIRs representative in London I reckon - bigoted and thick as shit

Donaldson hasn't opened his mouth since the first question. He is well out of his depth now he might as well leave.

So it's no longer a case of "Hain is insane"? As the grafitti used to say in West Belfast.

Quote from: ziggysego on June 16, 2010, 09:34:38 PM

Quote from: Dún Dún on June 16, 2010, 04:49:24 PM
Here's Willie Frazer giving his opinion. Enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/user/fairmedia1

Just seeing this now. The man is living in his own planet if he can't see the truth now. But sure, what do you expect from the Crossmaglen stalker?

Holy f****.
Unreal.
"The people who organized the march knew there would be trouble so they are the ones who are solely responsible for it"
Using Wullies logic every contentious Orange march should be banned or any trouble caused  would lay at the feet of the organizers.

Quote from: tyroneboi on June 17, 2010, 11:09:41 PM
Donaldson hasn't opened his mouth since the first question. He is well out of his depth now he might as well leave.

He started off saying there should be no more inquiries because of the costs involved and finished up by saying he wouldn't be happy until there was an inquiry for every one he knew who had been killed.
I don't think he knew himself where he was going with that.

Was on the FAIR website there, just for lulz. Came across their Facebook link - which appears to be Frazer's personal page.

(http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/9437/frazer.jpg) (http://img688.imageshack.us/i/frazer.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

What a horrible horrible little ****.

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 10:29:27 PM

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 03:59:49 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

 
Now when the law makers/upholders don't willingly divulge such information do you seriously expect IRA members and the likes to come forward and spill their guts.  Catch a grip.

Some of those who now  sit in govt were former members of the organisation you mention.

Sadly, I think it unlikely that they would willingly divulge any information or "spill thier guts" as part of this "peace process"  to help other families of totally  innocent victims. More's the pity.

Whoever said that with power comes responsibility, eh?

Such an apt phrase for this thread.

I like the selective quoting there by the way.

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 11:59:00 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 10:29:27 PM

Quote from: Franko on June 17, 2010, 03:59:49 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 03:32:19 PM

Quote from: delboy on June 17, 2010, 01:16:13 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 17, 2010, 12:47:40 PM
I am not saying that any other case compares.

If it was simply a battle to clear their names of any allegation or  innuendo that appears to have been achieved.

However it is also a   good thing, albeit painful in iits delivery, that the families have found out how and (possibly) why their loved ones died and possibly who pulled the trigger.. Would they have seen the soldiers at the Tribunal?

I don't know what you mean by a "Unionist death" but knowing what happened to a loved one /who pulled the trigger/why it happened / who planted the bomb may move the bereaved families and us all forward.

Thats a case for having a tribunal for each and every death during the troubles,

It's not. It's a case for somebody who has the knowledge telling them what happened and why it happened. Fairly inexpensive in my book if there is a willingness..

 
Now when the law makers/upholders don't willingly divulge such information do you seriously expect IRA members and the likes to come forward and spill their guts.  Catch a grip.

Some of those who now  sit in govt were former members of the organisation you mention.

Sadly, I think it unlikely that they would willingly divulge any information or "spill thier guts" as part of this "peace process"  to help other families of totally  innocent victims. More's the pity.

Whoever said that with power comes responsibility, eh?

Such an apt phrase for this thread.

Indeed.

Quote from: hardstation on June 17, 2010, 10:55:54 PM
Why did thon lady in red even turn up?

The silence that greeted her statement says it all. Bitter oul cow.

Quote from: gallsman on June 18, 2010, 10:11:23 AM

Quote from: hardstation on June 17, 2010, 10:55:54 PM
Why did thon lady in red even turn up?

The silence that greeted her statement says it all. Bitter oul cow.

Exactly, Jeffrey was pathetic with the 'some of my best friends were killed line' join the fcking queue you porn king.

Another point, has anyone else noticed the new soundbites recently from the DUP?

The 'vogue' one now seems to be 'what about the other 10,000 days of the troubles?' 

not quite sure why the DUP's response to Saville is to have enquiries into IRA atrocities. The police/courts have already done this and prosecuted people for it, that's wat happens when there is a crime, you don't need to have lawyers investigating years later.
Bloody Sunday was an exception as this was state murder, in cold blood by people who were brought in to keep peace.

If they're going to keep bringing up that we need further enquiries then lets open the whole thing up - the Ballymurphy murders and all the other murders by the British Army in the north would be the first place to start. Then theres the collusion with UDR/RUC and loyalist paramilitaries

the DUP have come across as being pathetic this week, their own prime minister can bring himself to apologise and say it was unjust and wrong and they cant, all they will bleat on about is to say that why were the troops brought in in the first place and the fact that mcguinness may have been carrying a gun.

That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

They truly are a pathetic bunch.  This is really showing a lot of them up as the bitter sectarian bigots they are.

I'd like to hear EG's take on the issue.

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

IMO the wide  Unionist community are glad that this has been dealt with.

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

IMO the wide  Unionist community are glad that this has been dealt with.

I think so too, you only have to contrast the political response with the reaction of the clergy.

Lads, lassies and ladettes, like I've said before, the cornered rats of unionism/loyalism are squeaking.  It's what happens whenever the scum are exposed.  They have nothing to offer and many of us from the occupied 6 have known and experienced this for many years.   

Their reactions are typical shock politics of their sectarian murderous forefathers. 

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:32:06 AM

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

IMO the wide  Unionist community are glad that this has been dealt with.

I think so too, you only have to contrast the political response with the reaction of the clergy.

I had hoped this would be the case (and had posted on it a few pages back) but I have since seen the performances of Campbell, Donaldson, Foster etc and I am not so sure.  These are, after all, supposed to be the leaders of mainstream unionism.

If mainstream unionists are as bitter and cynical as these f**kers (their elected representatives after all) then we are a long long way away from resolving the problems here.

Quote from: Franko on June 18, 2010, 11:50:08 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:32:06 AM

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

IMO the wide  Unionist community are glad that this has been dealt with.

I think so too, you only have to contrast the political response with the reaction of the clergy.

I had hoped this would be the case (and had posted on it a few pages back) but I have since seen the performances of Campbell, Donaldson, Foster etc and I am not so sure.  These are, after all, supposed to be the leaders of mainstream unionism.

If mainstream unionists are as bitter and cynical as these f**kers (their elected representatives after all) then we are a long long way away from resolving the problems here.

I would hazard that most accept that the Paras were uncontrolled that day (both before and after Saville).

Most feel that the Inquiry was a one off inquiry  being the most controversial  and most publicised incident involving forces of their state   and an integral part of the peace process which was voted for. The frustration arises when they see some of those now in govt who could presumably give answers to hundreds of bereaved relatives.

IMO Donaldson was measured in the way he  dealt with the question on Question Time,  Campbell was over the top. Didn't hear Foster.

The comments of the poster prior  to yours fills me with similar dismay.

does anyone have a link ot the question time programme - I can't watch it on the BBC website on this side of the pond. If anyone would be willing to upload to youtube or something similar I'd appreciate it!

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 12:15:18 PM

Quote from: Franko on June 18, 2010, 11:50:08 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:32:06 AM

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

IMO the wide  Unionist community are glad that this has been dealt with.

I think so too, you only have to contrast the political response with the reaction of the clergy.

I had hoped this would be the case (and had posted on it a few pages back) but I have since seen the performances of Campbell, Donaldson, Foster etc and I am not so sure.  These are, after all, supposed to be the leaders of mainstream unionism.

If mainstream unionists are as bitter and cynical as these f**kers (their elected representatives after all) then we are a long long way away from resolving the problems here.

I would hazard that most accept that the Paras were uncontrolled that day (both before and after Saville).

Most feel that the Inquiry was a one off inquiry  being the most controversial  and most publicised incident involving forces of their state   and an integral part of the peace process which was voted for. The frustration arises when they see some of those now in govt who could presumably give answers to hundreds of bereaved relatives.

IMO Donaldson was measured in the way he  dealt with the question on Question Time,  Campbell was over the top. Didn't hear Foster.

The comments of the poster prior  to yours fills me with similar dismay.

I have to disagree.  Why was he repeatedly referring to others that have died in the troubles when asked about this specific instance?  Classic 'whataboutery'. 

And why would he not admit that he was happy to see justice done for these people?

I'll venture that the answer to the second question is because he isn't actually happy at all to see these people get justice and it shakes him to the very core to have to accept this report's findings.

