CyprusLiving

The decision by the Northern Ireland police force to try to prosecute two soldiers for their "killing" of the IRA scum McCann in 1972 is absolutely scandalous,perhaps our soldiers should start demanding the "get out of jail free" letters that Blair gave to the convicted terrorists.
Perhaps Corybn and McDonnelll should step in and have a word with their best friends, IRA leaders Adams and McGuiness.
I know a lot about this incident because I was in Belfast at the time on my first tour,McCann was given plenty of opportunity to give him self up but chose not to.
Why are our politicians letting this happen?The soldiers have been cleared twice!Churchill must be turning in his grave!

Wasn't he un=armed ?

Here we go...the apologists...McCann was was a wanted man,he was stopped by two undercover RUC,he got free and ran,as per "yellow card" issued to the troops at the time he was given two opportunities to stop,he didnt and was fired upon.End of!

"Wasn't he unarmed"

So were the innocent people (including children) murdered by the IRA in mainland Britain with their indiscriminate bombings, The person in question was a wanted man who declined to give himself up - just how did the soldiers in question know he was unarmed given the activities at the time?. Dont answer that we have all heard the excuses. Support for our troops would not go amiss unless of course we are all prepared to stand on the line each and every time someone with a grievance, real or imagined, goes on a vengence rampage. At least our soldiers wore uniforms.

By the way I am not anti Irish but I am anti IRA (and any other terrorist group) with good reason.

Rita

Good post yet again Rita.

Trev..

remember this:-
https://scontent.fnic2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15578855_10209676289036800_9028147273271925981_n.jpg?oh=bf6992bce643a916480358ce6bde3930&oe=58E5E95C

just to jog memories ref: the IRA - remember they are now beyond prosecution! The 11 dead soldiers bodies were removed prior to this picture.

Exactly Rita,the poor kids in the Birmingham bombings were "unarmed",nobody bought to justice for that,why dont the Northern Ireland Police or PSN as it is known now try bringing to justice the many known terrorists who still reside in Ulster.This action against our soldiers is purely political to appease the IRA.

rita sherry

Excellent post....thank you.

To Carrot, who asks if he was un armed, I have no idea of the answer BUT I can very safely assure you that he was on very many previous occasions when he committed many ghastly atrocities.

I served for 37 years in the RAF but never in Northern Ireland but a horror that will never leave me was the young RAF Corporal and his small daughter that were gunned down by IRA cowardly scum whilst getting a 'Snelli' at the takeaway at Willi Ottens garage in Wildenrath village just a week after I had left RAF Wildenrath on posting back to the UK with my family in October 1988; I knew him.

The pursuit of servicemen after they have served their country faithfully and often under terrible conditions is nothing short of an absolute disgrace.

I am in the UK now for an extended period of time and have written to my MP for a full and frank explanation of who is funding this witch hunt, I will get an answer and when I do, I will be on their case.

I don't know the details of this case, so I won't comment on it. And I am an apologist for nobody.

But I do find it a tad strange that those who (rightly) condemn terrorists for their actions seem to want our troops to act by the same rules of engagement. We are supposed to be a civilised nation, with a strong and traditional sense of justice, and not an insistence on knee-jerk revenge.

Our culture is not, and should never be, shoot first then think about whether it was the right thing to do. If we ever get to that point we will be reduced to the level of the IRA, ISIS, Al Qaida, etc. If we were victorious in two World Wars it was not to introduce the law of the jungle into our society in general and our military in particular..

Oh, and the day "our politicians" intervene in our judicial process is the day the rule of law collapses.

I expect nobody to agree with me - I'm accustomed to that, because we've got to the sad point (in the UK at least) where a twisted and dishonest media is the greatest influencer of all.

The troops who fired the rounds were following the rules of engagement laid down to them from the yellow card issued to troops at the time,so I find your comment there a "tad strange.My comments are based on the fact that I was there at the time,word of mouth,nothing to do with the "twisted media".This is a witch hunt.
As an aside Barra McGrory is now the director of prosecutions in Northern Ireland...he was Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguiness,s lawyer!
He also represented McGuiness in the Saville enquiry..conflict of interest?He has stated that he does not intend to pursue any of the murderous paramilitaries of that time,what a joke!

Rita

A very good post.

It's an absolute disgrace that we can allow our troops to be prosecuted for doing their job. You can train men and women to use arms, and instil discipline and a sense of loyalty to Queen and Country. Put them on the front line, where their lives are at risk 24/7, arm them with the latest weapons, and when faced with a split second decision whether to fire or not do, they are at risk of prosecution if one of the enemy is killed or wounded. You just couldn't make it up ! Maybe they should be issued with wooden guns and shout 'bang', that might satisfy some people.

