OK EDGE. On a thread about the soldiers of Bloody Sunday getting prosecuted this is your forte? Admit you know **** all about it and move on
Think you've mis-read this. I suggest you have another look, because what the Chief Constable is clearly saying is "much as I'd love to keep raking over these old coals, it won't be happening any time on this planet." The man mentions priorities - how much priority do you think any police force, anywhere in the world, is going to give to a crime committed 40 years ago? How much do you think it would cost? And who'll pay for it? For ****s sake move on man. Welcome to the 21st century.
In commencing an investigation there are a number of factors to condider. Amongst the main considerations are whether resources are available and whether it is in the public interest to procede. By conducting the Saville inquiry, the British government acknowledge that it is in the public interest to uncover the truth. The inquiry was singularly the most costly in the history of public inquiries, so there is certainly a will to get there. I would read this as very positive sign. The families of the victims worked tirelessly to get the inquiry initiated and I expect the same to happen in increasing the pressure on the British government to fund the investigation.
Think you are seeing what you want to see, they don't have the necessary resources in place yet but are looking at ways of putting them in place.
There's a world of difference between an inquiry, which has already been conducted at great expense in the hope it might put the matter to rest, and an investigation which might lead to criminal charges against individual soldiers. The latter won't happen, and neither should it in my opinion.
Who do you expect to be held personally responsible for the killings? Individual soldiers? To prosecute them so long after the event would be an act of betrayal by the British Govt against the people employed to do it's dirty work. The officer who gave the order to fire? Good luck getting anyone in the frame for that. The senior commanders on the day? Harold Wilson? The Prime Minister of Great Britain has admitted Britain's guilt. Isn't that enough to lay the sorry saga to rest and move on, without looking for some poor buggers to play the role of scapegoat?
No, the problem you're clearly having is that you think you're funny. This means that when people laugh at you, you mistake this for a good thing. I can see how that might cause difficulties for you.
I asked you to elaborate on what this world of difference between an inquiry and an investigation. But never mind. If you read the findings of the inquiry you would see that culpability can be allocated to individual paratroopers (whose names were witheld from the document) and to Colonel Derek Wilford who was in charge on the ground on the day. Just to reiterate to you. The paratroopers were granted immunity from prosecution on the proviso that they told the truth. They did not tell the truth. If they had, then the "sorry saga" could have been put to rest. An interesting choice of words to identify a murderous liar as a "scapegoat"
You don't know the difference between an investigation and an inquiry? Really? The purpose of a judicial inquiry is to establish what happened and why. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to determine whether charges can and should be brought against specific individuals. And for any British govt to contemplate bringing charges against individuals soldiers over an event that happened 40 years ago, when they were trying to do a job (policing) that they were never trained to do, would be an act of betrayal. It won't happen.
No, of course I understand the difference between an inquiry and an investigation. You said that there was a world of difference between the two and I asked you to elaborate. Now that you have elaborated I can see that either you do not understand or you are unable to articulate it. Both an inquiry and an investigation are instituted to present the facts of an incident. The purpose of an inquiry is to restore Public confidence by demonstrating that lessons have been learned and that those responsible are held accountable. A criminal investigation passes no value judgement whatsoever on the facts of the investigation. It is simply to present those facts. Now, I am sure you are aware that there is no statute of limitation for the crime of murder. You referencing the date is an emotive tool. It is irrelevant as far as the judiciary is concerned. So we can forget about that irrelevant argument. You mention training. I am sure a man as qualified as Col Derek Wilford was at least trained well enough to follow a direct order.....no? Evidently not. I am sure the paratroopers were well enough trained not to shoot innocent people in the back. I urge you to read at least a summary of the findings before you pursue that line. I am also sure that these men knew right from wrong. They knew they could tell the truth without fear of prosecution.....but they couldn't even do that.
TC I wouldnt rule that out, but surely highly trained soldiers should know women and kids from men! I cant remember what General from the Russian Army said it, but if in doubt and it is a kid or women shhot the ankles if it is a man gor for the head and answer questions later. Vulgar I know but these guys are out there!
They were probably destined to be IRA terrorists anyway so best to take them out before they caused trouble.
I sincerely doubt that any murder charges if they are actually brought will stick. I make no judgment call on whether that is right or wrong merely that this is a waste of time. I'll predict that NO ONE will be convicted of murder.