In what way would you describe this as measured?

Quote from: Franko on June 18, 2010, 02:03:34 PM

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 12:15:18 PM

Quote from: Franko on June 18, 2010, 11:50:08 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:32:06 AM

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 11:27:53 AM

Quote from: Doogie Browser on June 18, 2010, 11:16:11 AM
That's what I can't grasp either, a Senior Law Lord and 'HM Government' which they hold so dear quite clearly accept Blood Sunday for what it was, yet they refuse to accept and repsect the decision, pathetic.

IMO the wide  Unionist community are glad that this has been dealt with.

I think so too, you only have to contrast the political response with the reaction of the clergy.

I had hoped this would be the case (and had posted on it a few pages back) but I have since seen the performances of Campbell, Donaldson, Foster etc and I am not so sure.  These are, after all, supposed to be the leaders of mainstream unionism.

If mainstream unionists are as bitter and cynical as these f**kers (their elected representatives after all) then we are a long long way away from resolving the problems here.

I would hazard that most accept that the Paras were uncontrolled that day (both before and after Saville).

Most feel that the Inquiry was a one off inquiry  being the most controversial  and most publicised incident involving forces of their state   and an integral part of the peace process which was voted for. The frustration arises when they see some of those now in govt who could presumably give answers to hundreds of bereaved relatives.

IMO Donaldson was measured in the way he  dealt with the question on Question Time,  Campbell was over the top. Didn't hear Foster.

The comments of the poster prior  to yours fills me with similar dismay.

I have to disagree.  Why was he repeatedly referring to others that have died in the troubles when asked about this specific instance?  Classic 'whataboutery'. 

And why would he not admit that he was happy to see justice done for these people?

I'll venture that the answer to the second question is because he isn't actually happy at all to see these people get justice and it shakes him to the very core to have to accept this report's findings.

In what way would you describe this as measured?

Because the formal  question posed by the member of the audience was whether in the light of the conclusion of the Saville Inquiry there should be enquiries into other unsolved killings during the troubles. Therefore to answer the question he had to refer to other unsolved killings.

He attempted to deal with answering the question. He was measured in doing so.

He was asked would he rejoice at the conclusion and answered that he would rejoice at the conclusion of the resolution of all unsolved killings during the Troubles IIRC. My paraphrasing of course subject to memory.

Why do you think that he wouldn't admit that he could rejoice that justice had been done for these thirteen people specifically?

Quote from: Aerlik on June 18, 2010, 11:44:24 AM
Lads, lassies and ladettes, like I've said before, the cornered rats of unionism/loyalism are squeaking.  It's what happens whenever the scum are exposed.  They have nothing to offer and many of us from the occupied 6 have known and experienced this for many years.   
Their reactions are typical shock politics of their sectarian murderous forefathers.

I have to agree with you Aerlik.
The whataboutery , moaning, whinging and soundbites and comments out of the unionist/loyalist community must now show people that these 'moderate' friends they have are not what they epouse to actually be !
people have not realised of have forgotten the propaganda-speak and mentality drummed into most unionist/loyalists from the day they are born.
You dont agree?
then why are so many  'moderates' (let alone the usual sectatian bigots like campbell, donaldson etc etc) coming out with comments, phrases etc that are shocking their Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class friends....

to answer donaldson and campbell, the reason why the army were in the six counties was as a measure to try and stop the murderous behaviour of the security forces from escalating to full scale genocide. Dramatic - youd think so , but not given the events that were happening to ordinary innocent (Irish/catholic/nationalist) folk around the six counties from the b specials, ruc and their posse of unionist/loyalist thugs that were gleefully getting stuck into the taigs !

Why the army were in Derry on Bloody sunday...at that stage they had been co-opted onto the side of the police force...so the army were a bigger band of people to use to attack the passive locals.
The IRA had come about to defend their people and areas because of the apartheid regime and the genocidal route it was taking - worsening from the oppression, brutality, beatings and persecution that had existed for mere decades...

there was no need for the army to be near the civil rights march. There was definitely no need for the cold blooded killing of 14 people and 13 more badly injured through being shot. These people were innocent, butchered by the force supposedly sent to the six counties to ward off such sectarian violence!

The apology was correct. The vindication of these 14 peoples (and others in the peaceful march) innocence was correct.

Rather than agree with this and look forward to a combined future the whataboutery and sickening responses from unionist/loyalist leaders and community are a disgrace.
Instead they are whinging about 'what about the people killed by the IRA ' ?
What about it?
Well we could counter - what about the people killed by unionist/loyalist forces!!
What about the people killed by unionist/loyalist/colluding crown force sectarian gangs...

far from being a tribunal for looking into the deaths of unionists/loyalists - the next tribunal would have to be the collusion and role of the brit army, ruc, udr, b specials etc etc  in helping, planning, arming, training and performing killing missions along with unionist/loyalist groups.

Then and only then could we look into the cases of people killed by unionist/loyalist groups or
the people killed by IRA/INLA etc.


The problem of all this was caused by the unionist/loyalist establishmen, its leaders and its people who did not want to stop with the obvious persecution and violent oppression of the nationalist/Irish/catholic peoples in the six counties.

Now will you people shut the fcuk up and accept your starting role in all of this and realise that ths whataboutery will only end up in a draw for you at best.
Allow these other people who were innocent and killed by the state to get their apologiy from the state that is so long in coming and so very deserved.
Try to have some dignity and fair play, though it hasnt been there for decades or even years over the past centuary - so its hardly going to start now.

At last the workd will see that if the Bloody sunday people were actually innocent, then maybe all the other problems we have been highlighting for decades, might also be true too !
the words and actions of the loyalist/unionist spokespeople also should allow the world and people from the south of Ireland see their true colours and what we have had to deal with for this length of time !
I just dont see why so many people are actually surprised ! its in their blood and upbringing, they just try to hide it well - and people believe these claims of 'moderate' !!!

Quote from: Franko on June 18, 2010, 02:31:12 PM
Why do you think that he wouldn't admit that he could rejoice that justice had been done for these thirteen people specifically?

I don't know and I don't know his mind but presumably his response as detailed in my last post gives me  some form of answer.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 18, 2010, 02:36:13 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on June 18, 2010, 11:44:24 AM
Lads, lassies and ladettes, like I've said before, the cornered rats of unionism/loyalism are squeaking.  It's what happens whenever the scum are exposed.  They have nothing to offer and many of us from the occupied 6 have known and experienced this for many years.   
Their reactions are typical shock politics of their sectarian murderous forefathers.

I have to agree with you Aerlik.
The whataboutery , moaning, whinging and soundbites and comments out of the unionist/loyalist community must now show people that these 'moderate' friends they have are not what they epouse to actually be !
people have not realised of have forgotten the propaganda-speak and mentality drummed into most unionist/loyalists from the day they are born.
You dont agree?
then why are so many  'moderates' (let alone the usual sectatian bigots like campbell, donaldson etc etc) coming out with comments, phrases etc that are shocking their Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class friends....

to answer donaldson and campbell, the reason why the army were in the six counties was as a measure to try and stop the murderous behaviour of the security forces from escalating to full scale genocide. Dramatic - youd think so , but not given the events that were happening to ordinary innocent (Irish/catholic/nationalist) folk around the six counties from the b specials, ruc and their posse of unionist/loyalist thugs that were gleefully getting stuck into the taigs !

Why the army were in Derry on Bloody sunday...at that stage they had been co-opted onto the side of the police force...so the army were a bigger band of people to use to attack the passive locals.
The IRA had come about to defend their people and areas because of the apartheid regime and the genocidal route it was taking - worsening from the oppression, brutality, beatings and persecution that had existed for mere decades...

there was no need for the army to be near the civil rights march. There was definitely no need for the cold blooded killing of 14 people and 13 more badly injured through being shot. These people were innocent, butchered by the force supposedly sent to the six counties to ward off such sectarian violence!

The apology was correct. The vindication of these 14 peoples (and others in the peaceful march) innocence was correct.

Rather than agree with this and look forward to a combined future the whataboutery and sickening responses from unionist/loyalist leaders and community are a disgrace.
Instead they are whinging about 'what about the people killed by the IRA ' ?
What about it?
Well we could counter - what about the people killed by unionist/loyalist forces!!
What about the people killed by unionist/loyalist/colluding crown force sectarian gangs...

far from being a tribunal for looking into the deaths of unionists/loyalists - the next tribunal would have to be the collusion and role of the brit army, ruc, udr, b specials etc etc  in helping, planning, arming, training and performing killing missions along with unionist/loyalist groups.