Jackie

Paph-taff

Having read your reasoned and partially constructive post it should come as no surprise to you that I myself am at odds with some of your reasoning. No-where in my post have I suggested for one moment that the British as a nation should abandon our envied reputation as a tolerant and fair nation. Neither have I, nor for that matter the other posters, suggested our military or indeed we ourselves, should conduct ourselves other than in compliance with the rule of law no matter what the provocation. Our military personnel are required at all times to act in accordance with the terms of engagement laid down by the military authorities. To act contrary to those terms would rightly bring the full force of the military law upon the heads of those disobeying such laws. Believe me military law and punishment are much stricter than much of our civil criminal law. Non compliance brings an immediate investigation into any offence or incident.

The present almost ancient case of the 3 soldiers (one is now dead) has been investigated twice and on each occasion no further action was deemed necessary how many times do you consider it is necessary to prosecute these men over the same allegations in the name of naturaL justice? I personally do not require the efforts of the red top press to persuade me something is not quite right about the consistent digging around for evidence that is not there in the so called name of justice. As for our MPs well Paph-taff they make the laws and the judiciary interprets them. In almost all my 40 years involvement with the law I personally consider we have it just about right whatever its faults.

I think it is also fair to say that poster tonee together with micktrevis know a tad more than either you or I relating to this particular incident. However I will emphasise that in my view we all sleep a jolly sight better at night thanks to our wonderful boys in the forces just a pity they are so often forgotten.

Rita

Thank you Rita. I did acknowledge that nobody would agree with me!

I must point out that in your original post you clearly answered the question "Wasn't he unarmed?" with an immediate comparison with the "innocent people murdered by the IRA". With great respect, that is the law of "an eye for an eye", which is inconsistent with the rule of law to which you say you are committed - I'm sure you are, by the way, but this just demonstrates how a response might be misinterpreted.

As to the other posters whom you defend, Carrot asked a very simple and innocent question, and was immediately accused in "Here we go ... the apologists" from Tonee.

Of course I acknowledge and respect the experience of those posters who served in NI; but at the same time their views are by definition neither neutral or independent.

Finally, like you I spent my career in the legal system (including working for the government in NI at times during the troubles). The separation of powers has indeed worked well, but that is because politicians have kept their often grubby fingers away from the judicial system. Sadly there have increasingly been signs that the government no longer respect that separation - but that's a whole other topic!

Ray

Paph-taff

Thank you

Excellent intelligent post Rita,could not have put it better myself.

The Rules of Engagement are clear. If the terrorist ignored them, then what is supposed to happen next? The terrorist was shot dead.....his choice.

What warnings did IRA terrorists offer their their victims before murdering them?

As I understand it, the Yellow Card said that lethal force was only lawful when the lives of security forces or others were in immediate danger, and specifically if the enemy was committing, or about to commit, an act likely to endanger life, and there was no other way to prevent the danger.

Now as I said earlier, I know nothing about the McCann case other than what's on this page. But if Tonee's account above is correct, the man was a fugitive who resisted recapture and ran away. So I'm struggling to see the immediate danger and threat to life presented by somebody who is running away.

He might indeed be the lowest form of life, scum, and a man who had committed atrocities. But at that very moment it seems he was running away from the troops, and presumably that's why they stand accused of violating the Rules of Engagement.

Whether the IRA warned their murder victims is irrelevant, unless of course your standard of behaviour is indeed 'an eye for an eye'. If it is, that's fine and that's your choice. But don't in the same breath rely on the legitimacy of Rules of Engagement - you can't have it both ways.

Taff,you are entitled to your view on the subject but unless you have encountered a decision you have to make under extreme circumstances,I,m sure your views would change.
My argument is why after many years and millions of pounds at the Saville enquiry our troops are still being pursued through a witch hunt.How far do we go back?Second world war,Aden,Korea,Kosovo?
At least McCann did not murder anyone else after that!(Google joe mccann ira)

tonee wrote:Taff,you are entitled to your view on the subject but unless you have encountered a decision you have to make under extreme circumstances,I,m sure your views would change.
My argument is why after many years and millions of pounds at the Saville enquiry our troops are still being pursued through a witch hunt.How far do we go back?Second world war,Aden,Korea,Kosovo?
At least McCann did not murder anyone else after that!(Google joe mccann ira)

Well they are still chasing Nazis from WW11 ?

Yes and let's keep pursuing the IRA who tortured and murdered Robert Nairac, amongst many others.

Jackie

Firefly wrote:Yes and let's keep pursuing the IRA who tortured and murdered Robert Nairac, amongst many others.

Jackie

Could not agree more ..revoke the 187 pardons too that Blair dished out .

I see "Marine A" has been refused bail pending his appeal....

Murder appeal ex-marine Alexander Blackman refused bail
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38397205

Carrot

Blair was a total disgrace to issue these pardons in OUR name. I agree, revoke them in OUR name.

Jackie

Having lived in London and been very close to some IRA bombs I think all those killed by bombs should vote on the soldiers Case! It's only a matter of time before the soldiers go on strike, can you blame Them?

mouse wrote: ... I think all those killed by bombs should vote on the soldiers Case ....

Errm ... you might want to rethink that one !

Pafftaff I meant what i said ,you need to read between the lines.