Then and only then could we look into the cases of people killed by unionist/loyalist groups or
the people killed by IRA/INLA etc.


The problem of all this was caused by the unionist/loyalist establishmen, its leaders and its people who did not want to stop with the obvious persecution and violent oppression of the nationalist/Irish/catholic peoples in the six counties.

Now will you people shut the fcuk up and accept your starting role in all of this and realise that ths whataboutery will only end up in a draw for you at best.
Allow these other people who were innocent and killed by the state to get their apologiy from the state that is so long in coming and so very deserved.
Try to have some dignity and fair play, though it hasnt been there for decades or even years over the past centuary - so its hardly going to start now.

At last the workd will see that if the Bloody sunday people were actually innocent, then maybe all the other problems we have been highlighting for decades, might also be true too !
the words and actions of the loyalist/unionist spokespeople also should allow the world and people from the south of Ireland see their true colours and what we have had to deal with for this length of time !
I just dont see why so many people are actually surprised ! its in their blood and upbringing, they just try to hide it well - and people believe these claims of 'moderate' !!!

well said Lynchboy!!!!!

You are being disingenuous Olaf IMO. Either that or you are as blinkered as GC & JD

This is all about state forces and the institutions of law and order at the highest levels colluding in the cold hearted killing and the blackening of the reputations of it's own citizens to cover up it's evil deeds. JD, GC etc could have called it like it was before they started this what about business. Is this the type of society that JD & GC want to live in where you can't trust the highest powers in the land to protect it's citizens?

The answer to the question is because so many of the unionist population simply hate catholics and the leadership of unionism are shit scared to show proper leadership to their knuckle dragging brethern. Maybe they're just not ready for it. A lifetime of hate breeding just can't be turned on its head just like that I suppose

Quote from: Olaf on June 18, 2010, 02:40:53 PM

Quote from: Franko on June 18, 2010, 02:31:12 PM
Why do you think that he wouldn't admit that he could rejoice that justice had been done for these thirteen people specifically?

I don't know and I don't know his mind but presumably his response as detailed in my last post gives me  some form of answer.

Cop out.

That's as waffly a bullshit answer as we've been hearing coming from Campbell and Co over the past few days.

Answer the question.  Surely you have some opinion.  Your last post tells me absolutely nothing about the question I asked.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 18, 2010, 02:36:13 PM

Quote from: Aerlik on June 18, 2010, 11:44:24 AM
Lads, lassies and ladettes, like I've said before, the cornered rats of unionism/loyalism are squeaking.  It's what happens whenever the scum are exposed.  They have nothing to offer and many of us from the occupied 6 have known and experienced this for many years.   
Their reactions are typical shock politics of their sectarian murderous forefathers.

I have to agree with you Aerlik.
The whataboutery , moaning, whinging and soundbites and comments out of the unionist/loyalist community must now show people that these 'moderate' friends they have are not what they epouse to actually be !
people have not realised of have forgotten the propaganda-speak and mentality drummed into most unionist/loyalists from the day they are born.
You dont agree?
then why are so many  'moderates' (let alone the usual sectatian bigots like campbell, donaldson etc etc) coming out with comments, phrases etc that are shocking their Irish/catholic/nationalist/working class friends....

to answer donaldson and campbell, the reason why the army were in the six counties was as a measure to try and stop the murderous behaviour of the security forces from escalating to full scale genocide. Dramatic - youd think so , but not given the events that were happening to ordinary innocent (Irish/catholic/nationalist) folk around the six counties from the b specials, ruc and their posse of unionist/loyalist thugs that were gleefully getting stuck into the taigs !

Why the army were in Derry on Bloody sunday...at that stage they had been co-opted onto the side of the police force...so the army were a bigger band of people to use to attack the passive locals.
The IRA had come about to defend their people and areas because of the apartheid regime and the genocidal route it was taking - worsening from the oppression, brutality, beatings and persecution that had existed for mere decades...

there was no need for the army to be near the civil rights march. There was definitely no need for the cold blooded killing of 14 people and 13 more badly injured through being shot. These people were innocent, butchered by the force supposedly sent to the six counties to ward off such sectarian violence!

The apology was correct. The vindication of these 14 peoples (and others in the peaceful march) innocence was correct.

Rather than agree with this and look forward to a combined future the whataboutery and sickening responses from unionist/loyalist leaders and community are a disgrace.
Instead they are whinging about 'what about the people killed by the IRA ' ?
What about it?
Well we could counter - what about the people killed by unionist/loyalist forces!!
What about the people killed by unionist/loyalist/colluding crown force sectarian gangs...

far from being a tribunal for looking into the deaths of unionists/loyalists - the next tribunal would have to be the collusion and role of the brit army, ruc, udr, b specials etc etc  in helping, planning, arming, training and performing killing missions along with unionist/loyalist groups.

Then and only then could we look into the cases of people killed by unionist/loyalist groups or
the people killed by IRA/INLA etc.


The problem of all this was caused by the unionist/loyalist establishmen, its leaders and its people who did not want to stop with the obvious persecution and violent oppression of the nationalist/Irish/catholic peoples in the six counties.

Now will you people shut the fcuk up and accept your starting role in all of this and realise that ths whataboutery will only end up in a draw for you at best.
Allow these other people who were innocent and killed by the state to get their apologiy from the state that is so long in coming and so very deserved.
Try to have some dignity and fair play, though it hasnt been there for decades or even years over the past centuary - so its hardly going to start now.

At last the workd will see that if the Bloody sunday people were actually innocent, then maybe all the other problems we have been highlighting for decades, might also be true too !
the words and actions of the loyalist/unionist spokespeople also should allow the world and people from the south of Ireland see their true colours and what we have had to deal with for this length of time !
I just dont see why so many people are actually surprised ! its in their blood and upbringing, they just try to hide it well - and people believe these claims of 'moderate' !!!

Usual oul guff from LB, just a bit longer than the norm. Good to see apartheid getting a mention again!

So ..did none of the things he mentioned happen ?

Quote from: Rossfan on June 18, 2010, 06:17:00 PM
So ..did none of the things he mentioned happen ?

There was no apartheid or genocide. I stopped reading after spotting these two words, as it was obviously going to be the usual tripe he posts.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 18, 2010, 06:42:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on June 18, 2010, 06:17:00 PM
So ..did none of the things he mentioned happen ?

There was no apartheid or genocide. I stopped reading after spotting these two words, as it was obviously going to be the usual tripe he posts.

Ah that old chestnut!  Convenient and childish.

He didn't say genocide happened.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 18, 2010, 06:42:34 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on June 18, 2010, 06:17:00 PM
So ..did none of the things he mentioned happen ?

There was no apartheid or genocide. I stopped reading after spotting these two words, as it was obviously going to be the usual tripe he posts.

He didnt say anything about Genocide

Definition of Apartheid
"a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination against a community/group of people"

You're correct,thats rubbish,nothing like that ever occured down there against Nationalists  ::)

MnaG has been down more holes than Tiger Woods

Excellent post Lynchboy

Nope, not an excellent post at all LB. Same oul tripe, same oul republican crap. Apartheid? Like what - Soweto? Point me out our Soweto, please. And like, if northern nationalists were so oppressed, how come there was such a thriving Catholic middle class? Where did all the Catholic teachers come from? The Catholic solicitors and doctors? Complete load of balls, as per usual. The genocidal route? Please. Who killed more Catholics than the British forces? The IRA. Who outkilled every other armed grouping? The IRA. Get your heads out of yer republican arses, lads.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8747827.stm 

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 18, 2010, 11:04:23 PM
Nope, not an excellent post at all LB. Same oul tripe, same oul republican crap. Apartheid? Like what - Soweto? Point me out our Soweto, please. And like, if northern nationalists were so oppressed, how come there was such a thriving Catholic middle class? Where did all the Catholic teachers come from? The Catholic solicitors and doctors? Complete load of balls, as per usual. The genocidal route? Please. Who killed more Catholics than the British forces? The IRA. Who outkilled every other armed grouping? The IRA. Get your heads out of yer republican arses, lads.

thriving middle class ? where did Catholic teachers come from ....it looks like you are scraping the barrel in a big way here!!!!

you obviously know nothing of the life that nationalists/catholics/working class had to endure in those times !!!

If things were not heading towards a genocidal routie - why did the british gov send in the troops ????

the IRA killed mostly security forces personnel ...
while not good , it was a war,...and in war times people get killed...its either killing taigs or protecting taigs

Apart from clearing up your misconceptions on what happned in the few decades war  - it should be mentioned again that unionist/loyalist persons tried to continue the attack against nationalist/catholic/Irish/taigs via bloody sunday and the lack of an apology from these unionist/loyalist forces is striking !!

myles - your unionist/loyalist people by their silence speaks volumes !!!

but we expected nothing more from them all other than this !!!
I am proven right again !!!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 19, 2010, 01:13:51 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 18, 2010, 11:04:23 PM
Nope, not an excellent post at all LB. Same oul tripe, same oul republican crap. Apartheid? Like what - Soweto? Point me out our Soweto, please. And like, if northern nationalists were so oppressed, how come there was such a thriving Catholic middle class? Where did all the Catholic teachers come from? The Catholic solicitors and doctors? Complete load of balls, as per usual. The genocidal route? Please. Who killed more Catholics than the British forces? The IRA. Who outkilled every other armed grouping? The IRA. Get your heads out of yer republican arses, lads.

thriving middle class ? where did Catholic teachers come from ....it looks like you are scraping the barrel in a big way here!!!!

you obviously know nothing of the life that nationalists/catholics/working class had to endure in those times !!!

If things were not heading towards a genocidal routie - why did the british gov send in the troops ????

the IRA killed mostly security forces personnel ...
while not good , it was a war,...and in war times people get killed...its either killing taigs or protecting taigs

Apart from clearing up your misconceptions on what happned in the few decades war  - it should be mentioned again that unionist/loyalist persons tried to continue the attack against nationalist/catholic/Irish/taigs via bloody sunday and the lack of an apology from these unionist/loyalist forces is striking !!

myles - your unionist/loyalist people by their silence speaks volumes !!!

but we expected nothing more from them all other than this !!!
I am proven right again !!!

Next you'll be telling us about the gas chambers and the trains full of working class Catholics at central station...

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 19, 2010, 01:13:51 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 18, 2010, 11:04:23 PM
Nope, not an excellent post at all LB. Same oul tripe, same oul republican crap. Apartheid? Like what - Soweto? Point me out our Soweto, please. And like, if northern nationalists were so oppressed, how come there was such a thriving Catholic middle class? Where did all the Catholic teachers come from? The Catholic solicitors and doctors? Complete load of balls, as per usual. The genocidal route? Please. Who killed more Catholics than the British forces? The IRA. Who outkilled every other armed grouping? The IRA. Get your heads out of yer republican arses, lads.

thriving middle class ? where did Catholic teachers come from ....it looks like you are scraping the barrel in a big way here!!!!

you obviously know nothing of the life that nationalists/catholics/working class had to endure in those times !!!

If things were not heading towards a genocidal routie - why did the british gov send in the troops ????

the IRA killed mostly security forces personnel ...
while not good , it was a war,...and in war times people get killed...its either killing taigs or protecting taigs
Apart from clearing up your misconceptions on what happned in the few decades war  - it should be mentioned again that unionist/loyalist persons tried to continue the attack against nationalist/catholic/Irish/taigs via bloody sunday and the lack of an apology from these unionist/loyalist forces is striking !!

myles - your unionist/loyalist people by their silence speaks volumes !!!

but we expected nothing more from them all other than this !!!
I am proven right again !!!

How do you protect taigs by...er...killing them?
Interesting that in recent days another republican myth - The Battle of the Short Strand - has been given short shrift by the HET. The incident, you may recall, was one of the defining moments for the provos, as it allowed them to claim that they were the real defenders of the Catholic people. Leading provos like Billy McKee and Denis Donaldson made their reputations by defending St Matthews church and fending off loyalist attackers. Three people died, 2 protestants and a catholic. For years the provos claimed that the catholic was one of their own and that he died on active service. Much to the delight of his family, however, the man has now been cleared of any IRA connections. Seems he was just an innocent man shot by the IRA by mistake. In addition, the HET concluded that both the protestants were innocent victims too, shot making their way home from the bar on the Newtownards road. Far from being the defenders, the report concluded that the provos had started the shooting long before loyalist paramilitaries showed up. Some heroes!

A few links, including the IRA 's own version.
http://saoirse32.blogsome.com/2005/06/27/nationalists-remember-the-battle-of-st-matthews/
http://sluggerotoole.com/2009/05/26/truth-lies-buried-in-grounds-of-st-matthews/
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/The-wounds-are-still-raw.6333976.jp

Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 19, 2010, 07:45:04 AM
next  you'll be telling us about the gas chambers and the trains full of working class Catholics at central station...

do you have an actual point?
If you have something of merit to add to any debate please give us you
contribution!
It would make a nice change!
Point out what part of what I wrote that might be incorrect from your own perspective!

Completely irreverent Myles!!
Both in the context of that the IRA protected the catholic/nationalists/Irish in the six counties (soweto) or in the context of the topic of this thread.
You seem to think one instance changes the entire mantra! :D

also can you not break ranks with your unionist colleagues and support and applaud the vindication of innocence of the victims of bloody Sunday?
It would make a nice change for you to embrace reality!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 19, 2010, 09:17:20 AM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 19, 2010, 07:45:04 AM
next  you'll be telling us about the gas chambers and the trains full of working class Catholics at central station...

do you have an actual point?
If you have something of merit to add to any debate please give us you
contribution!
It would make a nice change!
Point out what part of what I wrote that might be incorrect from your own perspective!

Your posts always make me laugh - well the ones I finish reading. You are incapable of commenting without using the word "apartheid". Does someone throw you a biscuit if you use it?

This is worth a watch - only 7 minutes long:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_week/8747827.stm

Interesting point about Cameron rewriting a speech given to him by civil servants - he has earned himself a few brownie points over here with people who traditionally would have little time for a Conservative government.

Also an amusing anecdote at the end about John Simpson being followed around Derry by McGuinness and thinking it was his last night!

Fair play to Cameron indeed.
Now what a pity the Myleses, Baloneys, Donaldsons,bitter twisted Campbells and their ilk couldnt have followed their Prime Minister's example.
Keep attacking Lynchboy to avoid the real issue obviouslt makes the blinkered ones on this Board feel better about themselves and saves them having to face the real facts about the causes of the northern "Troubles".

even more impressed with cameron now knowing it was his own words after watching that clip

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 19, 2010, 09:37:26 AM
Completely irreverent Myles!!
Both in the context of that the IRA protected the catholic/nationalists/Irish in the six counties (soweto) or in the context of the topic of this thread.
You seem to think one instance changes the entire mantra! :D

also can you not break ranks with your unionist colleagues and support and applaud the vindication of innocence of the victims of bloody Sunday?
It would make a nice change for you to embrace reality!

see post 121 on this thread.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 19, 2010, 09:17:20 AM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 19, 2010, 07:45:04 AM
next  you'll be telling us about the gas chambers and the trains full of working class Catholics at central station...

do you have an actual point?
If you have something of merit to add to any debate please give us you
contribution!
It would make a nice change!
Point out what part of what I wrote that might be incorrect from your own perspective!

I disagree with everything you write, always.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 17, 2010, 06:14:21 PM
'They killed people for being pro-British. This amounts to a political, not ethno-religious, stance. Incidentally, there has never been a bomb constructed which either asks all Catholics to get out of the way before it goes off or whose effects only harm Protestants.'

It's difficult not to be pro British if you're...um...British. The effect of the IRA campaign was to make targets of the unionist / British population. That's an ethnic conflict. As for bombs being indiscriminate - absolutely. However, you can plant it in places frequented mainly by people from one side of the community (Enniskillen?).

There is no doubt that the IRA killed more Protestants than Catholics, and that the vast majority of people they killed identified as British. However, given that ethnic means 'of, relating to, or characteristic of a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage' then the muddying of the waters between national identity, religious identity and political identity in the north make that phrase inadequate. Describing the IRA's campaign as one positioned against an ethnic group does not really hold with the central truth that many Irishmen and women were killed by them, or the post-colonial aspect which politicises all identity in the north.