Mouse

No sorry, I don't get it, it must be me.

Jackie

Pafftaff dead people can't vote so the soldiers will be aquitted

Firefly wrote:Mouse - No sorry, I don't get it, it must be me.

No, not just you Jackie!
Mouse - you have an interesting way with words!

Ray

mouse wrote:Pafftaff dead people can't vote so the soldiers will be aquitted

Some of those slaughtered, by killers who have never been convicted, were too young to vote....

Johnathan Bell, aged 4
Danielle Carter, aged 15
Tim Parry, 12
Lorraine Wilson, 15
James Barker, 12
Michelle Baird, 7

...and no doubt several other completely innocent youngsters. 'Innocent casualties of war' apparently, while on his commemorative plaque McCann was 'murdered by British paratroopers'.

I would rather Britain didn't send soldiers into all these other territories and then we could hold our heads up high, finally.

Amanda

We can hold our heads up anyway. Our troops are the best in the world, I am very proud of them and the work that they do. They go wherever the government thinks that they are needed, not our choice.

Jackie

Firefly wrote:Amanda

We can hold our heads up anyway. Our troops are the best in the world, I am very proud of them and the work that they do. They go wherever the government thinks that they are needed, not our choice.

Jackie

We technically do. we vote the government in.

Paph-taff

Our paths may have crossed without our knowing in the past. I worked for HM Treasury Solicitor's Department (nothing to do with the Treasury) from 1957 to 1997 and I too was in Northern Ireland working on the Bloody Sunday Enquiry.

You suggest there is a possibility "an eye for an eye" has crept into our forces and our make-up but how about " he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" in the case of the "victim" Use all the semantics you wish and others will do likewise.

Likewise whilst respecting the two servicemen posters you suggest their views are neither neutral or independent so by definition neither are mine. My late husband was a full time serving serviceman and I myself was in Harrods on 17th December 1983 and just left the Grand Hotel Brighton on 12th October 1984. On neither occasion was I armed or given any warning what was about to happen. I do however recall the then head of the IRA the next day making a statement

"Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once - You will have to be lucky always"

I have a much more pertinent quotation (nothing to do with a British incident but one of those of our allies).

"We live in a world that has walls and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whos going to do it you? We have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the victim and you curse the forces. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what we know that the death of the victim,whilst tragic, probably saved lives. You dont want the truth because deep down in places that you dont talk about at parties, you want those men on that wall, you need them on that wall. We use words like honour, code, loyalty and we use them as the backbone of a life defending something. There is neither the time nor the inclination to explain ourselves to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that those men provide and then questions the manner in which they provide it. Because those men stand on that wall and say "nothing is going to hurt you tonight, not on our watch" We would rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise we suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post"

Or as George Orwell wrote

"People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because Rough Men stand by ready to do violence on their behalf"

Kiplings poem "Tommy" says the same thing.

The two men presently charged are not charged with violating the terms of engagement but of murder. The other charge has been the subject of two earlier enquiries when it was found there was no case to answer.

My legal discipline was not "Criminal Law" rater Litigation. However I did have to study criminal law and a very excellent tutour informed us "there was more to trial by jury than the law - who was to blame was the question the jury wished to know so it was the left to the lawyers to do their stuff"

To all our servicemen wherever they may be - Have a Peaceful and Happy Christmas and New Year. Thank you.

Rita

A very good post Rita.

I particular liked Iiked your second quote from George Orwell, which is very succinct and very appropriate.

The first quote I didn't recognise at first, but it then hit me that this quote must have been the basis of the response given by Jack Nicholson on his court martial in A Few Good Men. A very commanding performance by Nicholson and one of my favourite films ..

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall -- you need me on that wall.

We use words like "honor," "code," "loyalty." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand the post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think you're entitled to!"

Time to lighten up I think. I'm grateful that there is peace in Northern Ireland. I have relatives in Derry, my mother was born there and indeed I went to school there for 3 months in 1970. Let's hope there is never a repeat of such a conflict within the shores of the UK.

Merry Christmas one and all

Keving

Thank you for your reply and yes you are correct the quote was that used in the film. However the incident did actually happen so it is not just a fictional quotation. It is not absolutely certain that Orwell can actually be credited with his quote. It is believed it came about when he was analysing Kipling's views when writing his Poem "Tommy". Anyway it is time, as you say, to lighten up and I wish you all the very best for Christmas and the coming year. I also endorse your sentiments regarding Ireland a country I have enjoyed visiting and endeavouring to play some decent golf not always successfully though.

Rita

Hi Rita

It's too close to Christmas to debate such serious issues!

But I must correct you on just one point. I most certainly was not suggesting that "an eye for an eye" had "crept into our Forces". My accusation was aimed at those observers - here and elsewhere - who seem to believe in that concept, and certainly not at our military specifically or generally. I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of our servicemen & women recognise and observe the British sense of justice and fairness, even under provocation.

Interesting debate, but for now .... Happy Christmas!

Ray