Your point about Enniskillen brings up another--were the people who killed Germans, Japanese and Italians in the wars ethnocentric murderers as well? I think an obvious retort would be that (the horrific act of) the Enniskillen Bombing was carried out against British Forces with a callous disregard for the human 'collateral'. It was apparently not 'sanctioned' anyway. There are other instances of bombings which you could mention but I think what the Bloody Sunday Tribunal has proven is that each atrocity can only be balanced on individual merits, and that neither you or I are able to comment on them without a similar amount of endeavour and testimony.  Plenty of Irish people were seen as 'acceptable collateral' by some of those bastards though; it isn't too far to suggest that they were narrow-minded enough not to consider any of the people they killed as British-Irish or vice-versa either. It does not erase the political goal, though, however untenable it was and is to you.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 19, 2010, 08:12:28 AM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on June 19, 2010, 01:13:51 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 18, 2010, 11:04:23 PM
Nope, not an excellent post at all LB. Same oul tripe, same oul republican crap. Apartheid? Like what - Soweto? Point me out our Soweto, please. And like, if northern nationalists were so oppressed, how come there was such a thriving Catholic middle class? Where did all the Catholic teachers come from? The Catholic solicitors and doctors? Complete load of balls, as per usual. The genocidal route? Please. Who killed more Catholics than the British forces? The IRA. Who outkilled every other armed grouping? The IRA. Get your heads out of yer republican arses, lads.

thriving middle class ? where did Catholic teachers come from ....it looks like you are scraping the barrel in a big way here!!!!

you obviously know nothing of the life that nationalists/catholics/working class had to endure in those times !!!

If things were not heading towards a genocidal routie - why did the british gov send in the troops ????

the IRA killed mostly security forces personnel ...
while not good , it was a war,...and in war times people get killed...its either killing taigs or protecting taigs
Apart from clearing up your misconceptions on what happned in the few decades war  - it should be mentioned again that unionist/loyalist persons tried to continue the attack against nationalist/catholic/Irish/taigs via bloody sunday and the lack of an apology from these unionist/loyalist forces is striking !!

myles - your unionist/loyalist people by their silence speaks volumes !!!

but we expected nothing more from them all other than this !!!
I am proven right again !!!

How do you protect taigs by...er...killing them?
Interesting that in recent days another republican myth - The Battle of the Short Strand - has been given short shrift by the HET. The incident, you may recall, was one of the defining moments for the provos, as it allowed them to claim that they were the real defenders of the Catholic people. Leading provos like Billy McKee and Denis Donaldson made their reputations by defending St Matthews church and fending off loyalist attackers. Three people died, 2 protestants and a catholic. For years the provos claimed that the catholic was one of their own and that he died on active service. Much to the delight of his family, however, the man has now been cleared of any IRA connections. Seems he was just an innocent man shot by the IRA by mistake. In addition, the HET concluded that both the protestants were innocent victims too, shot making their way home from the bar on the Newtownards road. Far from being the defenders, the report concluded that the provos had started the shooting long before loyalist paramilitaries showed up. Some heroes!

One of them was my father in laws uncle, he was indeed heading home from the pub, he bleed out because the gunman kept trying to shoot anyone that tried to get to him.

Lads, I'll say again, if yous want to talk about the IRA and what they done (rightly or wrongly) will yous please start another thread. This thread is about BLOODY SUNDAY. Nothing to do with the IRA. 

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 19, 2010, 04:13:31 PM
Lads, I'll say again, if yous want to talk about the IRA and what they done (rightly or wrongly) will yous please start another thread. This thread is about BLOODY SUNDAY. Nothing to do with the IRA.

Saville gave over two longish chapters to the IRA. He took evidence from many provisional and official IRA people. On the other hand, he didn't spend any time at all talking about French farmers and interviewed not one Gallic agricultural worker. That's because Bloody Sunday had nothing to do French farmers...

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 19, 2010, 06:49:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 19, 2010, 04:13:31 PM
Lads, I'll say again, if yous want to talk about the IRA and what they done (rightly or wrongly) will yous please start another thread. This thread is about BLOODY SUNDAY. Nothing to do with the IRA.

Saville gave over two longish chapters to the IRA. He took evidence from many provisional and official IRA people. On the other hand, he didn't spend any time at all talking about French farmers and interviewed not one Gallic agricultural worker. That's because Bloody Sunday had nothing to do French farmers...

You really are a pathetic little man. Did the report find the IRA responsible for any part of Bloody Sunday? No is the answer, so why are you talking about them

A 5,000 page report that clears the victims of Bloody Sunday of any blame whatsoever and we still have assholes on this
board trying to defend the indefensible :'(  Says it all really.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 19, 2010, 07:35:18 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 19, 2010, 06:49:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 19, 2010, 04:13:31 PM
Lads, I'll say again, if yous want to talk about the IRA and what they done (rightly or wrongly) will yous please start another thread. This thread is about BLOODY SUNDAY. Nothing to do with the IRA.

Saville gave over two longish chapters to the IRA. He took evidence from many provisional and official IRA people. On the other hand, he didn't spend any time at all talking about French farmers and interviewed not one Gallic agricultural worker. That's because Bloody Sunday had nothing to do French farmers...

You really are a pathetic little man. Did the report find the IRA responsible for any part of Bloody Sunday? No is the answer, so why are you talking about them

Why was Saville talking about them?

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on June 19, 2010, 09:09:09 PM
A 5,000 page report that clears the victims of Bloody Sunday of any blame whatsoever and we still have assholes on this
board trying to defend the indefensible :'(  Says it all really.

Who is defending the indefensible? Point out where these assholes are doing it please. Otherwise fcuk up.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2010, 12:17:06 AM

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on June 19, 2010, 09:09:09 PM
A 5,000 page report that clears the victims of Bloody Sunday of any blame whatsoever and we still have assholes on this
board trying to defend the indefensible :'(  Says it all really.

Who is defending the indefensible? Point out where these assholes are doing it please. Otherwise fcuk up.

On youre say so? Dont think so.

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on June 20, 2010, 12:26:23 AM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2010, 12:17:06 AM

Quote from: 020304 Tir Eoghain on June 19, 2010, 09:09:09 PM
A 5,000 page report that clears the victims of Bloody Sunday of any blame whatsoever and we still have assholes on this
board trying to defend the indefensible :'(  Says it all really.

Who is defending the indefensible? Point out where these assholes are doing it please. Otherwise fcuk up.

On youre say so? Dont think so.

So you can't point out where anyone has been defending the indefensible?  And you can't identify the assholes? Okay.  ::)

The report was partly a long awaited vindication of people who were criminalised after being murdered and credit to the report for the 100% nature of the vindication.
Apart from lawyers who have probably earned a tidy sum in the process, that vindication alone justifies the methodical collection of the comprehensive archive of witness statements about the events of that day.

Imo, the the other part of the Saville Inquiry was  the act of shifting the focus of  Widgery whitewash a few degrees from the civilians to the paratroopers and their local command.
I am quite mystified as to how Saville found no serious questions about the strategy of General Ford in deploying the paratroopers or another one in the command structure (Jackson?) who now a top General. 
It suits the British establishment to claim that it was just the paratroopers  who lost their head, that no responsibility lay for their action with the political& military,  purposeful strategy of deploying these thugs with machine guns against civilians.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2010, 12:15:48 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 19, 2010, 07:35:18 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 19, 2010, 06:49:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 19, 2010, 04:13:31 PM
Lads, I'll say again, if yous want to talk about the IRA and what they done (rightly or wrongly) will yous please start another thread. This thread is about BLOODY SUNDAY. Nothing to do with the IRA.

Saville gave over two longish chapters to the IRA. He took evidence from many provisional and official IRA people. On the other hand, he didn't spend any time at all talking about French farmers and interviewed not one Gallic agricultural worker. That's because Bloody Sunday had nothing to do French farmers...

You really are a pathetic little man. Did the report find the IRA responsible for any part of Bloody Sunday? No is the answer, so why are you talking about them

Why was Saville talking about them?

Saville mostly spoke about them to refute the brits claim that they were fired on first and that the IRA had shot the civilians. A blatant lie of course. He also spoke on how the event fueled the fire of the war for years to come and was a big recruiter for the IRA. He did not seek to equaliser future IRA attacks with this british one. So I ask again, why are you going on about the IRA?

John Bowman reminded me of "The Butcher's Dozen" (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/bsunday/kinsella.htm) this morning. He had a recording of Kinsella reading it. Doggerel, as described by Kinsella himself, but powerful and scathing.

Growing up in Armagh I was rarely given any opportunity to mix with Protestants apart from a few scuffles with the Royal School on the Mall.  At University I lived in the Halls at UUJ and met a fair bunch of them. The majority of them were civil and good auld craic as long as we didn't venture into politics or religion.
I have stayed in contact with a good few of them mostly through Facebook and the like but the older I get the more I realize that topics like religion and politics are fundamental to who I am.  The more I listen to the sickening responses of my so called Protestant "friends" and read similar posters here the more I want to distance myself from these protestants and their blinkered opinions.
The facts are there in black and white. The truth we've all know for decades.  I don't see any way to work together as two communities on this if protestants will never acknowledge the past  - only then, in my opinion, can we fully embrace the future of this island.
The positive to come from all of this is now the rest of the world is beginning to recognize what we as Irish Catholics/Nationalists/Republicans have always lived with......

Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 20, 2010, 12:08:59 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 20, 2010, 12:15:48 AM

Quote from: mylestheslasher on June 19, 2010, 07:35:18 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on June 19, 2010, 06:49:28 PM

Quote from: pintsofguinness on June 19, 2010, 04:13:31 PM
Lads, I'll say again, if yous want to talk about the IRA and what they done (rightly or wrongly) will yous please start another thread. This thread is about BLOODY SUNDAY. Nothing to do with the IRA.

Saville gave over two longish chapters to the IRA. He took evidence from many provisional and official IRA people. On the other hand, he didn't spend any time at all talking about French farmers and interviewed not one Gallic agricultural worker. That's because Bloody Sunday had nothing to do French farmers...

You really are a pathetic little man. Did the report find the IRA responsible for any part of Bloody Sunday? No is the answer, so why are you talking about them

Why was Saville talking about them?

Saville mostly spoke about them to refute the brits claim that they were fired on first and that the IRA had shot the civilians. A blatant lie of course. He also spoke on how the event fueled the fire of the war for years to come and was a big recruiter for the IRA. He did not seek to equaliser future IRA attacks with this british one. So I ask again, why are you going on about the IRA?

'The IRA had come about to defend their people and areas because of the apartheid regime and the genocidal route it was taking.' That was posted by Lynchbhoy on 18th June. Noone rounded on him to tell him to stop discussing the IRA. On the contrary, a couple of posters weighed in praising his rambling rewriting of recent Irish history. However, as soon as somone posts something critical about the IRA, people start wetting their pants and insisting that the thread is going off topic. Wonder why?

Did any of you read the report in the Irish News where the serving British soldier said that the Saville report was a load of shite and that the paras were 100% right to kill the -------- in Derry that day ?.


Pig and grunt comes to mind.

Quote from: orangeman on June 24, 2010, 06:02:45 PM
Did any of you read the report in the Irish News where the serving British soldier said that the Saville report was a load of shite and that the paras were 100% right to kill the -------- in Derry that day ?.


Pig and grunt comes to mind.

Seen that. The article also said that he had posted on his facebook support for the BNP.

RTE showing a Bloody Sunday documentary tonight at 10.15pm that has followed the families throughout the inquiry.

Quote from: Rois on June 24, 2010, 06:21:34 PM
RTE showing a Bloody Sunday documentary tonight at 10.15pm that has followed the families throughout the inquiry.

Gruesome stuff in this tonight.

Karma

A retired British army colonel has been shot and killed during a robbery at his son's home in Nairobi, Kenya.

Edward Loden, who commanded the unit involved in the Bloody Sunday shootings in Northern Ireland, was on holiday when he was shot on Saturday evening.

The attack happened after armed men forced their way into the compound in the Langata suburb.

A family statement described Col Loden as a "devoted family man" and said his death was a "brutal tragedy".

The BBC's East Africa correspondent Gabriel Gatehouse said he died on the way to hospital.

A former colonel in the Parachute Regiment, Col Loden served on numerous operations around the world and was awarded the Military Cross for service in Aden in 1967.

In 1972, he was in command of a Parachute Regiment unit that fired more than 100 shots during a civil rights march in Londonderry.

Thirteen civilians were killed at the scene and a 14th victim died from his wounds five months later.

Col Loden was exonerated by the Saville Inquiry into the killings, which said that he did not realise his soldiers might be firing at people who did not pose a threat.

He retired from the Army in 1992, and after following a career in business management, retired to pursue his love of sailing in 1999, his family said.

The statement added: "Edward, married to Jill, father of Jamie and Will, was a devoted family man and proud grandfather of Oliver, Amelia, Joshua, Harry and Emily.

"Jill and her sons would like to say thank you to all the overwhelming messages of love and support from wider friends and family, and request that the family be given time to come to terms with this brutal tragedy."

The killing comes after the murder of another former British army colonel, David Parkinson, who was killed by an armed gang at his home near Nanyuki, Laikipia, in August.

Col Parkinson, an ex-commander of a base in the area, and his wife were attacked after a gang of suspected robbers, armed with machetes and a gun, smashed their way into the house.

Mrs Parkinson escaped after hiding in a strong room.

Decision due today at 11 on whether prosecutions will be brought against the paras involved.
Given what Brady stated last week I'm not very hopeful.

Quote from: Insane Bolt on March 14, 2019, 08:14:56 AM
Decision due today at 11 on whether prosecutions will be brought against the paras involved.
Given what Brady stated last week I'm not very hopeful.

This mornings Irish News thinks different .....let's hope it's right.

Quote from: Insane Bolt on March 14, 2019, 08:14:56 AM
Decision due today at 11 on whether prosecutions will be brought against the paras involved.
Given what Brady stated last week I'm not very hopeful.

Neither am I. Never was.

Quote from: BennyCake on March 14, 2019, 09:32:07 AM

Quote from: Insane Bolt on March 14, 2019, 08:14:56 AM
Decision due today at 11 on whether prosecutions will be brought against the paras involved.
Given what Brady stated last week I'm not very hopeful.

Neither am I. Never was.

Given the position of the DUP in the sphere of influence at the present time and the inability of Britain to deal with or admit to the wrongdoings of their colonial past and present I cant see how it will be anything other than another whitewash and series of hankered delays until all the soldiers are dead and gone therefore negating the ability to prosecute.

Absolute cop out.
One former soldier, soldier F, is to be prosecuted over Bloody Sunday, facing two charges of murder and four of attempted murder, the @thePPSNI has announced in Derry.

He likely  has a terminal illness.

The Public Prosecution Service said on Thursday there was enough evidence to prosecute Soldier F for the murders of James Wray and William McKinney, he also face charges for the attempted murders of Joseph Friel, Michael Quinn, Joe Mahon and Patrick O'Donnell.

The PPS said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute 16 other soldiers.

Gutted for the families. We are dirt under the shoes of the Brits in their opinion. The sooner there is a successful border poll the better so we can be forever detached from that despicable and deplorable bunch.

Quote from: Rossfan on March 14, 2019, 11:08:03 AM
He likely  has a terminal illness.

Exactly.  And unable to stand trial.  Case closed and the families left pick up the pieces.  Justice System?  Injustice System

One question though:

Are you surprised?

Soldier F:  I don't know if he is the oldest and most infirm but he was the one that was most caught out in previous inquiries.  Not just for stonewalling (as many others did) but for outright lies.   He changed his story multiple times, starting when he found out that ballistics tests were done on his rifle.

He is definitely the most open and shut case.

That said he and the other 3 soldiers with him did most of the killing and you wonder why they get off.

/Jim.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 14, 2019, 11:50:22 AM
Soldier F:  I don't know if he is the oldest and most infirm but he was the one that was most caught out in previous inquiries.  Not just for stonewalling (as many others did) but for outright lies.   He changed his story multiple times, starting when he found out that ballistics tests were done on his rifle.

He is definitely the most open and shut case.

That said he and the other 3 soldiers with him did most of the killing and you wonder why they get off.

/Jim.

2 of them are dead.

Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 14, 2019, 11:52:40 AM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 14, 2019, 11:50:22 AM
Soldier F:  I don't know if he is the oldest and most infirm but he was the one that was most caught out in previous inquiries.  Not just for stonewalling (as many others did) but for outright lies.   He changed his story multiple times, starting when he found out that ballistics tests were done on his rifle.

He is definitely the most open and shut case.

That said he and the other 3 soldiers with him did most of the killing and you wonder why they get off.

/Jim.

2 of them are dead.

That rules them out then.

/Jim.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 14, 2019, 12:02:41 PM

Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 14, 2019, 11:52:40 AM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 14, 2019, 11:50:22 AM
Soldier F:  I don't know if he is the oldest and most infirm but he was the one that was most caught out in previous inquiries.  Not just for stonewalling (as many others did) but for outright lies.   He changed his story multiple times, starting when he found out that ballistics tests were done on his rifle.

He is definitely the most open and shut case.

That said he and the other 3 soldiers with him did most of the killing and you wonder why they get off.

/Jim.

2 of them are dead.

That rules them out then.

/Jim.

There is an article in the Spectator today stating he was responsible for 4, not just the 2 they are able to charge him for.

From the Spectator!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/

Successive Irish governments have been spineless bastards in all of this.....then again that is no surprise either.

Quote from: Harold Disgracey on March 14, 2019, 12:06:40 PM
From the Spectator!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/

Very interesting article.

I think this same unit caused x2 deaths in the Shankill as well if I'm not mistaken ? Although I am unsure of the time frame in comparison to Bloody Sunday if it's an unfair assumption to say the same people could have been involved.

Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 14, 2019, 12:08:59 PM

Quote from: Harold Disgracey on March 14, 2019, 12:06:40 PM
From the Spectator!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/

Very interesting article.

I think this same unit caused x2 deaths in the Shankill as well if I'm not mistaken ? Although I am unsure of the time frame in comparison to Bloody Sunday if it's an unfair assumption to say the same people could have been involved.

Ballymurphy would be another. Both Derry and Ballymurphy were the 1st battalion and were only 7 months apart. Maybe F got a taste for it and knew he could get away with it after Ballymurphy!

I wonder how history would have different here if Jackson could have put his hands up in 1972 and admitted one 1 brick went rogue and the 4 offenders had been court-martialled and demobbed.

Quote from: Insane Bolt on March 14, 2019, 12:08:09 PM
Successive Irish governments have been spineless b**tards in all of this.....then again that is no surprise either.

I find the words 'Irish government' and 'spineless bastards' usually appear in the same sentence.

Just like the one above.

Mood not at all good here in Derry today.

British Bastards

Extremely disappointing but not a massive surprise. Must be devastating for the families

Bradley's speech in Parliament was the giveaway. Once I heard that, it put the tin hat on things.

Now, the Brits can more or less tell the families, that's the end of that. Go away and don't bother us any more. The same thing will happen with Ballymurphy and the whole Legacy thing will become pointless.

The fact that spineless twat Williamson has said soldier F will have full legal support and welfare is damning. Bloody Sunday had soldiers acting on orders of superior officers, with the full backing of government. Incredibly sad for the families and I don't know where they go from here.

Correct - this will be the last attempt at any prosecution.  Everyone else gets off....probably already promised to the DUP.

The other soldiers can be prosecuted for perjury.....but a liar as opposed to a murderer just isn't justice.

Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Quote from: whitey on March 14, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Do you honestly think if there wasn't evidence to charge any Republican for a Troubles related incident threat it wouldn't be prosecuted. This prosecution is the minimal amount that should be happening. These were state sponsored killings with direct cover ups. The notion that this may open up the door for Republican prosecutions is naive.

Quote from: whitey on March 14, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Thousands of thousands of republicans and loyalists did time in prison.  Onlya handful of British army terrorists have gone to jail.

The Brits covered all murder up, directed loyalist death squads etc. etc.

The question is who is really surprised by this?  Especially in the light of Bradley's recent remarks and the DUP's close relationship with the Tory party.

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 14, 2019, 05:23:19 PM

Quote from: whitey on March 14, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Do you honestly think if there wasn't evidence to charge any Republican for a Troubles related incident threat it wouldn't be prosecuted. This prosecution is the minimal amount that should be happening. These were state sponsored killings with direct cover ups. The notion that this may open up the door for Republican prosecutions is naive.

I don't know....that's why I'm asking

How many Republicans have been charged/convicted of involvement in incidents during the troubles since the GFA?

Does the PSNI have a cold case team actively working on unsolved incidents from during the troubles?

Quote from: whitey on March 14, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Is it not happening though?

So the GFA comes into play when people have been convicted etc but if there were no convictions then some cases have been reopened and there have been prosecutions?

Someone has to drive reopening things too from what I can see and it's the victims families. It would take the law to put some money into it to do this (in a very active way I mean).

There are still cases from time to time of things that happened in the troubles.

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/court-orders-extradition-of-john-downey-to-northern-ireland-1.3811181%3fmode=amp

Quote from: whitey on March 14, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Yeah definitely a stupid question. No place on this thread. Shame on you

Quote from: imtommygunn on March 14, 2019, 05:35:39 PM

Quote from: whitey on March 14, 2019, 05:09:00 PM
Stupid question and I'm sure a million people will jump down my neck but here goes:

If we re-open and investigate army personnel for incidents that occurred during the troubles, what if  the authorities re-opened and investigated incidents involving Republicans during the troubles?

Is this not a two way street?

Is it not happening though?

So the GFA comes into play when people have been convicted etc but if there were no convictions then some cases have been reopened and there have been prosecutions?

Someone has to drive reopening things too from what I can see and it's the victims families. It would take the law to put some money into it to do this (in a very active way I mean).

There are still cases from time to time of things that happened in the troubles.

There is a world of difference between state sanctioned murder /oppression  and other related violence.
There is and was a mechanism to deal with all other violence but none in practice  to protect the citizen from the state.
And seeing as all and sundry knew the paras murdered 14 and injured more in broad daylight, look how long it has taken to bring one person to face a trial? See how the mechanism of the  state shamelessly protected  the crime for decades, attacked the citizens and criminalized them as guilty after disposing of their lives.

My gripe on this matter re  the killer alphabet paras,, is  that they are far less culpable for the crimes than the chiefs who gave the orders.
As Bradley put it, they were acting under orders but they have to bear the brunt of the rap.

Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 14, 2019, 04:59:58 PM
Correct - this will be the last attempt at any prosecution.  Everyone else gets off....probably already promised to the DUP.

I wonder if they have picked a pasty who will probably be deemed unfit to stand trial due to age/illness ie another whitewash.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 14, 2019, 08:52:37 PM

Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 14, 2019, 04:59:58 PM
Correct - this will be the last attempt at any prosecution.  Everyone else gets off....probably already promised to the DUP.

I wonder if they have picked a pasty who will probably be deemed unfit to stand trial due to age/illness ie another whitewash.

Going by what I've read he's the best chance of getting a conviction. He's the most involved of the ones still living. Shot something like 8 people I think.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 14, 2019, 09:16:17 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 14, 2019, 08:52:37 PM

Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 14, 2019, 04:59:58 PM
Correct - this will be the last attempt at any prosecution.  Everyone else gets off....probably already promised to the DUP.

I wonder if they have picked a pasty who will probably be deemed unfit to stand trial due to age/illness ie another whitewash.

Going by what I've read he's the best chance of getting a conviction. He's the most involved of the ones still living. Shot something like 8 people I think.

Slap it up him. And I of course meant patsy which autocorrected as pasty  8)

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 14, 2019, 08:52:37 PM

Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 14, 2019, 04:59:58 PM
Correct - this will be the last attempt at any prosecution.  Everyone else gets off....probably already promised to the DUP.

I wonder if they have picked a pasty who will probably be deemed unfit to stand trial due to age/illness ie another whitewash.

Did I hear correctly the British Government will pick up his legal tab?

If so, you can be sure this will not be a lengthy process.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/bloody-sunday/bloody-sunday-veterans-plan-mass-rally-in-derry-against-pps-decision-37915221.html

The government committed to funding legal defence of prosecuted quite some time ago. That's not news.

It's right that they do, given they were agents of the state on the day. If you think they should be responsible for their own defence, it follows that you think these were individuals acting alone and their superiors should bear no responsibility.

Quote from: RedHand88 on March 14, 2019, 09:16:17 PM

Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 14, 2019, 08:52:37 PM

Quote from: playwiththewind1st on March 14, 2019, 04:59:58 PM
Correct - this will be the last attempt at any prosecution.  Everyone else gets off....probably already promised to the DUP.

I wonder if they have picked a pasty who will probably be deemed unfit to stand trial due to age/illness ie another whitewash.

Going by what I've read he's the best chance of getting a conviction. He's the most involved of the ones still living. Shot something like 8 people I think.

I think this was posted on here already, but it seems "Dave" or Soldier F went off the rails that day;

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/ (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/the-case-for-prosecuting-bloody-sunday-soldier-f/)


Now whilst these Soldiers were the ones pulling the trigger and are responsible for their actions, why are there not officers like Derek Wilford not in the dock as well?

First it was Carrickfergus.

Now, 'Portadown stand with Soldier F'.

Big banner in the town centre for a few days now.

Ballymena too...

Ballyclare and Broughshane have flags and posters too

It's the usual propaganda bullshit. Tell people they are being oppressed and only one side being "looked out for" and people will believe it. I think looking at the stats more republican killings are being investigated yet that is not being publicised.

Likewise the myth that the orange culture is being picked on when it's parades are growing year on year.

Then there's stuff like the flag at city hall and now alliance caused it to be taken down most days of the year when if it wasn't for them it would have been there zero days.

Constant unionist propaganda bullshit which people fall for hook line and sinker. This is the same. One sided, picking on our side blah blah blah.

How people don't comprehend that innocent people were killed by the state and their loved ones want answers and accountability I just don't know. These lives are just a pawn. Karen bradley's language on it told you all you needed to know about what the duo were feeding her.

A banner supporting Soldier F in Lurgan now too.

There was obviously sufficient evidence for Soldier F to stand trial for killing innocent civilians, and the law will now take its course.

If a banner was erected in Derry in support of those who killed Lyra McKee, I'd imagine everyone in the country would condemn it.

So what's the difference with Soldier F? Why are these banners allowed to remain draped in town centres?

Quote from: BennyCake on May 11, 2019, 10:39:14 PM
A banner supporting Soldier F in Lurgan now too.

There was obviously sufficient evidence for Soldier F to stand trial for killing innocent civilians, and the law will now take its course.

If a banner was erected in Derry in support of those who killed Lyra McKee, I'd imagine everyone in the country would condemn it.

So what's the difference with Soldier F? Why are these banners allowed to remain draped in town centres?

I honestly don't know why those rags aren't being cut down in the middle of the night. What sort of printing company agrees to even make a banner like that?!

The Bloody Sunday Inquiry cost something like £ 700 million. Mostly on lawyers

WTF

Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry cost something like £ 700 million. Mostly on lawyers

WTF

When they charge £50 to send a letter, it adds up.

Quote from: RedHand88 on May 12, 2019, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on May 11, 2019, 10:39:14 PM
A banner supporting Soldier F in Lurgan now too.

There was obviously sufficient evidence for Soldier F to stand trial for killing innocent civilians, and the law will now take its course.

If a banner was erected in Derry in support of those who killed Lyra McKee, I'd imagine everyone in the country would condemn it.

So what's the difference with Soldier F? Why are these banners allowed to remain draped in town centres?

I honestly don't know why those rags aren't being cut down in the middle of the night. What sort of printing company agrees to even make a banner like that?!

Why aren't the coppers taking them down in broad daylight as soon as they go up? To show those who put them up that the law will take its course with Soldier F, and that these banners are insulting to those murdered on Bloody Sunday? Where's the Chief Constable of the PSNIRUC in condemning these banners?

Nothing ever changes with those in charge of this shithole.

Quote from: BennyCake on May 12, 2019, 10:51:28 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on May 12, 2019, 10:34:16 AM

Quote from: BennyCake on May 11, 2019, 10:39:14 PM
A banner supporting Soldier F in Lurgan now too.

There was obviously sufficient evidence for Soldier F to stand trial for killing innocent civilians, and the law will now take its course.

If a banner was erected in Derry in support of those who killed Lyra McKee, I'd imagine everyone in the country would condemn it.

So what's the difference with Soldier F? Why are these banners allowed to remain draped in town centres?

I honestly don't know why those rags aren't being cut down in the middle of the night. What sort of printing company agrees to even make a banner like that?!

Why aren't the coppers taking them down in broad daylight as soon as they go up? To show those who put them up that the law will take its course with Soldier F, and that these banners are insulting to those murdered on Bloody Sunday? Where's the Chief Constable of the PSNIRUC in condemning these banners?

Nothing ever changes with those in charge of this shithole.

Because they're spineless c***ts, they'll happily post all the PR shite of the day on their Facebook pages bleating about how hard a task they have in lifting 18 year olds with a bit of cannabis on them or seizing some boy racers 306, or sending in the cavalry to Kilwilkie to lift all 5 partipants in the dissies Easter parade... but to actually comment on those sickening banners means they have a responsibility to remove them and that actually might entail a bit of hard work. You can guarantee I'd anyone was caught removing them though they'd get slapped with a "breach of the peace" charge

Quote from: RedHand88 on May 12, 2019, 10:39:26 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry cost something like £ 700 million. Mostly on lawyers

WTF

When they charge £50 to send a letter, it adds up.

If the Brits had apologised early the money could have been spent on the Creggan

McCann:
More than half (54 per cent) of the population of the electoral area which includes the Creggan have low or no qualifications. There are people with degrees on Sainsbury's checkout. What chance a start with no A-levels?

Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry cost something like £ 700 million. Mostly on lawyers

WTF

700?  The official figure was 195 with around 90 million to lawyers. Some have speculated it was closer to 400 but I've never seen seen it suggested that it was even close to that level.

Police comments on removing Soldier F banners:

They will only act if there are substantial risks to public safety.

What the f**k is that supposed to mean? That they'll only remove it if it's at risk of flapping down and hitting big Mervyn a slap around the chops?

Jesus wept.

Quote from: RedHand88 on May 12, 2019, 10:39:26 AM

Quote from: seafoid on May 12, 2019, 10:35:45 AM
The Bloody Sunday Inquiry cost something like £ 700 million. Mostly on lawyers

WTF

When they charge £50 to send a letter, it adds up.

Thousands upon thousands of A4 pages of evidence all printed out multiple times @ about 7p a page is also a nice little racket too.

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

Disgraceful

Was never going to be any different than this ruling really.

No sadly.

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54329803

Disgraceful

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

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-54329803

Disgraceful

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

What?

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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?

It's hardly surprising to be honest.

When (or indeed, if) Soldier F goes to court, he'll no doubt get off scot free.

Interesting article here on Soldier F.
He will do well to get off, it says he's supected of killing 4 that day:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bloody-liar

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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

It seems like those responsible will never be brought to justice. The political climate in the UK currently does not want British soldiers responsible for crimes to be brought to justice whether that is in the north or helmand.

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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.

Quote from: Capt Pat on September 29, 2020, 11:23:19 PM
It seems like those responsible will never be brought to justice. The political climate in the UK currently does not want British soldiers responsible for crimes to be brought to justice whether that is in the north or helmand.

That is it in a nutshell.   'our boy's were fighting for their counrty '  Same in Kenya, Malaya or any of the other colonies.
      The British Army didn't punish the perpetrators , in fact they protected, encouraged and promoted them.
      Similar actions in Iraq and Afganistan will be treated the same.

Quote from: Aaron Boone on September 29, 2020, 10:17:26 PM
Interesting article here on Soldier F.
He will do well to get off, it says he's supected of killing 4 that day:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bloody-liar

Delays, time wasting and stalling.

He'll be dead before it gets too far gone.

Unfortunately there's rarely any accountability when it comes to the state and the establishment.  Innocent people get mowed down in their streets and almost 50 years later still no one taken to book over it.

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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??

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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.

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 11:43:12 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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?

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.

Quote from: Franko on October 01, 2020, 06:48:56 AM
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??

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 11:43:12 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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.

Quote from: Angelo on October 01, 2020, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 11:43:12 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 01, 2020, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 11:43:12 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: general_lee on October 01, 2020, 12:42:15 PM
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

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...

Quote from: BennyCake on October 01, 2020, 01:30:18 PM
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

Quote from: general_lee on October 01, 2020, 12:42:15 PM
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.

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 02:06:00 PM

Quote from: BennyCake on October 01, 2020, 01:30:18 PM
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.

Quote from: Angelo on October 01, 2020, 12:40:54 PM

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 01, 2020, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 11:43:12 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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.

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 02:21:44 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 01, 2020, 12:40:54 PM

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 12:30:43 PM

Quote from: Angelo on October 01, 2020, 08:37:32 AM

Quote from: LCohen on October 01, 2020, 06:23:26 AM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 11:43:12 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 30, 2020, 03:25:46 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 30, 2020, 08:41:17 AM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 10:50:05 PM

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on September 29, 2020, 09:14:15 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 08:38:28 PM

Quote from: RedHand88 on September 29, 2020, 08:03:38 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 29, 2020, 07:40:59 PM

Quote from: Angelo on September 29, 2020, 01:46:12 PM
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.